Talk:Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Not an impeachment inquiry

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 21:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I get that this article is going to be biased. Thus is the nature of Wikipedia. However, you should be really careful about what you are calling an impeachment inquiry. This is not, in fact, an impeachment inquiry. "What is portrayed as an “impeachment inquiry” is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry." https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/464140-ignore-the-hype-this-is-not-an-impeachment-inquiry "The House acts by voting. It has never voted to conduct an inquiry into whether President Trump should be impeached. Consequently, there is no House impeachment inquiry." https://news.yahoo.com/house-won-t-vote-impeachment-185325993.html The problem with calling this an impeachment inquiry simply because democrats are and the media is mimicking them is that following that same standard Wikipedia will have to go back through and list a bunch of other hearings that weren't impeachments as impeachment inquiries. John Conyers, dealt with this in the past, and in judiciary records he lays out what is required for an impeachment inquiry. "According to Parliamentarians of the House past and present, the impeachment process does not begin until the House actually votes to authorize this Committee to investigate the charges. In other words: this is not an impeachment hearing. Merely including the word “impeachment” in the title doesn’t do the job. At an actual impeachment hearing, the Commissioner would be represented by counsel. He would have the right to present evidence, and the right to question the evidence presented against him. " John Conyers (D) https://judiciary.house.gov/news/press-releases/statement-honorable-john-conyers-jr-hearing-impeachment-articles-referred-john "In the modern era, the impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives only after the House has voted to authorize the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether charges are warranted." John Conyers (D) https://judiciary.house.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-gop-attacks-irs-commissioner-are-not-impeachment-proceedings "I thank the gentleman, and would remind him that we are gathered here today this morning on a hearing on the Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations. To the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing. To have an impeachment hearing, the House of Representatives has to vote to author-ize that a Committee begin an inquiry. And that has not taken place yet." John Conyers (D) https://web.archive.org/web/20170102203637/https://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/printers/110th/43710.PDF Nobody says that an impeachment inquiry was opened against Bush, but we'll have to in Wikipedia if we do for President Trump, because here's somebody calling it an impeachment hearing, which means the same thing, in an official document. "I would notice, Mr. Chairman, in your opening remarks you used the phrase, ‘‘power to remove.’’ And as I read that in my Constitu-tion, that is actually impeachment. We are here having impeach-ment hearings before the Judiciary Committee." https://web.archive.org/web/20170102203637/https://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/printers/110th/43710.PDF What will happen is we'll wind up with a load of presidents who an "impeachment inquiry" was opened against, and suddenly impeachment proceedings will be an extremely common occurrence. Also, keep in mind this is not just the case for presidents. There have been House inquiries that were NOT impeachments on judges and various executive branch employees. Just because someone calls it an impeachment inquiry, we'll have to change it to say there was an impeachment inquiry against them, when nobody currently thinks that was the case. The smart thing to do would probably be to call it a set of House inquiries intended to gather evidence regarding possible impeachment. Another possible way to deal with it would be to note that it is NOT an "official impeachment inquiry" yet. Though democrats ARE calling it that. As you can see above, that doesn't make it true. I'm not trying to call out Democrats on this, but right now the article is literally propaganda and that should be fixed. Another way of dealing with it would be to at least note that there has not been a vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry by the House yet. That would probably be the most favorable way to put it for democrats. This is something they would admit to, because they argue that it is not required to start an investigation. That is true. They can start an investigation as a House inquiry, never open an official impeachment inquiry, then vote for impeachment. That is exactly what they've been arguing, but they don't like to talk about how THIS is not an official impeachment inquiry. They side step that fact. So, if you want to be favorable to democrats, but still be accurate, then I'd choose this last option. This way nobody needs to admit that this isn't an official impeachment inquiry. Just side step it, and point out that no House vote has taken place to authorize an impeachment inquiry. Also, no, the recent House vote was not a vote to initiate an impeachment process. It was a vote on House inquiry rules. If you're unconvinced, then look up the House votes, and you'll see that none of the authorize an impeachment inquiry. 2601:243:1180:9660:4414:5D73:AE97:6D14 (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC) This is not the place to debate the validity of the inquiry, and you are citing opinion pieces in your claims. We use what independent reliable sources state. The Constitution states that the House has "the sole power of Impeachment" which means they get to decide how to conduct one(see Nixon v. United States for a similar case); nowhere is a vote required to start one. The current House rules on impeachment were written by the GOP when they were in the majority. If you don't like what the House is doing, write your Congressperson. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC) "This is not the place to debate the validity of the inquiry" No, I am in fact not doing that. You didn't read my comments. You replied too soon to have read them. I am trying to explain how this is being mislabeled in Wikipedia and the ramifications that would have on dozens or possibly hundreds of other articles. I have not argued that the inquiry is not valid. Please don't put words in my mouth. I can find other sources that will say the exact same thing. Tell me what sources are acceptable, then I will find them. I don't see anything wrong with my sources. "The Constitution states that the House has "the sole power of Impeachment" which means..." Let me stop you right there, because the rest is a talking point. I am very familiar with this talking point, and am aware of where it comes from. They aren't even arguing what you think they're arguing. They are arguing what I explain in my third option. They are arguing that they DO NOT have to open an official impeachment inquiry in order to start a process that will lead to an impeachment vote. I've already said I agree that is true. You would have known this if you read it. "The current House rules on impeachment were written by the GOP when they were in the majority. If you don't like what the House is doing, write your Congressperson." This is also a political talking point that adds nothing to the conversation. They aren't even arguing what you think they're arguing. They're arguing that House inquiries are now "strong enough" so that they don't need to open an official impeachment inquiry. Again they're saying they can proceed without it. What I stated before is still true. This is not an official impeachment inquiry. This is actually a set of house inquiries that have the intention of gathering evidence for impeachment, but as you can see above that is not technically the same thing. Was an impeachment inquiry opened against Bush? If not, then one hasn't been opened against president Trump then. The way to prove me wrong would be to show the House vote where an impeachment inquiry was authorized. If you can find that, then great, problem solved. Otherwise we're printing propaganda instead of verifiable facts. "When is an inquiry into impeachment an official impeachment inquiry? That question is not as absurd as it sounds. The House of Representatives still has not voted on any resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, as lawmakers did before the start of proceedings against Richard Nixon in 1973 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has shown little inclination to take such a step. “If we want to do it, we’ll do it. If we don’t, we don’t,” Speaker Pelosi told the editorial board of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution last week. But many Republicans say that without such a vote, the current impeachment process is just a typical House oversight action, and does not require extra White House deference in regards to provision of documents, witness testimony, and other information." This article seems neutral on the subject and points out that the vote has not been taken. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2019/1008/Is-the-House-impeachment-inquiry-illegitimate-Three-questions "All of that to say, we can verify, the notion that the impeachment has begun against the President is false. This is still just the investigation phase." https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/verify/verify-does-launching-an-impeachment-inquiry-officially-begin-the-impeachment-of-donald-trump/63-f2ff0ff0-32b7-4f53-9653-f7dee17a256a The argument, which I agree with, is that they don't need to have a vote in order to gather information. They can do it with a regular house inquiry. They are not really arguing that this is the same as opening an official impeachment proceeding, although they do call it that. ""There's no requirement that we have a vote, and so at this time we will not be having a vote," Pelosi said. "We're not here to call bluffs -- we're here to find the truth, to uphold the Constitution of the United States. This is not a game for us. This is deadly serious." The move was seemingly a boon for moderate Democrats in swing districts, who have been reluctant to have a formal vote in favor of the proceedings as the 2020 elections approach -- even as several of them have also sought to appease liberal constituents by vocally backing the ongoing inquiry. A congressional aide familiar with House Democrats' discussions told Fox News that many House Democrats did not want to be seen as letting the White House dictate how the House conducted itself. Last week, the White House sent a fiery letter to House Democrats announcing that it would not cooperate with their inquiry, for several reasons -- including that, contrary to past precedent, no formal vote had been held on whether to begin impeachment proceedings." https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-house-wont-vote-now-formal-impeachment-inquiry Another way of dealing with this that might not offend the propagandists here is to say that Pelosi announced she was opening an "official impeachment inquiry" then noting that republicans have disputed her authority to unilaterally open an official impeachment inquiry without a House vote. This is still a little dishonest though, because nothing was actually launched at that time. The several different inquiries were already ongoing. Better than that would be to say she announced that current House inquiries would continue under the umbrella of an official impeachment inquiry, then point out that republicans dispute her authority to unilaterally open an official impeachment inquiry without a House vote authorizing it. Keep in mind here there is a high likelihood that some democrats will be campaigning in 2020 saying they DIDN'T vote for an impeachment investigation, just to make the ongoing House inquiry more transparent. Then we'll have to change history in Wikipedia to accommodate that. 10:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)2601:243:1180:9660:4414:5D73:AE97:6D14 (talk) Your's is a fringe viewpoint which you have supported by cherry picking sources that you believe agree with that view. It is contrary to what almost every source has reported. Our policies at WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:FRINGE apply. As 331dot explained, this is not a debate page. If you have an edit proposal, please make it, and be brief. You cannot use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for promoting fringe ideas. - MrX 🖋 11:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC) No, his is the mainstream, legal view. It is why the Democrats voted to open an official impeachment inquiry last week: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/02/775490647/impeachment-inquiry-catch-up-a-vote-by-house-democrats-makes-it-official Now, of course, we can call what went before an impeachment inquiry in an informal sense, but there no official inquiry until early November, not late September as this article suggests. 59.102.81.34 (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment inquiry against?

