Talk:Second impeachment of Donald Trump - Wikiwand
For faster navigation, this Iframe is preloading the Wikiwand page for Talk:Second impeachment of Donald Trump.

Talk:Second impeachment of Donald Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing other viewpoint

Could anyone add a section about people who don't think Trump should be impeached/removed? I know that some commentators have opposed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokopelli7309 (talkcontribs) 22:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kokopelli7309: Could you provide some reliable sources detailing people with this viewpoint? Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@PinkPanda272: wouldn't Representative Dan Crenshaw's statement of dissent be an adequate example? I imagine fox news would be an acceptable outlet to exemplify dissent, since that would not be representing facts only opinions. Bgrus22 (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I think a self-published press release would fall foul of WP:ENDORSERFC. Feel free to add if you can find a secondary source though. Thanks, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 09:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@PinkPanda272: What about the House Republicans who voted against it? Many of them were acting based on conspiracy theories, but they're still high-profile enough figures to where it seems reasonable to amplify their opinions. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Go ahead and add something, just make sure you have the sources to back it up. Best, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 09:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well he's already been impeached, that's done. The conviction seems in doubt however at this point, only about 10% of GOP lawmakers have had enough winning apparently, and there's a lot of sources on both sides of that so that's ur best bet. Lycurgus (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel that if inclusion of a segment on the contrary opinion is to be excluded then it would fail scrutiny to include only segments of opinion and subjective matter that believe Mr. Trump should be impeached. All or none in my opinion, all arguments should be represented with equity and equanimity. Alex89ze (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

All these TALK articles are in consensus. The article is trashed. This is a BLP article - political rants will be deleted first, and added in ONLY AFTER CONSENSUS.

Inject BALANCED content, provide reliable and current sources, and use constructive editing instead of rollbacks. --Frobozz1 (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The very term Impeachment is volatile at the start and congress, as loving as they want to project themselves as and ready to stand with the constitutional position of innocent till proven guilty, should change it immediately. Impeaching comes by a guilty finding, after the CJ says a trial will go forward. Not by ginning up 'an effort to embarrass' in the House or finding an unconstitutional replacement for the CJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"most bipartisan impeachment in history"

This is of course factual and an important point, but I find it a bit misleading because of Nixon's resignation before imminent and certain impeachment. To someone not steeped in US politics it sounds like Trump's impeachment has the most general congressional support in the nation's history, regardless of process. I think it could be clarified or maybe moved out of the lead. Ovinus (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Well Nixon was never impeached, but it is essential to clarify that this is the most bipartisan presidential impeachment in history. Many impeachments, mostly of judges, had much broader support. I also don't believe this is the only impeachment where the House majority was unanimous. If there are no objections, I will qualify these statements as appropriate. It seems like many easily forget about non-presidential impeachments, or think only presidents have been impeached. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, that's an important clarification too. But I still think the point about Nixon is important because it was only for procedural reasons—his resignation—that he wasn't impeached; his support was very low. Ovinus (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how this is misleading. As a reader, I don't think that this necessarily means Trump saw most bipartisan opposition - there could well have been more support for previous impeachments, had those impeachments come about. Perhaps Nixon would have been impeached with more bipartisan support. Perhaps other presidents would have been also. We'll never know. I think it's clear from the statement though that this is the most bipartisan support for an impeachment... among impeachments which actually happened. Awoma (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I revised it to say "the most bipartisan presidential impeachment." There are a lot of people who are unaware that not only presidents can be impeached and that the majority of impeachments have involved judges. The most recent judicial impeachment (Thomas Porteous) saw overwhelming margins in the House with no "nay" votes. Thus, adding the word "presidential" is accurate and should be non-controversial. 1995hoo (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe be false. Andrew Johnson was more bipartisan by far.Vanny089 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

