Talk:Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Proposed parent article

Header added 20:56, 3 December 2019, was previously part of §"Split proposed"

I've made a draft article that could serve as the parent to this inquiry article at Draft:Impeachment of Donald Trump (as the title "…process against…" is already in use). Should this page be moved to main space? If so, then we could split out some of the Responses section as well as the second table in the Public opinion section.  Nixinova  T C   03:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to have reactions to the final outcome of the proceedings on the main page. After all, opinions can change between the inquiry and proceedings as well as the outcome. Some sample reactions/stats could be used to help illustrate as part of the overview, though. That said, having "Impeachment of Donald Trump" be a parent page both the inquiry and proceedings as well as any other subpages related to the trump impeachment would be a good idea. The draft is a little barebones but off to a solid start.-- Lamoxlamae (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Nixinova: No, it should not be moved to mainspace - because there is currently no such thing as the "impeachment of Donald Trump," and will not be until the House votes at least one article of impeachment. When that happens, we can talk about the "impeachment of Donald Trump". Unless and until he is actually impeached by the House, we can't. We keep pointing this out, but people keep trying to create it anyhow. If I have to salt that title, I will. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

We can "talk about" retitling the article to "Impeachment of Donald Trump" if the full House votes in favor of at least one article of impeachment? What will there be to talk about? If he is in fact impeached by the full House next week, there's absolutely no rational reason not to change this article's title to "Impeachment of Donald Trump". I agree that it can't be done until that happens, but assuming that it does happen (which seems extremely likely at this point), there shouldn't even be a debate on the matter. The wiki articles regarding the impeachments of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are both titled that way, there's no reason this one should be any different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DTG.stl.314 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I guess I don't need to salt the title, because "Impeachment of Donald Trump" and "Impeachment of Donald J. Trump" are currently redirects to this article. But a redirect is the only thing that is justified until an actual impeachment - i.e., an article of impeachment voted by the House - actually occurs. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you read anything I wrote? The draft is only at this title because the other one is in use and the draft doesn't contain speculatory info.  Nixinova  T C   02:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Articles of impeachment are being drafted soon so we should decide whether a parent article is needed, instead of just having sibling articles about the inquiry, impeachment, and trial.  Nixinova  T C   05:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I've done some editing on your draft, and I hope you like it. If you do, I think we should put it on the main space and transfer the polling section there. I will be more than willing to delete my version.Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is Impeachment of Donald Trump improper because it hasn't happened yet, while articles like Scottish independence and United Ireland, similarly titled after proposed/imagined situations, are proper? 37.44.9.6 (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

An "other stuff exists" argument like that may be considered invalid to a consensus of editors on a particular article. Editors here on this U.S. topic seem to want to be more strictly formal and more correct that "it hasn't happened yet" on the article title than those editing those UK/Ireland topics. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. Trump is now impeached by the house. The creeper2007 (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

On 12/18/019 Wednesday, the United States House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump. Donald Trump has become the third US president in history to be impeached by the House of Representatives. This will be followed by a trial in the Senate, in which majority Republicans will likely permit him to remain in office.

The vote was 230 to 197 on the first article of impeachment on abuse of power (one member voting present). Following this, the House passed the second article on obstruction of Congress with a vote of 229 to 198, (again one member voting present). Jpoonolly (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

See Impeachment of Donald Trump. This article is about the inquiry stage of the impeachment process. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Its got its own article - Impeachment of Donald Trump  Nixinova  T C   06:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

impeachment vote

Should we include a table which shows the results of the impeachment vote? (18th of December) Is there a reason it's not there? Nate Hooper (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

This table, along with the content of the Judiciary Committee hearings and full House vote, is currently on the Impeachment of Donald Trump article. This is a product of the article splitting that has been debated above. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussion tag

Why was the merge discussion tag removed from this article? GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Because there's now a "further information" part at the top of the article. I believe a merge did occur, but it was between this and this. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The merger discussion concerning this article continues. Therefore the tag directing editors to that discussion, should be restored. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump's retweets of articles naming the whistleblower