It should be "Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump".--Jack Upland (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree. soibangla (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier and closed with no consensus to change it. Impeachment by its nature is against someone, and impeachment inquiries are not held to exonerate someone. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, if the House votes to impeach, this will be renamed to "Impeachment of Donald Trump". There is also Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, the earlier proposal was "Donald Trump impeachment inquiry", though this was mentioned. Secondly, "inquiry against" is ungrammatical. You do not "inquire against" a person. Thirdly, it sounds like the inquiry is biased, and we shouldn't imply that. Fourthly, there is no guarantee that the article will be renamed "Impeachment of Donald Trump" if impeachment goes ahead. There seems no consensus on this. Given the plethora of articles about Trump, it is likely that there will continue to be a separate article about the inquiry. There is certainly enough material, and given the prevailing attitude of editors, much will be written and many pages created.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Jack Upland, this was discussed 13 October 2019. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see that one. I was referring to the 5 October discussion. How many move discussions are there?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

At the center of an impeachment storm

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is being reported that the "whistleblower"/"CIA spook" at the center of the impeachment storm is

(redacted)

“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows..." but are not reporting. --93.211.212.198 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe they aren't reporting because it is against the law for Gaetz and Gohmert to out a whistleblower. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Which begs the question of whether or not the above belongs on Wikipedia. We do not censor, but we are also not WikiLeaks. WP:BLPNAME — Maile (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The identity of the whistleblower has been rendered moot and irrelevant by subsequent revelations of facts, so continuing to focus on his/her identity is a red herring to distract from those pertinent facts. There could be significant legal consequences for any reporter or media outlet that reports the whistleblower's identity if any harm comes to him/her or family. The guy who reported his alleged identity, Paul Sperry, was extremely foolish to do so. Nobody else is that stupid. soibangla (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I have decided to remove the name from this posting. I was tempted to remove the entire posting, but I'll start with that. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Omertà! --93.211.210.42 (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Lawyer up! Any physical harm the individual and/or their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm soibangla (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Rand Paul: No law stops me from saying whistleblower's name --93.211.210.42 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Mark Zaid knows more about this stuff than Rand Paul. But whatever, let Rand go ahead and say the name on the Senate floor and see what happens to him. soibangla (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Senator Paul is a physician, not an attorney. But okay. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misleading claim in Rick Perry line of "Subpoenas for documents" table

The status of Rick Perry's (non)compliance with the document request from Congress is given as "announced resignation Oct 17", one day before the deadline to respond. However, Perry (1) has not actually left his position; (2) it is unknown whether he has named the last date he will be in office, or submitted a letter of resignation; (3) his "announcement" to Trump on Oct 17 is the same information reported already in NY Times on Oct 4 (6 days before the Congressional request) that Perry intends to leave before 2020. The implication that his resignation announcement IS his mode of compliance with the subpoena is tendentious and nonsensical: Perry was telling the NYTimes or its sources the same thing before the subpoena, and merely stating his intent to resign at some point the future does not change anything in his or DoE's legal situation in the face of the request from Congress. The correct description of Perry's compliance is the same as for the other lines in the table: he "refused to provide documents". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.149.246.232 (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I thank you for being succinct and suggesting what change you would like to see. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Whistleblowers & Spooks.

I know we go by sources, but isn't a person who spies for the intel community called a spook? Where as a person who spies on the intel community is called a whistleblower? GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Spook is a slang term for someone who works in intelligence. And the definition of a whistleblower can be found in the relevant article. It’s not someone who “spies”. Is this meant to be rhetorical? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I've heard on The Jimmy Dore Show that the 'mystery person' being called a whistleblower, is incorrect & that spook is the more appropriate term. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

How on earth is that a reliable source? Heh. I get entertainment. But we don’t treat Talk Radio as a reliable source for anything but their own statements for the same reason. It’s biased commentary. As the link points out, its notability is based in part on their “shock jock” unreliability. Then again, if you’re making a joke, it apparently went over my head. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream news media is corporate controlled & shouldn't be viewed as unbiased in anyway. But, that's another topic. GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay - what exactly are you proposing? That we call the whistleblower a "spook" (per the radio show of Jimmy Dore) instead of "whistleblower" (per many, many RS)? starship.paint (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that a note be placed next to the first mention of the word whistleblower in this article, concerning this matter. GoodDay (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. What part of Symmachus Auxiliarus' clear explanation are you struggling with?- MrX 🖋 12:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Do as you wish, then. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

According to its entry on the spook disambiguation page we definitely shouldn't be using it in this article: *Slang for someone involved in espionage **CIA members, in slang *A racial slur for a black person; (1) see the word "slang" used twice and (2) see the third use.  Nixinova  T  C  06:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is the article not mentioning that Congressman Schiff learned about the accusations (when his aid was approached) as early as July 25th by the whistleblower — who did not personally witness or hear the phone call, but learned of it secondhand — approached an aide to Schiff?

People are looking for the facts and if should not be biased. This article speaks about some people’s perspectives of the phone that felt the call was wrong. There have been people who have testified that they did not feel there was anything wrong with the telephone call between President Trump and President Zelensky. The information regarding Barisma reaching out to the Obama administration to not be seen as corrupt and 1 month later Hunter Biden is put on the Barisma Board is a little sketchy and biased. Tbloux (talk) 05:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Senate Resolution and House Procedures ?

On 3 October, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy (California politician) called on Pelosi to suspend the inquiry (CNN) and requested answers to 10 questions before it moved forward.

On 24 October, Republican Lindsey Graham, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced a resolution condemning the process, sponsored by 50 Republican Senators.

Where would mentions of such go ?

I see that on 31 October, there was a vote on impeachment procedures, and it has been put into the Lead and into 2.4 as "Open Hearings" ...

So should the Senate resolutions go into that section, as precursors of that story, or would they belong as a part of the Depositions period similar to the 2.2.3 Republican protest and legal challenges ?

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This should go in #Against impeachment inquiry as these resolutions are unlikely to have any effect on the process which has a clear majority in the House. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, no other points said, so I’ll give it a day or so and edit there. Markbassett (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added the cites to the section. SInce starting this, it had gotten some remarks on this so I added to those and moved it all into ddate-order. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Explanation of legality

I came here hoping to find the legal precedent for the proceedings currently being conducted against the president, but most of the cited sources are statements of opinion. There should be a portion of the article written about the legality of asking a foreign power to investigate a citizen, and the related laws should be cited. 170.72.11.180 (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that that should be covered, but the reporting on the legal aspects seem pretty sparse. - MrX 🖋 18:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That topic is the subject of Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

How so, Coffeeandcrumbs? I can't see it mentioned on that page...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I completely misunderstood what OP was asking. Nevermind. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Worth noting that impeachment is not a criminal process; one does not have to break the law to be impeached. WMSR (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

um, high crimes and misdemeanors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.19.227 (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"High crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to criminal statute. It is a "purposely vague term". Our article on high crimes and misdemeanors starts with "A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice." Such as obstruction of justice. It can also include abuses of power that are not criminal offenses. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

There is already an article about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:1180:9660:4414:5D73:AE97:6D14 (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgul, you do realise that Reuters is not a law firm??? "High crimes and misdemeanours" is a legal term that the framers of the US Constitution took from the law of medieval England. There is no definitive definition, but there is a consensus that it relates to criminal activity. There has never been any conviction of a President by the Senate, so there are no precedents to say what are considered "high crimes and misdemeanours" in this context. In relation to the original question, there is clearly nothing illegal about "asking a foreign power to investigate a citizen". The US government does that all the time. Currently there is an inquiry only, and we haven't been told what the articles of impeachment are. The whole point of the inquiry is to find out what Trump did and whether he should be impeached. If the Democrats believed that he should be impeached, they could do it without an inquiry.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Jack Upland, I realize that Reuters is a reliable source giving a layman's definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors". The consensus is that activity does not have to be criminal for it to meet the definition. Just ask Lindsey Graham. “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role,” the politician said. “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”[1][2] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

What Lindsey Graham said while trying to prosecute Bill Clinton is pretty irrelevant. It seems there was never clarity on what the term means.[3]--Jack Upland (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

... hence the opinion of Lindsey Graham, an impeachment manager in 1998 and a member of the Senate in 2019, is pretty damned important. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Gerald Ford (cited by Reuters) said "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history". That isn't very helpful. It doesn't tell us how the majority of the House are likely to vote. And it doesn't tell us if two-thirds of the Senate will convict. And the comments of Graham decades ago don't help either.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

From Mark R. Slusar, "The Confusion Defined: Questions and Problems of Process in the Aftermath of the Clinton Impeachment", Case Western Reserve Law Review, Volume 49, Summer 1999, pp 872–873:The narrow reading of "high crimes and misdemeanors" appears to be the most common among legal scholars and senators. Their view is essentially that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was incorporated in order to set a very high bar for the Senate to have to hurdle in order to impeach a president. Their position is based more in advocacy of protecting the raw structural power of the executive branch rather than preserving the integrity, dignity, or moral authority of the Office of the Presidency. In his remarks before the Senate, White House Counsel Charles Ruff described the "narrow" reading and the high standard it requires as "a standard that the framers intentionally set at this extraordinarily high level to ensure that only the most serious offenses and in particular those that subverted our system of government would justify overturning a popular election. Impeachment is not a remedy for private wrongs. It is a method of removing someone whose continued presence in office would cause grave danger to the Nation." Similarly, following his vote to acquit Mr. Clinton, Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota explained that impeachment requires "great and public offenses" that directly serve to "bring our commonwealth into danger". There is ample support for such a reading in the debates of the Framers and the structure of the Constitution. A number of delegates to the Constitutional Convention opposed the notion of vesting an impeachment power in the legislature in any form. Others supported the notion of impeachment only for situations in which "great crimes were committed" against the state, or to guard against "tyranny and oppression". Further, support for the narrow reading can arguably be found in the structure of the Constitution as well. The numerous references to crime and punishment in the Constitution are argued to represent an attempt to limit the bases for impeachment to criminal conduct and, thus, prevent the misuse of power. Proponents of the narrow reading tend to restrict their examination to the objective elements of a crime. Their focus is on whether a crime was directed against the state, or an attempt to subvert the Constitution, or a "great" or "serious" offense. For instance, Raoul Berger explains that the critical element in distinguishing an offense as a "high crime" is the presence of an injury to the state... A fair assessment of the Clinton impeachment and subsequent acquittal is that the narrow reading of high crimes and misdemeanors was endorsed... Cynically, I could observe that it seems that many people take a narrow reading if they wish to defend the president of the day, and a broad reading if they wish to attack him. Graham may adopt a narrower reading if he wishes to defend Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Legislative shutdown

The current version of the article says, "In the wake of the inquiry, the White House threatened to "shut down" all major legislation as political leverage.". I feel like this is too short, because of its relative importance in the scheme of things... and also because it omits the Senate leadership's role (Senator McConnell, etc.) in preventing legislation from coming to the floor with the stated reason of wanting White House agreement in advance.

How can this article give due weight to these things? 49.36.9.57 (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you suggest that we remove it or expand it? If the latter, would you propose the wording? - MrX 🖋 11:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm suggesting expanding it. How about this?

