Talk:Impeachment process against Richard Nixon

Requested move December 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move. JudgeRM  (talk to me)  23:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Impeachment process of Richard Nixon → Impeachment process against Richard Nixon – Because Nixon wasn't impeached technically, the article should replace "of" with "against" in consistency with "Impeachment process against..." articles... well, before they became "Impeachment of..." when impeachment occurred. George Ho (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Should use either "of" or "against". I am not actually proposing two different titles. I am using two titles to propose picking one of two per consistency. I can't discuss Impeachment proposal against Michel Temer as the impeachment process against him hasn't happened yet; let's leave that out. If you use "support" or "oppose", be specific. Preferably, you can say "use 'of'" or "use 'against'". Struck out. 19:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Impeachment process against Park Geun-hye → Impeachment process of Park Geun-hye


 * Use 'against'. When I put this article together last year I puzzled over what the title should be and came up with the current one.  But 'against' reads better after 'process' than 'of'.  The downside is this loses the parallelism with the 'of' in Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Impeachment of Bill Clinton, etc, but so be it.  Note that Impeachment process against Dilma Rousseff is the title that eventually became Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, so there is precedent for 'against' coexisting with 'of'.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the article, Nixon was never impeached. Only the articles used against him passed before they were passed by the congress. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Use "against" for both (and any similar article). It's more specific, more forceful, and generally better. Using "impeachment proceedings against" for both would be better still. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't use "process of". I don't like "Impeachment process against..." on stylistic grounds, but "Impeachment process of..." is simply not proper English. I could live with the former, but better English would be "The process of impeachment of..." or better still "Attempted impeachment of...". --MrStoofer (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't like it much either (and I created the article), but that was the style that was used in previous articles on presidential impeachments outside the US. The vote is the day after tomorrow, so wait until then, and if it passes, change it to "the impeachment of president...." if it fails, change it to "the attempted impeachment of...

we can wait a couple of days as it's currently an ongoing story.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * support against for process, and if and when affirmed then "impeachment of". After all the process can still fail.Lihaas (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck Park Geun-hye out. Pinging MrStoofer as we are focusing on just Nixon. George Ho (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Pinging also Arglebargle79. 19:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support against but already moved the page to "of" for Park. &mdash; regards, Revi  04:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Alleged" is not POV
Some people sometimes use the term with a connotation of expressing doubt about the truth. The articles of impeachment, however, were not casual conversation, but a legal document. In law, the document that begins a proceeding is usually referred to as making allegations. Therefore, I've restored "alleged" as characterizing the contents of the articles of impeachment. JamesMLane t c 06:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right, my change was in error. 2600:1002:B11B:E27E:D0CD:77F2:397E:6481 (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"Impeachment process of" vs. "was not impeached"
I can't be the first person to have trouble reconciling the title of this entry with the statement that "Nixon was not impeached". As a matter of simple grammar, once one starts a process, it is a fact, regardless of the outcome. History(.)com flatly states that he was impeached. As does Hillary Clinton. But some sources such as the Washington Post and Fox News maintain that he was not. 2601:244:8301:98C5:39FB:F6EC:98E2:5184 (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hillary misspoke. Nixon was not impeached, but as sure as the sun rises in the east he was going to be.  However he resigned first.  It was the impeachment process against Nixon that drove him from office – not his unpopularity with the public, not negative coverage in the press, not his being named an unindicted co-conspirator by a grand jury, not anything else.  The article title is worded to convey that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160729063732/https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/forresearchers/find/tapes/watergate/trial/exhibit_01.pdf to https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/forresearchers/find/tapes/watergate/trial/exhibit_01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content apropos of Rodham
I disagree. Even while the Rodham content does indeed drift illustrate some low-level staffing activities, this can hardly be taken as emblematic of the whole, and should at least be written to emphasize that this particular instance is only one example of such activities. Also, the focus of this section drifts sharply away from the impeachment process proper and towards Rodham, almost as if she is the subject of the article, which she is not. Dschslava  Δx parlez moi 20:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding whether her experience on the committee was representative of other low-level staffers, it is Bernstein's biography that says it was. See for example this page and this page.  The descriptions in that biography are also consistent with those in Woodward and Bernstein's The Final Days book, which is also used as a source in this section.  If you have another source that gives a different picture of committee life, by all means introduce it.  One potential good source that I haven't looked at before is this William Weld oral history, although it would be useful to corroborate that with some secondary sources.  Regarding the focus drifting, I don't see it.  The "Impeachment Inquiry investigations" section is 1,431 words long and by my count, the Rodham-specific material is only 99 words of that, or about 7 percent.  And as a practical matter, readers will want – or need – to see this.  It is interesting that a person who later became one of the most well-known political figures in the world was on such an historically important committee at the start of her career, and there is nothing wrong with telling readers something interesting.  Moreover, there are hundreds of websites and email chains out there which say she was fired from the committee, a claim that is completely false.  Yes, the Hillary biography article will say it is false, but this article needs to say it too.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If her experience on the committee was representative of that of others, it needs to be explicitly stated, i.e. "low-level staffers' activities included (insert activities here)", with the appropriate citation. I do acknowledge that readers will need to know this, however, this article remains about Richard Nixon's impeachment and not Hillary Clinton. Even while a small percentage of words in this section are about her experiences, apple. (Case in point: percentage does not always make the subject). Her sub-subsection reads like a digression, especially given that the remainder of the article is tightly written apropos of the impeachment process with notations of notability kept to a minimum, almost as if sections of her biography have been copy-pasted verbatim. I will give you Clinton's notability, but her section must be substantially rewritten at the very least. Dschslava   Δx parlez moi 00:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * She does not have a section, or even a sub-subsection. Just a brief passage.  Anyway, I have found some additional sources that discuss several aspects of the committee's work that need adding or expanding in that section, in particular related to how some evidentiary and procedural decisions were reached in addition to the one she worked on.  By the time I add this new material, and something about Weld, Hillary's presence will be even more diluted and I hope it will no longer bother you.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Trump and possible impeachment
I saw earlier today that mention of charges of Trump had been added to this page. I feel that it is too early to add them to this particular page. The only context for other presidents impeachment mentioned here is if they passed the House Judiciary Committee, and I think that is a fair milestone to use for adding to this page. Perhaps if there are formal Articles of Impeachment, but if there are not, there shouldn't be a mention on this page. Thoughts? Tuvas (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. No need to mention here in text or in 'See also' until it gets to an equivalent point.  Note that in Nixon's case, around nine months elapsed between the time the House impeachment inquiry was opened (late October 1973) and articles were passed by the House Judiciary Committee (late July 1974).  So there is a ways to go ...   Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to third this, the house hasn't even voted on whether to begin impeachment proceedings, let alone had any sort of verdict to send to the Senate. 2605:A601:A9B7:9B00:50DC:4338:A3F7:F526 (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I noted that mention of the Trump case has now been included alongside that of Clinton, but the sentence ″In each instance to date, the president has been acquitted ...″ was premature. I have amended it, and for the same reason inserted ″so far″ in the sentence following. Peter010101 (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I shall of course undo my changes promptly: the first as soon as the Senate trial commences and the second as soon as it concludes. Peter010101 (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Bad sentence in lede
"Republican congressional leaders met with Nixon that his impeachment and removal were all but certain." Possibly (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, now fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)