On Friday Trump retweeted and then deleted several articles naming the whistleblower. Maybe that should be included in the section about whistleblower protection act? Could use a CNN or WaPo article that does not share the tweet so as not to violate BLP... Johnnyg150 (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

In my view, the whistleblower's name should not be published anywhere on Wikipedia, including on this talk page. Whistleblowers are suppposed to have their identity protected. I believe that's a federal law or rule. Without the guarantee of anonymity, there would be a chilling effect on all future whistleblowers, impairing the rights of ordinary citizens to fight back against wrongdoing by the powerful. For that same reason, I recommend that Johnnyg150's comment above be deleted from Wikipedia. Sincerely, Apprentice Editor BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC).

The law does in fact prevent President Trump from disclosing the whistleblower's identity- that is why I think his choice to retweet the whistleblower's name should be reflected in the article. It is not however illegal for people or media to independently investigate and share their speculations as to who the whistleblower is. The law is protecting against disclosure or retaliation by the government. Nobody is quite sure who the whistleblower is, but the facts are that the President did share a name, which is part of history and can be in the article without naming a name. As for my comment, there are millions of people in the world- so clearly you must already know which one I am talking about- making deleting the comment worthless. Johnnyg150 (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. It looks like you've edited your entry on the talk page to delete the whistleblower's "name", so I am satisfied. My best to you. Cordially, Apprentice Editor BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC).

User:Johnnyg150 No, the law does not prohibit President Trump from naming the whistleblower. (Easily findable with google, say at NPR). The whistleblower complaint letter was filed under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, covering problems about operations within DNI. DNI disputed whether it was valid for that venue, but it got sent to Congress anyway. Protections for the reporter from the DNI in the ICWPA would supposedly be provided by the President, hah-hah. Historically there just isn’t protection for Intelligence whistleblowers anyway, see Edward Snowden. But President Trump seems unlikely to name him since that might play against him as an article for impeachment and put him as liable for if (when) threats or acts occurred. The Senate might subpoena the whistleblower as a witness, but that also seems unlikely. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

How about if we say something like this to Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump#Whistleblowers_and_their_lawyers. Nowa (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

On December 28, 2019, the President retweeted an article allegedly naming one of the whistleblowers. The retweet temporarily disappeared from the President’s feed apparently due to a technical glitch of Twitter. <ref>Allyn, Bobby, “Trump Comes Under Fire After Sharing Name Of Alleged Whistleblower On Twitter”, NPR, December 29, 2019 </ref>

Requested move 20 January 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: procedural close. The proposed target is occupied by an article on a related topic. Dekimasuよ! 13:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Impeachment of Donald Trump – WP:Commonname and WP:CONCISE. Casprings (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. There's already an article at the proposed move target. David O. Johnson (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose (at last for now). There is already an article at that name, so the proposal should be an article merge – but this is too early. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2020 (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.

Lev Parnas and he GAO report

It was stated last month that the inquiry would continue. The Lev Parnas stuff was part of the inquiry, so should we mention it? Same with the GAO report, which was handed over to the House as soon as it droppedArglebargle79 (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• . Not here. It wasn’t during the impeachment inquiry, so I think that would be a sidenote to the impeachment article, not here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator - I see how WP:SNOW would apply here. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Impeachment process against Donald Trump – This article documents events that happened after the inquiry phase. This is how far the Impeachment process against Richard Nixon got. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: to me, the impeachment process is the inquiry and the trial taken together. But I'm prepared to listen. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with HandsomeFella's comment that "process" would not be the right word here. IMO, "process" would also include the actual drafting and voting on the articles of impeachment, which is detailed on the main article instead of this page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zzyzx11:, @HandsomeFella:: This article DOES detail the drafting and voting of the articles of impeachment. And, in my opinion, the process and the trial itself are separate. If you think about it, he was impeached before the trial started. The impeachment process, in my opinion, is the process of impeaching the president, not convicting or acquitting the president. They are totally separate. --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This article, for example, does not have all the details that Impeachment of Donald Trump#Impeachment has, including all those detailed tables of voting tallies of both the House Judiciary Committee and the full House on the articles of impeachment that occurred in mid-December 2019. Most of the detailed content on this page ends with the House Intelligence Committee hearings that happened through November to December 3. This I assume was decided by the several archived discussions on how to split all this content. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per the comments above. This article is specifically about the inquiry, which began on September 24 when the formal inquiry was announced and ended on December 3 when the House Intelligence Committee adopted the final impeachment inquiry report. "Impeachment process" would have a broader scope. Also, "impeachment inquiry" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. Surachit (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per comments above, I see no compelling reason to change the title. As Surachit points out, the title complies with WP:COMMONNAME. So, best to leave it as it is.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Should I withdraw this nomination? Would that be allowed in this scenario? --Minecrafter0271 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2020 (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.