In the wake of the inquiry, the White House threatened to "shut down" all major legislation as political leverage.. This position was first voiced by Trump, who spoke on September 24 of Democrats getting "nothing done" on account of "talk[ing] nonsense", elaborated by the the White House Press Secretary, and supported by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who continued his insistence on prior White House approval as a prerequisite for bringing legislation to the Senate floor. Policy areas affected include defense spending and the replacement of NAFTA by USMCA, although legislative progress had been stalled prior to these events. 49.36.9.57 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

References

• I've heard it put the other way around -- that nothing is getting done due to the inquiry. (As I recall, it was a sidenote in a NPR piece, mentioning DoD budget not yet done, and maybe the USMCA work). Personally, I think nothing coming out was the status even before all this, so not sure either can be said to be the cause. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: can you find the article? I'd like to get consensus around this and place an edit request template, incorporating your source and what it says if necessary. 49.36.9.57 (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

49 - Not that one, it literally was “heard” on a Saturday 2 November NPR episode. And googling in the area of impeachment finds a jungle of hits. I did google “Congress busy not passed Defense budget” and see others, like from (tiny weight) WKRN “With impeachment looming, many wonder if Congress will get work done” incl USMCA; Forbes “Congressional Dysfunction Threatens to Halt Trump Defense Buildup” on how budget not passing impacts Military; or Defense news “Senate dems likely to block spending in border wall dispute” expecting need for another stopgap when the one ending Nov 21 comes due. But again, generally I think Congress has a history of being last-second and gridlock long before the inquiry or even before Trump, so I’m not sure either way could be credibly said as the cause. They both sound like just spin to me, trying to blame status normal on the other side. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett and MrX: OK, I've included some text from those sources and placed an edit request template. 49.36.9.57 (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, but I oppose this. Nothing was getting passed before the inquiry began. Nothing is getting passed now. What's the difference? Actually I lied: they did pass an important funding bill while the inquiry was going on.[4] In any case, the threat was just talk and didn't get a lot of coverage, and hasn't amounted to anything, so not worth expanding. One sentence is about right. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

There's only so much I can care about old man Trump and his coverage on enwiki, but a rebuttal to the argument of "nothing has changed, so why elaborate?" is "the perpetuation of a harmful status quo is inherently noteworthy." While there are some people who ideologically prefer legislative gridlock, I believe it's still neutral and properly weighted to say that gridlock is largely considered harmful. @Markbassett and MelanieN: if the argument I've rebutted is not exactly your argument, I hope you'll clarify. 49.36.9.57 (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

While I see the news article leads with “White House threatens to shut down”... the actual content seems just Stephanie Grisham spinning that Dems are ignoring work while inquiry goes on. No quoted threat or anyone said “shut down”. So, not a good support for that. And that ‘Dems are ignoring real work’ feels like POV spin... Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

There have also been reports that Trump is planning to shut down the government in order to stop the impeachment process in it's tracks. But that hasn't happened yet.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Should this be mentioned?

Rush Limbaugh said his name was accidentally disclosed. Should this be mentioned?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Rush Limbaugh is not a reliable source. Not even close. - MrX 🖋 20:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean him. I meant his source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

As MrX said above. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

We don't know who the whistleblower is. This is a non notable person who wants their identity to remain private, so blp rules dictate that whistleblower not be named, even if they are named in the press. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay. That is a policy related argument. I did find a source for my information--not the identity--but the idea that the name is known. I'm going to assume you don't want to do that either.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee, we do you know that there is a name out there, but we don't know if it's the right name or someone being wrongly identified. It could be worth mentioning, the efforts that they are making to try to out the whistleblower, without actually outing whoever this person actually is, whistleblower or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If you ask me, the identity of the whistleblower is pretty irrelevant. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The relevance of the whistleblowers identity depends entirely on your intent. If you're looking to prosecute the case of the administration withholding aid that should not have been withheld, It's not relevant. If you're looking to poke holes on the case based on specious arguments, then it could be useful. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It is also very illegal to disclose their identity.  Nixinova  T / C   23:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact that Donald Trump Jr. has tweeted a link purportedly revealing the name of the whistleblower is mentioned here. I don't think we should do any more than that. There is only one organization, not named here, that we would consider reliable that has published this name. It makes me doubt how reliable that organization is after publishing such an irresponsible article based on rumor. We need to avoid even linking on this talk page or from the article to any website that mentions the name. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME applies, including on the talk page.- MrX 🖋 03:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Which supposedly reputable news organization? Even Fox News said not to publish the name. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The whole point of WHISTLEBLOWING is that you remain ANONYMOUS to protect your identity and protect yourself against death threats. If he decides to come forth on his own he will. But publishing his name without consent is illegal and against Wikipedia policy. Is it hard? Trillfendi (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Which law does Wikipedia follow?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Italicization of “and” was to separate two independent things.... Wikipedia has a policy about publishing private names of people without reliable source and if need be an administrator will redact the information so that no one can possibly see it anymore. Trillfendi (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: If it's revision deletion you're talking about, most people can't see the material anymore, true, but the administrators themselves (more than 1000 of them IIRC) can. 49.36.9.57 (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess I forgot about oversight, which is different from revision deletion and does make the material inaccessible to administrators. 49.36.9.57 (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

WMF servers are located in the U.S. and must obey U.S. law. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

And any other law?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

None except those that are ported over from URAA and other international treaties enacted by the U.S. Congress. This is getting off-topic. You can ask more questions at the Help Desk. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would *highly* recommend consulting with WP legal before we make even peripheral edits about this subject, unless/until it’s reported by a preponderance of reliable sources. I’m not sure if it’s illegal, but I’d rather we not even be liable. I think this would be mitigated if a multitude of reliable sources repeated it, but I’d rather not put the project at risk without consulting people on retainer to address this sort of stuff. We’ve already had to revdel dozens of contributions. My personal notion is that we shouldn’t except under the exceptional circumstances I mentioned, but I’m willing to hear people out. Still, this should be brought to the relevant people. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Is someone going to write to legal@wikimedia.org and report back to us on what they say? According to Vox, the cease-and-desist letter from the whistleblower's attorney says that unmasking the whistleblower could be witness retaliation or obstruction of Congress; but Trump is continuing to tweet about him. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Given all the Prez's conflicting tweets and statements about anything, and the road that led to this impeachment process, the Prez has demonstrated he is not a reliable source on anything. What's the rush? The whistleblower has legal protection. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and not a newspaper. We have no obligation to reveal the whistleblower's identity, nor should we. Why would we be asking Wikimedia legal for a loophole to publish the name? That is not our responsibility. — Maile (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Unless I missed something there is no official release or truly verifiable references that have listed their name yet. Only 2nd hand and mostly very unreliable sources have given names. Wikipedia is not a place to post innuendo of private peoples names. I'm a little shocked myself and other editors even have the justify why we should not post her/his name here at this time. ContentEditman (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Do not include -- at least hold back -- wait until/unless he goes public or something. It has become a topic since he is suspected of being part of arranging anti-Trump material with Ukraine while in the Obama White House and reportedly he had been the main driver of other 'anonymous leaks' until cycled back to the CIA. At the moment at least a few reporters and a couple congresspeople have given identifying material or name, but it seems to me that this sort of thing has happened before and WP holds back long after it is publicly known. That NYTimes says identifying material, and many mention that it’s known and findable does not make it DUE or needed to the narrative. The identity seems likely to be used to fuel “deep state” and Obama/Biden era misconduct narratives, but the name is not yet needed here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Do not include At this point it's just a rumor, no confirmation. If it is mistaken identity, which it very well could be, we would do great harm to the person if we promoted it. IMO we would be very wrong to add, or link to, or in any way mention the name currently being bandied about. And if we see someone post it anywhere, we should immediate revert it and call for oversight suppression. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• No inclusion at this point: I've also heard the rumors. It would be prudent, however, for us to err on the safe side in this matter; indeed, until and unless the whistleblower goes public, we would do well to be extremely cautious in the publication of anything surrounding such person's identity. I would remind all editors that we still are one of the most-highly visited websites in the entire world, and it would behoove us to remember that what we say matters. So let the news and others lead: we should follow. It is not our place to trailblaze, to "get a scoop", to expound on breaking news and rumor; leave that, and the consequences, to the journalists. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Effectively moot. The Wikipedia community seems to have come to a sort of unofficial consensus per various noticeboard discussions regarding this issue. Edit filters preventing the posting of the name have been developed and approved, so I think we can put this to bed. It’s all speculation regardless, and mostly from unreliable and deprecated sources. Until such time as the source and tone of this changes, we shouldn’t include unverifiable speculation. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Planning for the future: Let's make this a trilogy

A suggestion for y'all for when the time comes: When the Impeachment report is finished and sent to the Judiciary committee for the mark-up of the articles of impeachment, we finish this article as complete, and start a new one entitled "impeachment process against Donald Trump or just Impeachment of Donald Trump should it come to that. The investigation, after all, would be over. Remember that there were at least four articles focusing on the Clinton impeachment and more than that on Nixon's. I'm not saying we do this now, as we still have about two weeks' worth of public hearings to go through, and there's going to be a bunch of Republican shenanigans as well. Remember that Clinton was impeached approximately two years prior to the founding of Wikipedia.

This series should end with either Trump's acquittal or the inauguration of President Pence. It's something to think about. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually we have ONE article about the impeachment of Clinton, and ONE about the process against Nixon. Yes, there are separate articles about their scandals and their special counsel investigations, but we have those about Trump too. The impeachment process is its own thing. I don't favor fragmenting it into multiple articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I hear you. But technically speaking, he isn't impeached until the full House says he is. Let's not get too far into WP:CRYSTAL territory. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN about crystal balls. For example, the Nixon impeachment did not end with the inauguration of President Spiro T. Agnew. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, you have been arguing this point over at Efforts to impeach Donald Trump since May 2017. Nixinova recently raised a similar point. Maybe you two could set up a private forum and discuss the issue...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@cuuen328- it ended with the inauguration of Gerald Ford, which is the same exact thing, and @Jack, I believe in planning.Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Cullen's point was that at this point in the process of investigating Nixon, the reasonable (WP:CRYSTAL) assumption would have been that Nixon's departure would be followed by the inauguration of the then-vice president, Agnew. We may be just as far off in our expectations right now as theoretical Wikipedians would have been in September 1973. Anyone who "believed in planning" at that point would have been wasting their time and everybody else's. Look, we have no idea how this is going to play out. We may think we do, and we may be dead wrong. We need to await developments. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(Please get your facts right while arguing. The Agnew scandal became public in August of 1973 and there was no impeachment investigation until after the notorious "Saturday night massacre" took place several days after Agnew resigned in October and Ford was nominated.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC))