0 Democrats for yea in Andrew Johnson. Your recollection is in error. (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
But some Republicans were for Johnson, not all against him. So that was the most bipartisan Vanny089 (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm also going add the "presidential" qualifier to the statement about the majority caucus being unanimous, as the Porteous impeachment was unanimous across the entire House on all 4 articles. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe the most appropriate course of action is to remove mention of other impeachment’s not directly related to Mr. Donald Trump’a presidency be removed or isolated into a sub-segment that specifies related similarities between his and other presidents’ or officials’ impeachment’s. I would also suggest that impeachment references here focus on presidential impeachment’s but not exclusively. It would likely benefit readers to learn of similarities between this and other lower office impeachment’s like those of senators, congressmen/women, judges and governors. Alex89ze (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The points in here need addressing, the opening line is trivial, one-sided, and uninforming. There were many precedents which were set, my improvements got rolled back into the garbled breaking news it started as. Here are the rollback comments:

(This is not constructive, is garbled in parts, and contains WP:OR/WP:SYN (use of a 2015 article is an article about a 2021 event is one example). Please go to the article talk page to seek (and obtain) consensus before re-inserting any of this. Undid revision 1007548583

  1. "Use of 2015 article" is about Andrew Johnson's impeachment. It has not changed, I am certain, the link is from an already cited source.
  2. No one but no one tracks "majority caucus" statistics. If so, it can drop into a trivia page.
  3. I changed the relative and meaningless numbers like "10 Republicans" into a meaningful proportion, and contrasted it against Johnson's numbers. I believe the following statistics are relevant and encyclopedic, and well-sourced from Congress voter rolls. Percentages are not OR, they are WP:CALC using the template:percent. This gives meaning and perspective to the numbers without bias. Edit suggestion below:

--Frobozz1 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

As no one seems to care to discuss, I hear no objections. Following the "Be Bold" editor mantra. This edit fixes massive sensationalism problems with the article which derives all of its content from breaking news partisan issues in the opening paragraph. I hope an editor finds this who can avoid painting a narrative and knows more than the delete button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talkcontribs) 00:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Frobozz1, a decent point, I think it just got lost in the talk page discussion. I went ahead and toned down the use of the word "bipartisan", and the "most in history" type language. [1]Novem Linguae (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This vote in the House to go to the Senate for trial was nothing in-live with a bipartisan effort; there wasn't a credible percentile of sufficient numbers to call it such. The percentage of ten votes out of two hundred eleven is on par to similarity with a shot into the dark by a blind man. That there were no nay votes by the majority Democratic party displays it wasn't bipartisan but a weird dark-politic psychological drive to quash dissent to the lack of credible evidence to the purported crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Incitement vs sedition

The article and the main page blurb link to Sedition for the term "incitement of insurrection". Is there an RS that equates the impeachment charge with the crime of sedition? It seems like Incitement might be a better wikilink. AnonQuixote (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I changed this as an unsourced claim per the BLP notice: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." Please discuss before reverting/adding it back. I also raised the issue for the In the News item: Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors § Impeachment charge. AnonQuixote (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Netherzone / Czello - you have proposed adding back the wikilink, do you have a source for this? Please discuss here rather than edit warring, thanks. AnonQuixote (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@AnonQuixote: Please do not accuse me of edit warring. You changed the infobox information without first seeking consensus on talk, and I left a friendly note in my edit summary, "How about waiting until others weigh in on talk for consensus before making this change?" Changing infobox info without first seeking consensus could be considered a controversial change, which is why I undid your edit and added my note. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Netherzone: I didn't accuse you of edit warring, but asked you not to start doing so, and instead discuss on talk before adding this unsourced claim back to the article. Removing unsourced information from a BLP should not be a controversial change as reliable sourcing is fundamental to Wikipedia's policies. AnonQuixote (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I have posted to the BLP noticeboard due to edit warring behavior seeking to re-add the unsourced claims. AnonQuixote (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@AnonQuixote: In this case, by my understanding of the articles that have been drawn up, the clause of "incitement of insurrection" qualifies for sedition by virtue of being included in an article of impeachment. I do think, however, that the link you removed counts as a WP:EASTEREGG, so it'd be better to be more clear with whatever link we replace it with.—WingedSerif (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not permit personal opinions or original research, all information needs to follow reliable sources. AnonQuixote (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware. As I said, impeachment defines what is considered seditious by the US government. Have a source if that helps. —WingedSerif (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Your source does not support your claim, and the idea that any impeachable offense is considered sedition is just completely wrong. AnonQuixote (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with your opinion. —WingedSerif (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Your opinion is not relevant here. According to Wikipedia's policy, original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you can provide a reliable source that supports your bizarre legal theory, then please post it. Otherwise, feel free to write your own theories on your blog or social media page, not on Wikipedia. AnonQuixote (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I think incitement is proper here since that is the term the impeachment article uses. If anything, it would be "incitement of sedition", not necessarily sedition itself. We should follow the primary and secondary sources, not decide ourselves whether or not to use sedition. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The text of the impeachment articles levels accusations of "[engaging] in ... seditious acts." So, that's in there too FWIW. —WingedSerif (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The text should read, Incitement of sedition, or Engaging in seditious acts. Winged Serif's Los Angeles Times source is a good one. Netherzone (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
The text alleges that "Incited by President Trump, a mob unlawfully breached the Capitol, injured law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress and the Vice President, interfered with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the election results, and engaged in violent, deadly, destructive and seditious acts." It does not state that Trump committed seditious acts. Moreover, any inferences drawn from the text must be supported by reliable sources per WP:SYN. AnonQuixote (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of sedition is "incitement of insurrection".[2]. It is not controversial for the infobox to contain that phrase with a piped wikilink to sedition. I suggest that it be changed back to how it was before it was reverted three times. Netherzone (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Connecting two unrelated sources would be improper synthesis unless a legal reliable source has connected the specific charge in the impeachment to the legal concept of sedition. The House of Representatives is perfectly capable of using the word "sedition" if that was the charge; however, they did not. AnonQuixote (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