Remove opinion piece about Senate trial

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus reverted deletion of a line re opinion piece about the Senate trial.

According to US presidential historian Joseph Ellis,. "Trump's chief offense is his own defense. Namely, that as president he cannot be indicted, convicted or investigated, and has no legal obligation to provide documents or witnesses when requested by the House or Senate. That means President Trump is claiming he is an elected monarch who is above the law."

Why ?

• My rev comment seemed clear enough “remove Opinion article about Senate trial, does not belong”.
• Undo comment said “not sure that’s a policy-based reason for removal”

Umm... perhaps I need to repeat a bit more detailed (a) this cite is an opinion about the Senate trial defense, which does not belong in a WP article on the Impeachment inquiry.

Please self-revert and remove it from this article, thanks. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Digressions not about Impeachment inquiry article having commentary about Senate Trial Markbassett (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, definitely not a policy-based reason to delete a properly sourced and attributed opinion. That's how we do it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC) The policy is WP:UNDUE. We need to discuss here why this historian's opinion should be included in the article and reach a consensus about it be fore adding it back in. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC) User:Richard-of-Earth The policy WP:OFFTOPIC has a superior claim - an opinion on Senate trial * is an entirely different topic than this article. *. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC) This is also being discussed at Talk:Impeachment of Donald Trump#Cite Joseph Ellis. So far no support there. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Okay, Richard-of-Earth, I just took a look there, and it's the exact same, non-policy based, opinion of one editor. They don't want an "Opinion article about Senate trial." Take a look at the section where it was placed. That section is for such opinions: 6 Responses 6.4 Legal professionals and academics 6.4.1 Academics First sentence: "Many historians and diplomats have called the severity of the allegations "unprecedented" in American history." Then come several such opinions, and of course they are contentious, but only to those who support Trump. The objection is a totally non-policy based argument, that it is "opinion" and therefore should not be included. That's BS. Wikipedia documents the "sum total of human knowledge." That is what Jimbo told us to do, and human knowledge includes opinions. If some editors consider them contentious, then we attribute them. That's what policy tells us to do. The editor even writes there: "That cite is an opinion piece, generally something to avoid." No, that is not true. So we have a section created for such opinions, the opinion is on-topic, and it's from a noted historian, not just anybody. It is very much due. We'd need other and better arguments to keep it out of both articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC) With all due respect, I do not understand why the view by Robert Jeffress should be included (please read the corresponding paragraph in this section, it is even difficult to understand), but the view by the notable presidential historian should not be included. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC) [1] the section is entitled "Academics". Hence debating the opinion of someone who is not academic (Robert Jeffress) in this section is clearly not appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Jeffress was quoted by Trump as mentioned in the article and then pundits responded to it as mentioned in the article. So including it is due. I do not see any pundits showing interest in what Ellis had to say. To be clear, I think Trump is a pompous ass and and Ellis's evaluation is basically saying what a pompous ass Trump is to the point that he is behaving like he is royalty. But lots of people think this of Trump and I would expect everyone knows that lots of people think this. When the 20 plus republican senators needed to impeach rear up on their hind legs and say "Ellis is right! We do not need to see no stinking evidence! Trump's behavior proves his guilt! Lets impeach his pompous ass!" then the quote will be definitively due and should be in the article. And having Jeffress' quote already shows what a pompous ass Trump is because he actually thinks Americans are going to be willing to kill and be killed by fellow Americans just to keep him in office. So we really do not need Ellis's evaluation anyways. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC) I am sorry, but quotation of Joseph Ellis above does not say anything about "pompous ass" or even about Republicans. This is something you say. The quotations explains, in neutral terms, what is the controversy really about, and I think this explanation is very helpful for someone like me (i.e. a person who does not spend all his time for reading article about the US politics). Hence include. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Neutral terms? Saying he believes himself an "elected monarch who is above the law" is neutral terms? But that does not matter. Ultimately, you have not provided evidence the this quote is due inclusion. It did not create any discussion among the other academics or other pundits. I do not see it adding anything to the article. In the section regarding the White House's letter refusing to supply requested documents the article already contains House Speaker Pelosi responded to the letter saying "The White House should be warned that continued efforts to hide the truth of the president's abuse of power from the American people will be regarded as further evidence of obstruction." Ellis' quote seems to imply Trump should be impeached for his attitude where as this quote makes it clear that he should be impeached for his actions or lack there of. That is a more accurate and neutral and already has due inclusion. The more I look at it, the less I like its inclusion in this article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please keep thread talk relevant to the topic of this article, and of this thread. Markbassett (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Mark, I agree that the discussion had gotten off topic and started discussing another edit, but the hat was was placed over comments relevant to this discussion as well, which were not off-topic. Please be more careful. Also, that template is usually reserved for disruptive editing and WP:FORUM posts. You should use it more sparingly. I’ll respond to the substance of this post as soon as I can. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that the general impeachment article is probably the better place for this edit, we’re discussing it here in order to centralize and not scatter discussion. In your rationale for its removal from that article though, you made a couple of glaring errors in rationale that are not based in policy. For one, you stated that because this is not being discussed ad nauseum in news sources, that it was undue. That’s an arbitrary standard not found globally or locally on Wikipedia. It certainly isn’t a criterion for exclusion of expert opinion. News sources discuss what is news-worthy, not necessarily scholarly. The crux of expert opinion is whether it is relevant, the esteem of said academic, and whether it’s of encyclopedic value. This contribution hits on all those points. When I said Ellis was esteemed, I wasn’t exaggerating. He’s probably one of the most renowned presidential historians alive, and likely ever. This is aside from his Pulitzer in history, and his appointment as chair to some of the most prestigious academic societies. His work stands on its own, and he’s continually cited as an expert. I fail to see how his opinion is not due. And please, the article it goes in is another matter. Fact is, there’s no policy-based reason for exclusion. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Symm - This is the article on Impeachment Inquiry. Content about the Senate Trial does not belong. Please keep talk to being about that thread and this article. I have no idea who remarked about “ad nauseum” or digressions into the context of his life, but it is not me and is not relevant as this is not the article about the Senate Trial. Markbassett (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

I would like to add info about how Giuliani admitted in a New York Times article in May that he was going to Ukraine to push for inquiries that would be beneficial to his client, but were otherwise not foreign policy.

Here is the link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html Johnnyboy326 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude - if it’s not part of the Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump then it doesn’t belong in this article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Why was my Edit blocked?