My preference would be to change the title of this article to Impeachment of Donald Trump when the house passes articles of impeachment. The Senate trial should probably be a separate article though.- MrX 🖋 11:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree about changing the article title to Impeachment of Donald Trump when/if the House actually votes for an article of impeachment. But I would include the Senate trial and any aftermath in this same article. I am not a fan of the current trend here, of splitting a single subject into multiple articles. Looking at Category:Impeachment of Bill Clinton, I see that one article sufficed for the whole process. And the entire Nixon process is included in Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. Let’s do our readers a favor for once, and keep it all in one place. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the reality is we can't buck the current trend. Even if we correctly predict what's about to happen, as soon as Trump is impeached there will be an influx of new editors who will produce a mountain of breathless verbiage and start splitting with wild abandon...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Let’s not put the cart before the horse, lest the horse be beaten to a pulp. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, considering Arglebargle79 has been arguing the point since 2017, I think this is a WP:DEADHORSE.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That's why we should be planning it NOW, Jack, and make sure that it's orderly and efficiently done. It's not beating a WP:DEADHORSE until the damn thing is actually dead. When it's actually dead is when there's either an exoneration by the Intelligence Committee report, the defeat of the articles of impeachment on the House floor, or the end of the trial. Those are the three reasonable possibilities. There are UNreasonable possibilities, like a Napoleon III-style auto-coup or a real-life Seven Days in May, but those are not really worth discussing. I seem to remember that you were arguing against the creation of this article after a bunch of other people created it. It' sort of like writing an obituary. You know that it has to get written, and it's dumb to wait until the last minute to write 90% of it.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

You remember wrong. My position was that this article had to wait for an impeachment inquiry to begin. If you want to draft an article about Trump's impeachment, you can do so, but I think the coup version would be more interesting.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Dishonesty

CNN has put up an article listing all the ways Trump has been dishonest about his impeachment that might be of some use here. I don't edit on this article, so I shall leave it here for others to use or ignore as they see fit. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"A December 2017 resolution ... failed in the then–Republican-led House"

I notice that there is one sentence that may require clarification: "A December 2017 resolution of impeachment failed in the then–Republican-led House by a 58–364 vote margin." While the fact that the House was led by the Republicans is strictly true, it is also potentially misleading in that it could give the impression that Trump might have been impeached much earlier had the Democrats controlled the House. As a matter of fact, if we were to compare the 115th and 116th Congresses of the United States, the Democrats have 39 more seats in the latter Congress, and if we add the numbers up, 58 Democrats plus 39 equals to 97. In the hypothetical case where the current house voted on the resolution in 2017, 338 still clearly outnumbers 97. What the sentence did get right is that it is hard to tell whether the President would have been impeached had the Democrats controlled a supermajority, so I am open on whether we should delete the "Republican-led" and let the second paragraph explain that the Democrats regained the House in 2019. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 01:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Gamingforfun365 agreed, that part in the background section isn’t relevant, so I will trim it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Are any of these 'U.S. House' videos in the public domain?

• 1.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?465765-1/us-house-approves-impeachment-inquiry-resolution-232-196

• 2.)

https://www.c-span.org/event/?466378/impeachment-inquiry-impeachment-hearing-amb-gordon-sondland

• 3.)

https://www.c-span.org/event/?466379/impeachment-inquiry-impeachment-hearing-laura-cooper-david-hale

• 4.)

https://www.c-span.org/event/?466376/impeachment-inquiry-impeachment-hearing-lt-col-vindman-vice-president-pence-aide

• 5.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466377-1/impeachment-hearing-kurt-volker-tim-morrison

• 6.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466135-1/impeachment-hearing-ukraine-ambassador-marie-yovanovitch 7.) https://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/diplomats-bill-taylor-george-kent-impeachment-inquiry-testimony

• 8.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?465848-1/house-rules-committee-considers-impeachment-inquiry-resolution

• 9.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?464509-1/acting-director-national-intelligence-maguire-testifies-whistleblower-complaint

• 10.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?464147-1/house-judiciary-committee-approves-guidelines-impeachment-investigation

• 11.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?462553-1/house-judiciary-committee-review-mueller-report

Victor Grigas (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

According to their copyright and license page, C-SPAN's licensure is attribution non-commercial (prohibited from Wikipedia, see WP:NONCOM). However, they state that "Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution." However any other footage besides that is restricted under their policy. They may be cited here via link, like other copyrighted sources, but they may not be uploaded or embedded. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 03:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019

CHANGE the 1st sentence in the last paragraph of the introduction - which currently omits a crucial bit of information and, coupled with the ambiguous verbiage, leads to erroneous inferences FROM "Sondland testified on November 20, 2019, that he believed he conducted his actions at the behest of the President and that he perceived the potential invitation to be part of to be contingent on a quid pro quo, but admitted during the testimony that during a call on September 9, 2019, Trump told him "I want no quid pro quo, just tell Zelensky to do the right thing"" TO "Sondland testified on November 20, 2019, that he believed he conducted his actions at the behest of the President and that he perceived the potential invitation to be part of to be contingent on a quid pro quo. However, in response to congressional inquiries, he also testified that Trump told him on the phone "I want no quid pro quo, just tell Zelensky to do the right thing". The referenced phone-call took place on September 7, 2019 and was first disclosed by National Security Council aide Tim Morrison. Before this, on August 26, 2019 Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire had been notified about the whistleblower’s complaint by the inspector general for the intelligence community Michael Atkinson, deemed as an “‘urgent concern’ that ‘appears credible.'" Atkinson also informed Maguire of the 7-day deadline, by when the complaint should be forwarded to the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees. Maguire would end up being subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee, on September 13, 2019, for not having forwarded the complaint within the required timeframe. The complaint had been filed on August 12, 2019. " DrRopeman (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The sentence you want changed no longer appears in the article. NiciVampireHeart 07:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

References

too much from The NewYork Times here--rewrite

I agree that this article on the Trump Impeachment Inquiry needs a rewrite that is more objective. Julie Basco Jones (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

51 of the current 433 references are citing The New York Times because it is one the most respected sources for factual objectivity and neutrality. It is one of the gold standards of American journalism. You also said you "agree" like someone else said it. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 06:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Julie Basco Jones If there are specific changes you want to see, please propose them here. Please understand that Wikipedia reflects what appears in independent reliable sources; we present the sources for review by readers so they can decide for themselves as to the validity of the content. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this really just Trump's impeachment inquiry anymore?:Was it ever just Trump's and is title of page in error

Testimony November 20, 2019 marked I believe a turning point where we can no longer ignore the question who's impeachment inquiry is this? One clear error to me is not using the official name of the inquiry.

I looked it up and the official name appears to be "House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes."

For other purposes would include articles of impeachment that might be drafted against other White House officials who were involved.

I don't propose changing the full page name to the official name, however think that full name should be included on the page.

I do however propose a name change at this point to "Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump and others"

To continue to ignore testimony of what Pence did and did not know or his actions and rebuttals is to ignore both the reality of the situation and power of the inquiry to draft articles against multiple individuals. Pbmaise (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Putting "and other purposes" at the end of a resolution or bill title is standard procedure for the US Congress and doesn't necessarily mean others are or will be impeached. The target is clearly Donald Trump. If others are impeached because of this inquiry, that can be spun off into other articles at the time. If Trump is impeached(which even Ken Starr says is likely), this will likely be renamed to "Impeachment of Donald Trump". 331dot (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't support the change either.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't require changing at this moment, but potential to spin off or widen this one's approach in the future if required. Koncorde (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware "for other purposes" was standard language and now agree with opinions above. I believe this issue may need to be addressed soon especially after reading later analysis about the implications of Sondland's testimony. I suggest deletion of this discussion after a few more hours to allow any further input.Pbmaise (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Remember Meuller and Russia?

There were arguments over the House getting the unredacted grand jury materials from the Meuller probe today, as well as a bunch of other lawsuits over Trump and the DoJ's stonewalling on subpoenas. Where does this fit in in this article?Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Arglebargle79 - not sure that it does fit topically or structurally, and maybe not DUE, but my best guess would be in 2.3 Resolution to begin hearings. It seems getting grand jury materials was a wish, but blocked earlier by there was no actual hearings. I think it’s still in courts as to whether declaration of hearings unblocks this or not. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The article, which is getting a bit on the longish side, is pretty much only on the Ukraine scandal, which is fine as far as it goes. While the Bribery and obstruction of this particular investigation fit perfectly with the article as is, there are other inquiries that aren't getting much coverage, if any, leftovers from Meuller, Stormy Daniels, and Emoluments. Assuming (we can do that here, but not on the main page) that the other committees are compiling evidence on those, we're going to have to shoehorn them in somewhere if other committees submit reports. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Vindman Smear Inclusion?

There are multiple sources (The Hill, Vanity Fair, Bloomberg, and Politico) that discuss attacks on Lt. Col. Vindman by Trump and supporters in the media and politicians that allege serious allegations such as espionage onto the Vindman. Should these attacks be included, and, if so, where? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 01:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. It's mentioned at his biography page. I don't think it belongs here. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You really think it doesn't, MelanieN? I mean this is the only reason it's happening and it's literally because of the inquiry. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 06:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sad to say that Vindman is not an isolated instance. Virtually every witness has come under attack by the president and the right-wing echo chamber - on Twitter, on television, in Congress, and even here at Wikipedia; most of their articles here have had to be semi-protected because of attacks and vandalism. Apparently this is our new normal, welcome to 2019. :-( Maybe something could be said in this article in general under "Responses"; I'll see if I can find a source about this phenomenon and if so I'll add it. But in the meantime, the fact that a witness is being attacked has become almost routine; no need to single out Vindman. Just my opinion; others may disagree. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I did find enough information, and I will add a paragraph to the Trump section under Responses. Thanks for planting the idea. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Marc Short rebuttal

Under testimony by Sondland November 20, 2019 I added a few sentences about the rebuttal made by Pence's COS Marc Short regarding whether Sondland discussed investigations with Pence. The follow on analysis that the rebuttal appears to be crafted is based upon a Cuomo Prime Time show and a transcript has not yet been issued for that show. Hence the link to the video on YouTube. That comment was made by Jennifer Rene Psaki. If someone can check back on CNN transcript site in about a day the transcript and exact quote will be available. Pbmaise (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The transcript is now out on what Jen Psaki said in reply to the Short memo that was prompted by Sondland testimony. It reads:

PSAKI: No, no, but I -- I have been a part of carefully writing many statements. That was a carefully written statement where he said they didn't have a private meeting, also that he didn't have a discussion, but he didn't say he didn't know, and he certainly didn't say he wasn't told

I see that someone has redacted my balanced addition of Psaki to Sondland's testimony. Now the article only shows Short's rebuttal regarding Sondland's testimony that Pence was informed in Warsaw. BTW this part of Sondland's testimony and that disputed Warsaw meeting isn't even mentioned in the article.

For balance I believe we now must either add back Psaki's rebuttal to Short's rebuttal or remove Short's.

Further I believe that the Warsaw meeting between Pence and Sondland is being intentionally left out of Sondland's testimony for partisan reasons.