For reference, a Bio Noticeboard thread has been opened on this topic. —WingedSerif (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The result of the BLP/N discussion was: "the community consensus is that equating 'inciting insurrection' to 'sedition' is fine", so I have changed the wording to reflect that consensus. AnonQuixote (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have made an AE request due to AnonQuixote's continued edit-warring. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say that to include any statements that insinuate legitimacy to a claim of insurrection or incitement of insurrection should review the case law and legal precedent set in the case of US v Aaron Burr. Insurrection legally requires actionable plans and efforts to organize and arm an insurrection/rebellion rather than discussion of or incitement of insurrection being an act legally able to be prosecuted. I could say that you should start a revolution and overthrow the US government and I would still be, by the legal precedent set in this case law and others regarding insurrection, protected from prosecution and any attempts to do so without substantiating evidence that I am actively engaged in an effort to arm and organize an actual revolution would almost be guaranteed to have dismissal by the prosecutor applied prior to even entering a court room, and by the judge or magistrate if it did manage to make it past the prosecutor. Alex89ze (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

President vs ex-President

The whole President vs ex-President issue, reaching into matters such as who will preside over the impeachment trial, makes me wonder: Aren't crimes judges according to the situation that crimes happened? I am not familiar with American law, so I don't know what its legal principles are. Maybe someone can explain this to me and maybe to the readers with a suitable addition in the article. The way I see it, the impeachment is about a President no matter if he remains President or not. Nxavar (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Nxavar, the CJ of the USSC is adept with proceeding as a criminal court. Worry ye not. Trump was already out of office. The democrats want to impeach every president that opposes their welfare give-away drive to run the country into abject solvency.

there’s also the fact that if you can’t convict a president after impeachment after he resigns; that means if the president knows there’s a trial coming up, he can just resign before takes place; that just seems like a massive loophole to me SRD625 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