I got a message saying my edit violated a policy, but I don't know what policy is violated or what part of the edit violates it. I have read over this talk page and I don't see any policies here that I violated. Please help. I couldn't even post the edit here as a blockquote without being blocked. When I tried to post it on my own talk page I still got this messag, "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially violating our policy on biographies of living people, so it has been disallowed. Disruptive editing may result in a block from editing." How can I be violating BLP on my own talk page? This is truly bizarre. I have never been blocked in a way that I couldn't tell why I was being blocked.--Eastview2018 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies all pages, including user pages. O3000 (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. Please give me an example of how a question about an edit can violate WP:BLP. How can I find out what properties of my edit violate it if I can't present said edit? The edit is sourced. Isn't Real Clear Politics a reliable source? Must I support the content on my own talk page with reliable sources?--Eastview2018 (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eastview2018: there is no way anybody can give you an answer if they don't know which edit was involved. I checked your talk page and your edit history, and I see nothing that tells us what you are questioning. Can you provide a diff? If not a diff, can you explain here what text was removed? — Maile (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the point was that they were unable to make the edit, hence why it doesn't show up in the history. 2601:183:8300:5BCE:6029:933C:C5BD:F30B (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eastview2018: would you be referring to the identity of the whistleblower? if so, from my understanding (from an ANI discussion a couple months ago) there appears to be a global block/filter on Wikipedia for even referencing that particular individual. It is a serious matter of BLP, and that's why administrators erred on the side of caution and have been prudent in not allowing explicit mention of the individual's name. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The edit contained his name. Why didn't all these warnings on this talk page mention this filter? I am wondering what the rational is in prohibiting the mention of a name that is literally in the headlines - I mean there are headlines containing his name. So simply leaving out the literal name of he-who-shall-not-be-named may be the solution? I will put my revised edit here before placing it in the article in case there are any more problems. I need to compose the whole thing over again.--Eastview2018 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Just because someone somewhere is willing to guess at the identity of the whistleblowe, it doesn't mean we need to repeat unconfirmed rumours and claims particularly if they may breach BLP guidelines. Koncorde (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see Whistleblower Protection Act. For Wikipedia to post the name would be a violation of United States federal law. It doesn't matter what anyone else does. — Maile (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It’s not illegal. First, the whistleblower complaint was filed within the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which is supposed to be to report issues within DNI. The Whistleblower Protection Act is different, it is for reporting fraud, waste and abuse within an agency. That has protections from the agency taking personnel actions against them. But not from anyone naming them. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"Ukraine, not Russia"

No Republican has ever stated that they believed Ukraine and *not* Russia interfered with the 2016 election. There are many occasions where they, or the President, has said that multiple actors were involved.

From January 11, 2020 in Politico "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire"

Stating that Republicans believe "Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election" is a Democrat talking point, heavily propagated by the media and leaders in Congress. However it is not accurate, and that Ukraine did not interfere to some extent is also not accurate. 50.27.9.97 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

No change needed. A "no Republican ever" is an extreme claim, and just isn't credible. (There's always one joker...) Just as a claim that 'all Republicans believe' wouldn't be credible. But I think the lead has portrayed the Crowdstrike bit about right at " a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia," which implies that most folks do not believe it. Would be nice if it was clearer differentiated from other ways Ukraine did affect the 2016 election, but for this concern I don't think a change is needed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Change to "Ukraine and not only Russia" 2A00:1370:812C:7E5B:59F7:6335:F7F:D1DD (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Where is this info? It is much more important than anything in this article