I greatly appreciate the dedicated work of Wikipedia editors to establish agreement on how to document this event while following standards required. Pbmaise (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Mueller Report

The Mueller Report (MR) is instructive. According to it, Paul Manafort, while directing Trump's campaign in Summer 2016, assisted the Ukrainians in interfering in the presidential election of 2016 by providing them, for payment, internal Trump campaign polling data. (p. 132 of skyhorse publishing.com publication as issued by the Department of Justice and sold to Americans in Barnes & Noble, as well as, I presume, other bookstores). "Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and [with] Deripaska." (1st ¶, top of page 132, Volume I, abovementioned version of Mueller report). Manafort was indicted for tax evasion during the Mueller investigations. Also, he was cut from the Trump Campaign by the end of Summer 2016. By most ethics the selling of internal American polling data to a foreign country is traitorous for an American. In the light of this information revealed by Mueller's Investigation, it is clear that any conscientious American president would want to shine further light on Ukraine's doings, in an effort to enlighten and to develop America's ability to lessen future foreign influence in American elections.

The current article by Wikipedia gives more weight to articles in the New York Times than it does to the Mueller Report. I urge Wikipedia editors to read the entire Mueller Report and to cite it to make this discussion of the impeachment inquiry more balanced. I find the current article grossly inadequate without more Mueller citations.

I would do it myself if I knew all the nuts and bolts of creating WP citations.

Julie Basco Jones (talk) 16:48, November 21, 2019‎ (UTC)

Julie Basco Jones, keep in mind that Manafort was working for the Trump campaign, which invited, cooperated with, and colluded with Russia in the interference because Trump hoped to benefit from it. While "conspiracy"="coordination" was not proven by the Mueller investigation, it found lots of what amounted to collusion/cooperation with the Russians, as well as obstruction of justice to prevent (cover-up) Mueller from discovering all that should be known.

Manafort was killing two birds with one stone by (1) paying off a personal debt to Deripaska and (2) helping the Russians in their interference, as anything given to Deripaska goes straight to Putin, and that polling data could be used by Putin to help Trump win the election. This was all part of how it was intended to be, seen from the Trump side of things. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Julie Basco Jones, if you have any very specific suggestions, please propose them here and we can see if they can be used to improve the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The Supreme Court is going to opine on all this tomorrow. Another judge is to opine on the Don McGahn case on Monday. The Meuller stuff is going to possibly make a comeback in December.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Julie, it's important to keep your narratives straight. Here is the latest from the impeachment inquiry:

"Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country — and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves." -- Fiona Hill

BullRangifer (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• I will suggest that this and any other Ukraine items relevant to the article should go to a new "Ukraine allegations" in the Background section, inserted above the Rudy Giuliani subsection. That would seem to be at least the Burisma/Biden investigation as two Ukrainian officials alleged wrongdoing and the Burisma memos say, and the Crowdstrike item notingh that the FBI took the testimony from them and did not directly investigate the sources led to a conspiracy theory that the Russians were framed by them. I think other mentions about the Ukraine was interfering with the 2016 elections would be OFFTOPIC unless it is somewhere indicated the Biden investigation was look for such for.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• You may find this interesting: https://www.mediamatters.org/trump-impeachment-inquiry/right-wing-media-wrongly-cite-politico-revive-trumps-ukraine-conspiracy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Bias

Most of the text under "Trump and the White House", in the "Responses" section of this article, seems to be strongly biased against President Donald J. Trump, and should be rewritten with a more neutral point of view (or at least tagged as needing such a rewrite). I would like to particularly highlight the language used when referring to his responses, as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.178.19 (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

What specific text are you claiming is biased? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This entire first section is completely biased, based on opinions in the news which are not factual.

In a July 25 phone call, Trump asked the Ukrainian president to announce investigations of his political rival Joe Biden, Biden's son Hunter Biden, and the Ukrainian company Burisma (for which Hunter had worked), as well as support a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election.[2][3] Fearing that critical military aid intended to help its war against Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine would be revoked if he did not comply, Zelensky planned to announce investigations of the Bidens on a September 13 episode of CNN's Fareed Zakaria program.[4] After Trump was told of the whistleblower complaint in late August,[5] and elements of the events were leaked to Congress and the general public on September 9, the aid was released on September 11 and the planned interview was cancelled.[4] Trump declassified a non-verbatim transcript of the call on the day the impeachment inquiry began.[3][6] The whistleblower's complaint was given to Congress on September 25 and released to the public the next day.[7] The White House corroborated several of the allegations, including that a record of the call between Trump and Zelensky had been stored in a highly restricted system.[8][9]

Here are a few articles to sort through what's really going on:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/president-trumps-defense

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/john-solomon-drops-28-uncomfortable-facts-crushing-debunked-conspiracy-theory-narrative

The wikinazis here are democrats, or watch too much TV.. it's just deteriorating the perception of wikipedia which isn't starting from the highest possible ground.

--Wikireadia2020 (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I usually stay out of Wikipedia edits and I don't want to directly edit this page, but under the section for RESPONSES, the first section titled "Trump and the White House", 2nd Paragraph, 3rd sentence: "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged, but largely baseless involvement with Ukraine." I have italicized the part of the sentence that is opinion without any supporting evidence, considering Joe Biden actually bragged about what he did on Television. Because it is an opinion, I would suggest it be removed and the sentence left at: "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged involvement with Ukraine." This statement is factually correct, more neutral, and allows for interpretation by the reader instead of trying to convince them of one side or the other. This is why I put it here under "Bias." Please discuss. - Subzerox (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added a failed verification tag to the sentence. The sentence is awkwardly worded, but the gist of it is verifiable in numerous sources. The Bidens have been involved with Ukraine, but the conspiracy theory about the nature of their involvement is baseless (based on what is currently publicly known).- MrX 🖋 19:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The allegation of involvement isn't baseless, so we shouldn't say it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The nature of the involvement is what's baseless. In fact, it's a conspiracy theory.[5]

"Trump urged Ukraine to investigate Biden over baseless allegations regarding the former vice president's role in seeing a prosecutor ousted and Hunter serving on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings. There's no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden.
— [6]

- MrX 🖋 20:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

- By that logic, the accusations against President Trump would also be baseless, as there's no "evidence" of wrongdoing on the part of President Trump either, yet we're having a massive discussion about it and even threatening an impeachment. So, how about we leave out the opinions that haven't been proven either way and just let the statement that the accusation is what the Republicans and the White House are saying stand? - Subzerox (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Guys, the NY Times and others are NOT reliable sources. Look the facts: https://www.americanoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/AO_State_Ukraine_Docs_11-22.pdf These documents show the corruption by the Bidens going back since 2014, when the US helped stage a coup in Ukraine. NYTimes, CNN, WashingtonPost, are biased leftist news organizations that are no longer credible. Try fact checking DOCUMENTS and not op-eds from leftists. --Wikireadia2020 (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

There's the fact that Trump has literally said he did it. I'd say that's pretty strong evidence.Vision Insider (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No he didn't, quit lying. 2001:5B0:4BCB:3D48:2DF0:B09B:695A:4066 (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That's bs - this whole thing is a fabrication of lies funded by George Soros, implemented by Adam Schiff, and believed by a bunch of idiots that watch too much TV. Look more facts https://www.americanoversight.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/AO_State_Ukraine_Docs_11-22.pdf --Wikireadia2020 (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Subzerox: - let me make this clear: reliable sources say there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens. See below. Also, Hunter Biden was never under investigation by Ukraine, so how can his father have interfered to protect him? I’d like to see your sources on there being no evidence of wrongdoing by the president. I think a particular memorandum would count as evidence. starship.paint (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources

John Solomon includes his documentation in his articles https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story You can view it for yourself. I believe your statement in not accurate until there is a through review of this evidence.RBWilson1000 (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC) BBC There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens AFP: there has been no evidence of illegal conduct or wrongdoing in Ukraine by the Bidens Reuters: There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden. Associated Press: there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son NBC News: But despite Trump's continued claims, there's no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden

- Even if you are so adamant on only accepting left-wing biased media as "reliable", it's still not a valid excuse for keeping an article section that's written in a tone that makes it sound like some kind of good vs. evil fairytale struggle. Sentences like "Trump and his surrogates engaged in a campaign to discredit impeachment." are simply unencyclopedic. Why call something a campaign to discredit when it could be a defense against false allegations? 87.116.178.19 (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

87, we are not adamant about only accepting left-wing media as reliable. We are adamant that only reliable sources will be accepted. I see that Following the initiation of the impeachment inquiry, Trump and his surrogates engaged in a campaign to discredit impeachment. seems to be unsourced. I have added a failed verification tag. Could someone add a citation, or rephrase it, or remove it? starship.paint (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Even though there is a reference, the sentence "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged, but baseless<reference> involvement with Ukraine" is poor. It is inaccurate. It is not "baseless" that they each had an "involvement", a connection of sorts, with Ukraine. What is baseless is the allegation that the connection involved misconduct of some kind. Can we find a better way to word this? How about "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son over alleged but unproven misconduct involving Ukraine." -- MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact I'm going to put that version of the sentence into the article. Can be discussed here if someone objects. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias in lead

If you assume that 35% of Americans are "Trump's base" and that therefore (say) 20% of all voters believe in some form of a deep state and/or conspiracy theories against Trump then the lead lacks any attempt to portray that 20%. This seems to be a question of WP:WEIGHT.

WP:NPOV states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Yes, the article's title is "Impeachment inquiry..." and so one might expect the vast majority of opinions (by realiable sources) to be based on that that inquiry. But just because most of the arguments against impeachment inquiry are (in my opinion) debunked conspiracy theories doesn't mean we should ignore them in the lead if, say, 10% of reliable sources (like Fox News?) believe in those theories.