srd625, in government the president can't be charged with a crime and go serve time in a prison. By law the finding one being guilty after being properly adjudicated of high crimes and misdemeanors and removal from office by impeachment is to immediately remove him from office.
Sorry for getting into WP:NOTAFORUM territory here but this comment got me thinking -- why doesn't Trump just resign right now, or a day before he leaves office, in order to avoid impeachment proceedings? Or does that not prevent them after they've started? If so I wonder why he didn't resign say 3 days ago. — Czello 12:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Czello, President Trump knew he was not guilty,and moreover knew what it takes for his adversaries prove their charges, and some of their charges it's said were veritably impossible to prove.
I don't want to get into the question of Trump himself resigning because I don't want to comment on politics or personalities. But whether the Senate can continue with a trial after a person resigns or after his term expires is one of the matters in question these days, and some senators have said they will not vote to convict Trump because they believe the Senate will lose jurisdiction when Trump's term expires. There is likely to be a motion to dismiss the proceedings on that basis. But the Senate need not necessarily grant that. Consider the impeachment of William W. Belknap, President Grant's Secretary of War, in 1876. He resigned under threat of impeachment, but the House impeached him anyway and the Senate tried (and acquitted) him. That precedent is probably sufficient basis for the Senate to proceed to trial in Trump's case. If Trump were to be convicted by the Senate, no doubt he would attempt to litigate the question in the federal courts, but his chances of success would be questionable because the Supreme Court has noted that the Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, meaning that the courts are not permitted to get involved. There's been some suggestion in a concurring opinion, I believe by Justice Souter or Justice Kennedy (I forget by whom), that if the Senate were to do something totally off the rails, like "voting" to conflict by flipping a coin or convicting because of a sense that the defendant was simply a "bad guy," then the courts might be able to overturn that, but those hypotheticals are really pretty far-fetched. 1995hoo (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
If the impeachment trial of Donald Trump is held after he leaves office, Harris would preside over the trial. The Constitution only calls for the Chief Justice to preside, if it's a trial of the incumbent president. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The Constitution doesn't actually say that in the way you are wording it. It simply says, quote, "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside ...." U.S. Const., art. I, § 3, cl. 6. With that said, it does seem reasonable that either Harris or the president pro tem would preside. The reason the Chief Justice presides over a trial involving the President is the inherent conflict of interest if the Vice President, who would succeed to the presidency following a conviction, were to preside, and that conflict of interest isn't present if the trial involves a former president. We'll find out in a few days or weeks what the Senate, and the Chief Justice, decide in this particular case. 1995hoo (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Since Trump won't be president when/if the trial is held. Harris will be allowed to preside. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Why do you keep posting these comments? Why don't you just wait and find out like everyone else? You don't know what's going to happen, and you've already proven (through your comments about disqualification) that your knowledge has gaps. There's no point in adding something to the article about Harris presiding because that would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Hmm, you're making me think I ought to check the article to revert any such speculation. 1995hoo (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I haven't added anything to this article, on this topic. We don't even know if a trial will be held. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
If Kamala Harris presides, then the Senate shows that it is not trying a president. The decision of who gets to preside can provide or deny legitimacy to those who claim that the Senate has no authority to convict. Nxavar (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone is wrong. Belknap is given as a precedent but there are more precedents that impeachment stops, at least for federal judges. There may be a motion to dismiss the case. It could be 50-50 then the Chief Justice decides.

As far as the Chief Justice presiding, the Chief Justice shall/must preside over an impeachment of a President but there is no law or Constitutional provision about an ex president. The Chief Justice could say "I don't have to preside and I won't". If VP Harris then presides, it will look bad. OTOH, the Chief Justice may decide to preside. I am qualified to write these things because I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. Vanny089 (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The impeachment was made while Trump was still president, so the trial is in reference to that. As such, it is still the trial of a president and the chief justice must preside. --Khajidha (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