Collapsing for brevity
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Crowdstrike Ukrainian CEO Dmitri Alperovitch is connected to Atlantic Counsil (is Atlantic Council VP) and Privatbank that belonged to Igor Kolomoyskyi. Privatbank was giving loans to Cyprus offshores (including Burisma Holdins, LTD), thus laundering money through Latvia (~~20 billion $USD of IMF and USA loans and aid and then bankrupting those companies (see more on offshore loan schemes)) that were gained by Kolomoyskyi and Zlochevski. The key component there is IMF, they said that money will not flow unless Zelensky will start investigation into (at that time already nationalized) Privatbank and Kolomoyskyi. And that happened on 11th of September 2019 (when police seized documents and Privatbank was having Kolomoyskyi in court https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-privatbank/police-raid-offices-and-seize-documents-of-ukraines-privatbank-idUSL5N26244O), so that day both USA (White House, this article) and IMF unblocked funds that were dispersed on 30th of September (end of fiscal year) by USA (no precise information about IMF). Kolomoiski was using that laundered money to get into control of near Donbass region and started a proxy war in Ukraine with Russian Federation that was planned by Obama/Biden/Clinton/Atlantic Counsil after Putin annexed Crimea by 95.5% referendum (and most importantly after russian veto of United Nations resolution 68/262). Obviously they thought that Clinton will win (and get all pro-Clinton Ukrainians support) and because they would not try to use partially dubious Steele dossier (with pee-pee tape and in connection with Trump Tower Moscow and most importantly Global Magnitsky Act) if they were not sure after Clinton lost that US embassy in Ukraine will still block all Ukranians' visas that were against Clinton. But embassy started to fail under Trump's pressure and when he finally fired Yawanovich (after 1 year that Yawanovich was already talking about his impeachment) the whistleblowers came in. There were other United Nations decisions that resulted in Russian financial crisis (2014–2017). Biden's son was kept hostage by Kolomoyskyi to control Joe Biden. Joe Biden used his power to first made a claim that Shokin was corrupt in US embassy database and when Shokin asked to finally rearrest Burisma assets (besides bank accounts on Cyprus) on 2th February 2016 (https://web.archive.org/web/20160205092116/http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=168807) -- Biden just used 1 billion of $ of loan guarantees and support from World Bank Group and IMF to get rid of him in next 3 weaks. Nevertheless, investigation was then started by Lutshenko and Lutshenko was fired by Yawanovich (that was giving unprosecutable lists to him) and it started after that many times (last time in January 2020), but every time it was being stopped by US embassy. Finally, Shokin sued Joe Biden in March 2020 as he were also afraid of mercury poisonings. And DOJ started rewieving evidence from Ukranian government/whistleblowers. 94.29.0.171 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC) None of the above content is relevant to this article in any way whatsoever. This article is about the impeachment inquiry, not unrelated accusations against Joe Biden or his son. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC) What Biden you are talking about? Nobody cares about him in my country, this is about why Trump unblocked aid. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/false-claim-ukraine-got-aid-before-schedule/ As you can see from that article it says that "It wasn’t until about two months later, on Sept. 11, when the White House — under pressure from members of Congress and administration officials — released the money." So this happened because IMF released money by the obligation. 94.29.0.171 (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC) What on earth does the IMF have to do with Trump and the OMB blocking the release of obligated funds? I suspect English is not your first language as your statements do not run onto each other, and in fact seem to be conflicting. Koncorde (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC) I am a native speaker. "What on earth" IMF is part of UN. USA is still under UN, or did something happen and you think you now will not do what UN recommends? Anyway, you both look like not native speakers. 94.29.0.171 (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC) You haven't answered the question: what does the IMF have to do with the US withholding funds via the OMB? Koncorde (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC) IMF and OMB are usually playing in sync. If you did not know (though I thought it is obvious) the hold on aid was put in ~2 hours after that call we are talking about by both White House and IMF. Also... You do understand that UN can even invade USA if you will violate thier rules or decisions of International Court of Justice? Really, strange negligence. 94.29.0.171 (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

New impeachment 🍑 inquiry; in the midst of 🍑 investigation (!)

House Democrats told the Supreme Court on Monday that they are again in the midst of an "ongoing presidential impeachment investigation" as part of their "weighty constitutional responsibility" – and, the Democrats argued, redacted grand-jury material from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s now-completed Russia probe must be turned over as a result. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-cite-ongoing-new-impeachment-inquiry-in-effort-to-obtain-mueller-materials https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/18/politics/house-supreme-court-mueller-grand-jury/index.html I will remind you of a key date June 23. John Bolton book. 91.76.22.132 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Until another impeachment inquiry is formally confirmed through something more official, and/or until it is confirmed that new articles of impeachment are being formally considered and/or drafted in the House, mentioning the possibility that a second inquiry might occur would be a gross violation of this policy, as I understand it. To anyone reading this comment, am I incorrect in that respect? I'm not all that fluent at all in the relevant policies about political articles here on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Alert for the editors of this article.

Just wanting to inform editors who did large edits to the article of the new impeachment inquiries on Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. The article is fairly new and needs tons of help/information. (Just a friendly alert to a similar article.) Elijahandskip (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)