To be fair, we should include a short paragraph about the responses from the White House and the Republicans, in addition to the "Two close associates of Trump..." at the start of the last paragraph in the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Upon reconsideration, I now believe that all of the text inside the lead expresses facts, or possible facts, not opinions or responses to the facts. --RoyGoldsmith (talk)

Alternative facts ? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Just because (in your e.g.) 20% of the population are completely delusional and grasping at straws doesn't mean they should be treated as fact in the article. Neutrality doesn't mean "have an equal amount of content from both sides of the extreme", it means "state facts and don't be partisan".  Nixinova  T  C  07:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course there is bias in the lede. This is Wikipedia where bias is an accepted practice. My complaint. Why no mention anywhere in this story of Ukraine’s Zelensky denial of any blackmail or quid pro quo? The latest was a well documented denial by Zelensky in Kyiv where 140 news correspondents were present. After all Zelensky was on the other end of that call, he should know. I have tried inputting this information, but have gotten reverted. So, red flag, bias. 10stone5 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

10stone5, when a hostage talks about how well his or her captors are treating him or her, do we accept that at face value? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Not here to give an opinion, but either scenario is definitely possible. Maybe Zelensky genuinely believes that the call was not coercion, or maybe he was lying to stay out of trouble, but only he knows that. I despise Trump, but I know that is never an excuse to harass him (or anyone else, really). Zelensky's denial does serve as weak evidence for Trump, but again, only Zelensky knows what he meant. Let's wait and see how the evidence leading to either scenario (actual impeachment or simply a Mueller probe all over again) unfolds. After all, the corruption accusation against Trump is a serious charge. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 19:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Stupid shit like this is why I can’t wait for them to get on with the vote and for it to all be over. Trillfendi (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It is astonishing how we as a whole interpret the facts these days, and it is also scary how a few of us take those facts and raise them from a civil issue to a legal issue. Let me admit this: I cannot trust the media to report this scandal accurately, but I also cannot trust conservative media to not put a spin on it. The events are either dramatized or downplayed or even incorrectly debunked. How can anyone not find Trump's concerns about the Bidens' alleged wrongdoing without presenting evidence to be potentially harassment? On the other hand, I find Muboshgu's above comment to be dramatic, but then again, no one is saying that they are wrong, yet. One thing we all can agree on is that it is frustrating to try to get the facts right without naïvely messing them up. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 18:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nixinova, 10stone5, Muboshgu, and Gamingforfun365: Nixinova, in my opinion neutrality does mean "have a proportional amount of content from all sides based on reliable sources." I object to talk like "Of course there is bias in the lede. This is Wikipedia where bias is an accepted practice." Just because there is some bias doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against it.

Other than that diatribe, 10stone5, your point about Zelenskyy's denial is well founded. I will try to add the denial again, based on sources that everyone should agree are reliable. If this gets reverted without a good reason, I'll start an RfC. 10stone5, do you know the date and time you added your content (that later got reverted), just so I can look up what you said? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

RoyGoldsmith, readding contentious material is not a good idea. Yes, Zelensky denied being pressured by Trump, in the presence of Trump. Reliable sources talk uniformly about the pressure campaign put on the Ukraine by the Trump administration. That's what we should be focusing on. Zelensky's denial belongs in the body, but not in the lead per WP:WEIGHT. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I think that 10stone5 was referring to a later press "marathon" (12 hours) that Zelensky had in Kyiv on October 10 (see here and here), not the meeting he had several weeks earlier in New York with Trump. In it Zelensky said that there was "no blackmail" in the phone call with Trump. I intend to put that information in the article's body, not in the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

RoyGoldsmith, Even then, common sense suggests that he knows Trump is going to pay attention to what he says, and he doesn't want to be involved in the situation anymore than he already is. Putting it in the body is fine. Putting it in the lead is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Also in Trump–Ukraine scandal. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact that all the sources are from those media outlets which have from day 1 been opposed to the Trump government is bias in itself. The entire article reads like a cnn opinion article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.161.157 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The article provides sources from over 30 outlets, including Fox News, the White House, and Trump. Please feel free to suggest other reliable sources that would improve the article. GoingBatty (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"incendiary rhetoric" is completely un-encyclopedic language Akeosnhaoe (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The entire tone of this article implies that Trump is already guilty and the impeachment inquiry is just finding the results of a forgone conclusion. Looking at just this specific sentence, it determines Trump is guilty when no such logic exists. "The inquiry revolves around a phone call between Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky implying that U.S. military aid to Ukraine was to be withheld until Zelensky gave in to the aforementioned demands." In the transcript, as provided to the public, there is no such implication. Trump asked Zelensky several times to investigate corruption. Having Ukraine corruption investigating is Zelensky's duty, as president of Ukraine. Trump is also duty bound to have US involved corruption investigated, since he happens to be the President of the United States. He mentions that AG Barr will be in touch. Not only is that AG Barr's sworn duty, it's his actual job. There is no mention of the aid being tied to such an investigation. The aid was held up some time earlier exactly because of corruption concerns. This is not criminal behavior, it is international politics. "We'll, give you money. You make sure we are not wasting it." This is how international politics is done. The over use of the term "quid pro quo", as if it is some sort of crime, would be more like "give me a truck load of Cuban cigars or you're not getting your millions of US tax dollars." This behavior has legal terms, blackmail, bribery, and extortion, depending on the circumstance. "Quid pro pro" should be dropped from this article except as a reference to the original accusations. And as we now know from the public, the inquires top "witnesses" are speaking entirely from hearsay. This entire episode has been spun by anti-Trump politicians and media to look like a crime. Those same media outlets are heavily used as citations in this article. If this is a crime, then the Biden's most definitely should also be investigated, because on the surface, they look a whole lot more guilty that Trump. That an article this long and heavily bias has made it onto Wikipedia reaffirms my decision not to donate any more until the editors learn to stop injecting so much opinion into political topics. I have raised this bias issue before and at the time I swore I wouldn't get involved again, and yet here I am ... again. You'd think I would learn. WAR-Ink (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Claiming the aid was held up earlier because of corruption concerns is bogus: US military aid is not provided as cash payment to a foreign country. The money is used to buy US military equipment which is then sent to the foreign country military. US defense contractors are paid directly by the US Treasury. The foreign country only receives military equipment, but no cash,so curruption is not a real issue in this case.

1. Multiple witnesses within who work for and on behalf of The President and the US Government disagree. They have both first hand experience of what you claim, and disagree with your assertions and those of the Republican base. The Whistleblower complaint may be framed as 'hearsay' (as they were not directly privy to the issues, but witness to the complaints) but every other witness is materially involved and directly involved in multiple stages of the negotiations. That no single person is directly involved with every stage, or that it requires overlapping statements to gain a full picture is an element common to most criminal law cases. The absence of several key witnesses instructed not to respond, or refusing to respond for unknown reasons (John Bolton) meanwhile does not tally with your claims that this is being spun by anti-Trump people. If these people could clear themselves, and Trump, then they surely would?

2. Aid is aid. Doesn't matter if it was cash or missiles. The way the aid is used or functions is not functionally important to the idea of it being "corrupt". It is the intent to extort another country through the use of withholding aid (be that money or missiles) is the crux of the issue. As agreed and attested to by every witness called. Koncorde (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The point of my comment was not about Trump's guilt or innocence. It was about the tone of the article being that of he is without question guilty of a crime and should be impeached. That has been significantly, and thankfully, toned down since. I have spent as much time on this as I am willing. So, good luck on the rest.

On Trump's guilt or innocence, two things of note; first, this case would most likely not stand up in a criminal court. The entire public hearing has been hearsay, conjecture, leading questions, etc. I watched the actual hearings, not the various media outlet's driveling on about everything being a "bomb shell" for one side or the other or both. My impression was that I not believe the US government was wasting time on this, rather than running the country. Second, you don't need a crime to impeach, you only need enough votes. This guy says it, for those that only accept journalists as the unerring fountain of truth.

"Does all this amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty of illegally extorting Zelenskiy (or, alternatively, soliciting a bribe from him in exchange for an official act)? No, but that standard of proof does not apply to impeachment, which in any case does not require a criminal act."

And, yes, you can quote him on that.

WAR-Ink (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I've read these articles up and down and been doing proofreading edits now and then, and I have seen no real bias. For the most part editors have used necessary qualifiers such as, "allegedly" and "according to," among others. Listing the facts as presented is not bias, neither is repeating testimony given under oath, (testimony wherein those testifying felt the phone call was improper and the actions of Giuliani were wrong). As far as Quid Pro Quo is concerned, it has been admitted to by several people involved in the scheme to withhold aid, including Mulvaney and Giuliani, among others. Repeating their statements is not biased, providing they are pulled from reliable sources. Impeachment is predicated on "High crimes and misdemeanors" btw. Persistent Corvid (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

"Whistle blower"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Isn't there a bona fide dispute as to whether or not he can be called a "whistle blower"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

NoArglebargle79 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, there is. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Not in reliable sources, which is the only thing that matters here. - MrX 🖋 22:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source right here. One Google search. I am sure there are plenty more. The ‘Whistleblower’ Probably Isn’t. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

That is Taibbi's opinion. He calls Edward Snowden a whistleblower, but lots of people contest that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course, it's an opinion. Some opine that he's a whistle-blower. Some, that he is not. Of course, it's opinion. Thus, a bona fide dispute (i.e., difference of opinion). I don't believe that the Supreme Court has "officially ruled" on this particular individual, and whether or not he is a "whistle blower". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Adam Schiff's "opinion" on this matters much more than Matt Taibbi's. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Taibbi is complaining that a person that has not yet been outed is being treated better than some other people who were outed against their will by the people they confided in, or were considered to have leaked state secrets beyond their official capacity (in effect 'leaking'), leaving them open to significant legal repurcussions. There are no legal repurcussions in this case however. The WB followed the chain of command, and the report was brought to light. If there was any leaking it has barely come to light. However if, for instance, it is proved that this individual went to the Democrats first and / or was in communication and actively participating in a coup with others, their experience would have largely been the same I expect.

In short, Taibbi is off the mark and aggrieved that another person's life hasn't been ruined yet. He is making an emotional argument that other "Whistleblowers" have thus far not been protected. It is basically a No True Scotsman fallacy. Otherwise, all other significant reliable sources are clear on their use of the terminology, and the WB is being treated as such and afforded the protection that should be due an individual that followed the appropriate channels. At best Taibbi article is best summed up as "in a Rolling Stone article Matt Taibbi compared the treatment of the CIA Whistleblower with earlier instances, and was critical of what he perceives to be an unequal set of outcomes". Koncorde (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not the point. There is a difference of opinion amongst scholars, legal experts, and constitutional lawyers as to whether or not the "whistle blower" is, in fact, a "whistle blower". Some say he is; some say he isn't. That is simple fact: there is a difference of opinion. Thus, it's a bona fide dispute. But, you guys can all keep your head in the sand and keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A whistleblower (also written as whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who exposes secretive information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within a private or public organization.[2]^[source] – also, the word "whistleblower" has been said dozens of times in the hearings to refer to the person. What exactly is being disputed here?  Nixinova  T C   01:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

My point is that people disagree as to whether or not he is a whistle blower. And, it's in reliable sources. Thus, it's a valid dispute. Reliable source: Andrew McCarthy: The ‘whistleblower’ isn’t really a whistleblower under the relevant law. He is a Constitutional scholar; in a reliable source. He is not a Wikipedia editor who, presumably, knows more about legal issues and Constitutional issues than does the author of this cited article (Andrew C. McCarthy). Who is not alone in his thinking. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

So what if people disagree when they are wrong? We don't give equal weight to WP:FRINGE opinions. (And a Fox News "opinion" piece by the author of this is not RS). – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Some Constitutional expert / legal scholar does not know about these legal matters ... but some anonymous Wikipedia editor knows better. You are correct! Not sure what I was thinking! Geez! I am glad that you settled the question and concluded that the lawyer is "wrong" and that you are "right". Thanks for the clarification! Glad you settled that question for all of us! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad that we agree that McCarthy is a political hack who is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: I can "disagree" with plenty of things—that's why we use WP:Reliable sources. And it would be wise on your part to refrain from sarcasm and personal attacks against other editors. WMSR (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Editor suggests there are experts and scholars; presents two opinion pieces from Rolling Stone and Fox News making two entirely different arguments that are presented as a synthetic whole, while using italicised words for maximum impact, but ignores vast weight of every other source. Even the Republicans refer to the Whistleblower as a Whistleblower. The only ones that haven't are Trump (who lives throwing around the word Traitor and Spy) and fringe supporters or critics taking purposely antagonistic positions, or contrarian views as a means of criticising the perceived political shenanigans. Koncorde (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I read the full opinion piece on National Review I thought it made some interesting points. The last summary line reads “The so-called whistleblower is not a statutory whistleblower, and his [sic] anonymity is not protected by law; but the Sixth Amendment has nothing to do with impeachment, and it does not advance a claim that the whistleblower should be outed and questioned.” Given that Andrew C. McCarthy is a former US attorney, and a noted columnist, I think his opinion piece meets RS and Notability, and is suitable for citing.Nowa (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nowa: Thanks. People above are claiming "not a reliable source" ... which is Wikipedia-speak for "well, yeah, it really is a reliable source, but I am going to pretend that it's not, because I don't want that information showing up in the article". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is another article that makes the case that the whistle-blower may not really be a whistle-blower (by legal and statutory definitions): Gregg Jarrett: The Trump whistleblower may not be a whistleblower at all. But, I'm sure that's not a "reliable source", either ... right? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You keep citing opinion pieces from people who are noted for their pro-Trump bias, thinking they are reliable sources. Why is that? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

How are these not reliable sources? Of course, it's an opinion. A legal opinion. By legal analysts. (About a legal issue, by the way.) There has been no "factual determination" (by the Supreme Court or any other Court) that this specific guy is or is not a whistle-blower by the relevant legal and statutory definition. So, yes, of course, it's opinion. And as I said above, a difference of opinion is a bona fide disagreement. Silly question that you ask ... you think that an anti-Trump biased commentator is going to make the claim? Bottom line: it's a valid difference of opinion amongst legal analysts ... using legal analysis. Hence, a bona fide dispute. And the opinions of these legal analysts supersedes the opinion of any random Wikipedia editor. Particularly, those who are using "Wiki-speak" to insure that the info does not get into the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:BIASEDSOURCES are not reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Who says they are biased? You do. And why is that? They took the statute and made a valid legal analysis of the statute. As lawyers do, day in and day out. That is the exact opposite of "bias". One can agree or disagree with the results. Hence, the bona fide dispute. It's a valid legal analysis, by valid legal analysts, published in valid reliable sources. You simply don't like what it concludes (i.e., showing your own bias and POV) ... and want to make sure that it does not get into the article. I was born yesterday? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

He's no impartial lawyer. According to reviews of Gregg Jarrett's book, it seems everyone thinks he's biased. Save those who agree with the bias. "Fox’s Neil Cavuto Challenges Trump-Boosting Colleague: ‘Do You Fault the President for Anything?’" – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with bias. Lawyer "A" argues one side of the argument; Lawyer "B" argues the other side of the argument. These legal analysts are offering their legal analysis of why they (legally) opine that the whistle-blower does (or does not) meet the legal and statutory definition of a "whistle-blower". It has nothing to do with Trump or any Trump bias. It's legal analysis of a statute, argued from both sides. And they are presenting the counter-point. Hence, a bona fide disagreement / dispute. It's rather clear that you have the bias here. Come hell or high water, you don't want this in the article. Again, I was born yesterday? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Lawyers do indeed make arguments on both sides, and then a judge can throw out a cockamamie argument. We haven't gotten to that point here, but then again I don't see any of these pro-Trump lawyers rushing to court to unmask the whistleblower. Because they're not in court, they're just trying to score political points. Why should we give WP:FALSEBALANCE to the WP:FRINGE notion that the whistleblower isn't a whistleblower? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

There's no talking with you. Your "conclusions" are the final and correct ones, period. In your own mind. Your bias is showing. Get a grip, dude. Glad you are more versed in legal analysis than the legal analysts are. Again, in your own mind. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

In this case, it is "final and correct" that the whistleblower is a whistleblower. If you want to get consensus that an op-ed by someone who is an out-and-out Trump booster is a reliable source on this, you can seek third opinions on WP:RS/N. I wouldn't hold out hope that they'll agree with you and your bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that the whistle-blower is -- or is not -- a whistle-blower. I said that legal analysts differ in their legal analysis. Hence, difference of legal opinion. Hence, bona fide dispute. Learn how to read. And, again, it's clear that you have the bias. Again, I was not born yesterday. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You should learn to be WP:CIVIL. And perhaps you didn't get what I said on FALSEBALANCE, or maybe you skipped over that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I got that you like to "Wiki Lawyer". Got it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Did anyone have a specific edit they were proposing?Nowa (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Obviously. "Some legal analysts have opined that he does not meet the statutory requirements to be called a 'whistle-blower'" ... or some such language. That was not obvious from above? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Not to this point, no. It would be a more constructive conversation if there was a specific proposal. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nowa (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Succinctly breaking down this thread into: "Some people disagree with the interpretation of a law, but are mistaken" maybe? Koncorde (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

No. The person has been referred to as "the whistleblower" thousands of times. A few opinion pieces at Fox News do not meet WP:WEIGHT compared to that universal usage. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you think that I am asking to include five or six paragraphs on the subject? Or a one-line blurb? Unreal. I see what this article is full of. POV-pushing agenda. No surprise. We have at least three legal analysts analyzing the statute and offering their legal opinions / analysis. All reliable sources. And legal analysts. But these Wikipedia editors know better. Love it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with MelanieN on this because it goes back to WP:BIASED as to whether these opinion articles should be used in this article. These are people who are paid by Fox News, an organization with an overt right-wing bias, to publish articles. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 04:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha. The Wikipedia editors are more expert than the legal analysts in, um, legal analysis. Got it! Thanks! By the way, do we ever use CNN or the New York Times -- you know, those with an overt left-wing bias -- as reliable sources? Just curious. Hmmmmmmm. I guess those also must be excluded as RS's ... am I correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph, Know who thinks the whistleblower is legitimate? The IC IG, that's who. The whistleblower filled out the necessary complaint form and everything. Persistent Corvid (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

And am I disputing that? Show me where I disputed that. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

If not, then why do the opinions of lawyers not directly involved matter? All that does is give undue weight to opinions that are contrary to fact. Persistent Corvid (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Video of Joe Biden

Video of Joe Biden's 2018 speech where he bragged about with-holding Ukrainian aid should be added as it was discussed during the impeachment hearings and are the comments President Trump is referring to in the Ukrainian call transcript The video is all over the web and on YouTube. There is a link to one below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY Here's a story from the Federalist about it. https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/24/watch-joe-biden-brag-about-bribing-ukraine-to-fire-the-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-company/ RBWilson1000 (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Umm.....no. This article is not about Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

And the article you cite has it backwards. That's what you get when you rely on The Federalist for factual information. Biden urged that the prosecutor, Shokin, be fired because the prosecutor was NOT investigating corruption at Burisma and other companies. Western nations everywhere were urging that Shokin be fired because he was part of the problem; he was squelching investigations into oligarchs and other corrupt actors. When Biden urged that the prosecutor be fired, he was following Obama administration policy intended to counter corruption in Ukraine - and incidentally making it MORE likely that Burisma would be investigated. Please read the real story: [7] Or see our article on Viktor Shokin. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

We also do not violate copyright or link to YouTube channels and websites that violate copyrights, as OP has done on this talk page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I read the article on Shokin. Are you sure it is correct? It appears that there may be evidence that the investigation was open at the time of the firing. John Solomon posted the evidence in his article that he says proves the case was open. RBWilson1000 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC) https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

I recommend you read up on recent revelations about the credibility of Solomon's reporting: "non-truths and non sequiturs," "his grammar might have been right," "false narrative," "entirely made up in full cloth." soibangla (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I heard retorts from Solomon and his comment was that generalized claims like this are made but the criticisms lack specificity and don't attack the detailed documentation that he attaches inside his articles (scribd documents [ex. sworn affidavits], video, story links, ect.). I noticed those quotes were opinions of people but there were more specific criticisms in this article. Ironically, the NYT story confirms from Mr. Lutsenko there was a do-not prosecute list - I guess the debate is why those individuals were on the list. We may learn more when Marie Yovanovitch testifies Friday. RBWilson1000 (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

RBWilson1000 — the detailed documentation that he attaches inside his articles is often misleading, much in the same way Judicial Watch provides documents then misrepresents what they say. The Shokin "affifavit," in particular, is dubious, due to the evident motives he and Firtash have. soibangla (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll keep by guard up regarding Shokin. However, from what I've seen the past couple of years John Solomon was onto the lack of substantiation for allegations of conspiracy between the 2016 Trump Campaign and Russian government long before other news outlets. Outlets that pushed single-anonymous sourced story after story shown untrue by the Mueller investigation. It really makes it hard to know what to believe anymore. RBWilson1000 (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

story after story shown untrue by the Mueller investigation Actually, see Mueller Report#Press coverage of the investigation. But anyway, this is a digression from the article. Solomon exists in the Hannity bubble and his work should be considered accordingly. soibangla (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Solomon exists in the Hannity bubble and his work should be considered accordingly There is a reason Fox News ratings went up after the Mueller report while CNN and MSNBC's fell as widely reported but this is a digression. Unfortunately, the skepticism of the latter sources from a conservative I know has drifted to Wikipedia now too. RBWilson1000 (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason Fox News ratings went up: many find cartoonish sensationalism entertaining. Let's stop this now. soibangla (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason Fox News ratings went up: Yes there is. Reality-based news went onto more mundane things, but the right-wing media bubble went into full-on hype mode to defend their tribe. Anyone who read the Mueller report knows that Donald Trump and his campaign welcomed assistance from Russia and did not report inappropriate advances to the FBI, that multiple Trump advisers including his campaign manager are crooks, often with ties to the Russian mob, and that Trump met the three elements of obstruction of justice on at least fur separate counts. The right wing media expended a vast amount of effort to establish a counter-narrative, and worked hard to keep its viewers watching while it did so.

We also know from analysis in publications like Network Propaganda that there is an asymmetric mechanism of bias in the US media. Mainstream and left-leaning media suffer a penalty if they publish false stories, hyper-partisan right media suffers if it publishes true stories that run counter to the preferred narrative. Fox lost social shares, clicks and ad revenue during 2015 and early 2016 as it published facts about Trump's shady past. When they got wholeheartedly on the Trump Train, they moved back up to the #1 slot in media shared by conservatives. And it's not as surprise. Ailes was a Nixon media adviser, he thought the real villains of Watergate were the press. All this is well documented. Fox was specifically created to counter the mainstream media. Guy (help!) 11:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct. Shokin was essentially just sitting on the case to give the appearance of an investigation, and it was narrowly and solely focused on details from before Hunter Biden joined the company (in other words, it had nothing to do with him or his actions). I would think the Federalist title implying Biden “bribed” Ukrainians should have given you pause to consider it wasn’t exactly a reliable or impartial source of information. Essentially, people pushing the theory you were citing are either twisting the story, or misinformed. Impeccably reliable investigative journalists have already sorted this. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I grabbed the Federalist story because it had the video in it. I probably should have been more careful. Didn't read it or care what the title was. Solomon has links to documents and a story from Ukraine in 2017 (see link) that seems to say the case wasn't closed until January 2017 in the opening paragraph - the prosecutor was fired March 2016. It just seems that the president's intent is important here. Did the president mention Biden six months before the first primary because he feared Biden politically, or because based on things like the video (which he may have misunderstood) he thought something corrupt happened? In this context it seems important but I am not a lawyer. https://www.kyivpost.com/business-wire/john-buretta-us-important-close-casesagainst-burisma-nikolayzlochevskyiin-legally-sound-manner.html RBWilson1000 (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Regardless of what you’ve said, that would be definitely be engaging in original research. We can evaluate sources and contributions, but this is more than a bit outside our wheelhouse. As far as I’m aware though, the firing of the prosecutor and the closing of the case is not necessarily causative, even if it is correlated. The gears of any government move slowly. We can’t draw any conclusions from a lack of evidence, regardless. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

User:RBWilson1000, you are correct that the investigations were still open when Shokin was fired, and otherwise much is recent spin. Factually, it seems Burisma (large, rich, connected) investigations were stalled before Shokin, during Shokin, and after Shokin and the next guy closed them. There’s also not much push from the U.S. at the time for investigations before or after. The Hill reported on once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Bidens story, and it’s possible the anecdote as told by Biden may be a bit embellished, plus Burisma memos may have been spinning they had influence on him that they didn’t really have. It also seems both Shokin and recently removed Prosecutor General Lutsenko have said things causing suspicion of Biden, and mentions of miscellaneous mentions of Ukrainian interference in the US 2016 elections have some WEIGHT. But there is not much plausible in those. It’s clear Hunter got money and the appropriateness of that was a concern for conflict of interest. It seems not very plausible Joe Biden was unaware, but also not very plausible that he did provable extortion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason why this article should be complicit in a partisan effort to deploy yet another conspiracy theory to divert attention from the pertinent facts emerging from these vital proceedings. soibangla (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm a registered Independent and did not vote for the president in 2016. I thought this was a historical account of the impeachment inquiry. The Biden comment was cited numerous times during the inquiry and by the president in the phone call for which the impeachment proceedings are about. The president clearly interpreted it as a potentially corrupt act and brought it up as such. How is it not appropriate for it to be included whether he is correct or not? RBWilson1000 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your political affiliation isn’t pertinent. While there are definite POV problems in the AP2 area, it’s largely down to worldview and how this jives with reliable sources. Not political parties. Coincidentally, I likewise am a non-partisan Independent (and libertarian), but that should have no bearing on our editing. Political leanings should always take a backseat to our core policies, especially verifiability, reliable sourcing, and the weight of those sources according to coverage and reputation for fact-checking. I suggest you read MelanieN’s comment again. Biden isn’t talking what you think he’s talking about. That selective interpretation is part of counter-narrative based on a conspiracy theory. Reliable sources have thoroughly debunked it. That some Republicans in the hearings are attempting to use this as a misguided preemptive “defense” for the President during the hearings is not our problem. We’re certainly not going to repeat what unreliable sources and pundits say, or politicians looking to spin the pertinent facts as a subjective “truth”, especially in wiki-voice. If anything, it’s going to show up here attributed, but put into the context of falsity that reliable sources are sure to demonstrate. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Since the genuineness of a rationale used in Trump's defense is a key part of the dispute that's leading to impeachment, it would be definitely non-neutral to assume the "president clearly interpreted it as a potentially corrupt act[.]" President Trump has a poor track record for truth. He has said many objectively false things over the past 3 years, that people cannot in good faith claim are true. We should not uncritically depict his claimed motives for acts as his confirmed true motive without robust corroboration. We should write that he "claimed" or "said" or "alleged" rather than "believed." Since we're not mind readers, that also a general good rule of thumb, even regarding people that have a normal track record regarding honesty. JamesAM (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

A couple of things.

• First, Biden was agitating to have Shokin fired. Shokin was corrupt and was not prosecuting large numbers of people, specifically including Zlochevsky and Burisma.
• Second, after Shokin was fired (in April 2016, Biden's visit was the previous December) Lutsenko was appointed. That required a change in the law in Ukraine to allow appointment of a non-lawyer to that post. There was no evidence then that he would be corrupt as well (in fact he is less corrupt than Shokin, but only in the sense that Michael Avenatti is a better lawyer than Larry Klayman), and no way at all that Biden or anyone else could have known he, specifically, would be appointed. The clear expectation was that Shokin would be replaced by someoen less corrupt and more serious about prosecuting Zlochevsky, who was, in turn, always a bigger target than Burisma.
• Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were clearly appointed with a view to currying favour in the US, but firing Shokin put Burisma at more risk, not less, and Yovanovich was a serious anti-corruption advocate as well.
• The claim of a "do not prosecute" list including Hunter Biden has been debunked: it originates with John Solomon and has been called "an outright fabrication" by the State Department.
• Finally, if corruption is that important, how come Trump allowed Perry to broker 50-year mineral extraction deals for his donors, at well below the high bidder? That is a clear and flagrant conflict of interest. Trump mentions Biden three times on the July call, and does not mention corruption or even Burisma.

It is legitimate to question whether Trump is honest here, and it is also clear that Biden's actions were, if anything, the opposite of what is claimed. It is abundantly clear that the appearance of conflict of interest was known in State at the time of Biden's visit. The most charitable explanation is that Trump - who by all accounts and evidence views the world through the lens of "everything I do is pure and perfect, everything done by any critic or opponent is disgusting and corrupt" - knows he would have advanced the interests of his adult children (as he has done multiple times while in office) and can't see why anyone else would not have done the same. Guy (help!) 23:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG|GUY - the Talk Pages are for the use of Reliable Sources to improve the article, not for you to soapbox your personal views of politics/politicians. WP:SOAP

We've just had a couple of weeks of testimony in which serious people with first hand knowledge and access to restricted information have confirmed every word of what I wrote above. Guy (help!) 11:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Upon further thought

Some of the data I removed in this edit can be useful to the overall impeachment article after they actually become part of the inquiry (the two politico refs I note do actually mention impeachment but don't actually cover the impeachment inquiry), but the section itself and how it was worded was simply entirely so unencyclopedic it is better for it to be removed at the moment and I don't have the time to properly insert the data into the article in the relevant sections. I recommend placing any of the data from those into a section for concurrent judicial proceedings or finding a way to chronologically add it inline into the article. ☕️ (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

They are already part of the inquiry. The Michael Cohen hearing last January (or was it February?), had as part of its mandate that if they found anything they would give it over to the Judiciary Committee, but Pelosi said that she didn't want an impeachment inquiry yet. Nadler first mentioned an impeachment inquiry as soon as the Meuller report came out and mentioned impeachment in a court filing prior to the Meuller hearing over the summer. So yeah, they are indeed part of impeachment proceedings. The reason that there's all those "concurrent judicial proceedings" coming to a head around now is leftover stuff from the earlier impeachment proceedings that are technically still going on, but have been forgotten because of the Ukraine extortion mishegaas that has riveted the nation and (forced this talk page to be archived a couple of times) had subsumed everything in its path.

Yeah, I know the title of what I put in the section on the collateral judicial proceedings wasn't particularly good, and I apologize for that.f I know that the section sticks out like a sore thumb. However, the mandate from September and the official rules voted last month, state that several committees have status as "subcommittees" with regard to this inquiry, and the Intelligence committee's report will not be the only one submitted to the HJC. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's announcement that she would rule on the McGahnn case on Monday was in response to a filing for relief from the HJC stating that McGahn, if Judge Jackson's decision was favorable, would be forced to tetify in full-blown hearings on the subject of obstruction in the Meuller case concurrent to the consideration of the HIC's impeachment report(s). This is tangential to the Ukraine stuff to be sure, but the article isn't titled "Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump in relation to the Ukraine scandal," it's "Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump." Either the article ends with yesterday's testimony (with an epilogue on the reports), or it doesn't.

If its the former, fine. We can mention the two reports when they come out and that they say. Then we can summarize them in a third article. (which I mentioned in an earlier post), which will contain a paragraph or two on McGahn and other Meuller stuff hearings before the votes on the actual articles. Whether or not we need an article on the Senate Trial is a topic for later.

If it's the latter, then what the heck do we do? What we have now is a long and detailed article that will be read by millions of elementary and middle school students for reports on the topic during the rest of the century. Do we just throw out 80% of the article as is and replace it with two or three longish paragraphs before a paragraph or two on what the HJC does, and then a paragraph on the vote and two more on the trial? Remember that this article was originally titled "The Impeachment of Donald Trump." We need to decide what to do NOW.

Sorry for the rant, but it needed to be said.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Date/Time Removal

Soibangla (talk · contribs), why did you remove the testimony times? This is reasonable information and suits the style of nesting multiple-testimony days. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 08:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey of editors: who believes Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified from 9:07am to 3:47pm EST. Later that day, Laura Cooper and David Hale co-testified from 5:40pm to 8:03pm EST. is worthy of inclusion? soibangla (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

If it's worthy, build a master table / calendar of who testified and when as a schedule. Koncorde (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

That already exists in §Public hearings. The times could be added as Footnotes to that table.  Nixinova  T C   00:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I would be okay with time ranges added to date data in the table. It just needs to be included somehow in the relevant section. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 06:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Not really seeing why it be significant narratively. If people want date and timestamps then they can read the relevant articles cited or go to the relevant table. Koncorde (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)