The article should read accurately. The last line of the first paragraph should read "He is the only U.S. president and the only holder of any federal office to have been impeached twice, the previous time in December 2019 for ALLEGED abuse of power and obstruction of Congress." Similarly, the first line of the second paragraph should read "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House would impeach Trump for ALLEGEDLY instigating "an armed insurrection against America" if his Cabinet did not strip him of his powers and duties using the 25th Amendment. Until or unless the allegations are proven they are just that - allegations. In the case of the first impeachment, the Senate trial did not find Trump guilty, so the House's allegations remain as allegations. In the case of the second impeachment, since there has been no trial yet the charges are also allegations at this point. Vinny Gambino (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the first case, however disagree with the second. "Impeach for X" implies an allegation, equivalent to "indicted for X". AnonQuixote (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually thinking about this a bit more, I retract my previous opinion. Both instances state he was indicted for a given charge, which is accurate, but I'm not sure if it's necessary to explicitly describe the charge as alleged or if that can be considered to be implied. AnonQuixote (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
It's actually pretty simple. If the allegations are proven, they are no longer "alleged". However, since the first impeachment did not result in a conviction, then the allegations remain just that. The last line of the first paragraph should read "He is the only U.S. president and the only holder of any federal office to have been impeached twice, the previous time in December 2019 for ALLEGED abuse of power and obstruction of Congress." Vinny Gambino (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
No change needed. Just as we can say that someone was indicted for burglary or charged with burglary regardless of the outcome, so too can we say that someone was impeached for abuse of power. --Khajidha (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Am I right in interpreting this edit as either not matching or rushing consensus (per WP:NOCONSENSUS)? FWIW, I preferred the previous version of the page, without "alleged"—these articles of impeachment had different allegation, the impeachment was successful, and I think the article as a whole makes it clear enough that the final results will depend on the trial. —WingedSerif (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence in relation to USA courts and other legal proceedings should be maintained. To do otherwise is reckless and intellectually dishonest in addition to its immorality and violation of the principles on which this nation was founded. “Allegedly” and “alleged” should be maintained in all unproven statements and descriptions, and even once proven, the portions that cover the initial proceedings and investigations should include such terms to ensure that the absence of conviction at such time is maintained, and only removed for the post trial points once a conviction is achieved. Alex89ze (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The Impeachmoot of Donald Trump

"Another law expert and professor denounced the Democrat-led impeachment in the House of Representatives against President Donald Trump, saying it is unconstitutional and damaging to America's rule of law, a report said on Wednesday. After national legal adviser and The George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley called the "snap impeachment" a "contradiction of constitutional terms" as a "dangerous precedent" being done by his co-Democrats, comes former Harvard School Law professor Alan Dershowitz who called the impeachment a theatrical display...."The Constitution only empowers Congress to impeach and remove a president from office. Once he's out of office, Congress loses jurisdiction, they can't have a trial." -Topcat777 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of legal experts saying the opposite; And there has been precedent of something similar being done before SRD625 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a very thin precedent. Two cases- Blount and Belknap. In the Blount case the senators eventually ruled that they didn't have jurisdiction. Belknap was acquitted because enough senators thought the same - no jurisdiction. -Topcat777 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't find any discussion of this news source in WP:RSN archives and there's no WP article on it. There is an article about Jonathan Turley, though. Are there other sources reporting about this? If WP:DUE, it'd likely be for the opinions section. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, it's already in the article, using a citation from The Hill. —PaleoNeonate – 22:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

In the Background section, based on the judgment of AP and CNN, wikipedian editors have come to the conclusion that the 2020 US Presidential Elections were the most fair ones in the history. Anything others say must be "false". I beg to differ. (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You have any actual EVIDENCE? Because multiple recounts and multiple court cases haven't found any. --Khajidha (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

So it appears that the legal precedent set in the Belknap case is that once the official is no longer holding office that jurisdiction has ended? Why then is there opinion being continually inserted into this Wikipedia article? Alex89ze (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

EngvarA or Use American English

Hi, i found in the article that there are two different tags that actually redirected to the same things. First i see (EngvarA/date=January 2021), the second is (Use American English/date=January 2021), all of them redirect to American English templates. I keep wondering, why a user adding (Use American English) tag in the article if there is already have (EngvarA) tag which actually redirected to the same thing, like (EngvarB) which actually similar as (Use British English). Doesn't EngvarA also refers to Australian English variant? (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Editors mistakenly adding "See also" hatnote to top of page

Several times I've noticed editors adding Template:See also to the top of this page to add links to related articles. Although clearly intended to be helpful, this is incorrect per the template description:

Do not use this template on top of a page, where hatnotes are for disambiguation and not for related topics.

Is there some way to add a reminder about this so future editors don't keep making this mistake? AnonQuixote (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Why isn't there a prominent "see also" to the first impeachment? It is really odd that there are not prominent links between these articles in the header or infoboxes.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Lede has false claims

Either result would trigger a second vote in which a simple majority in the..

This is simply false. Not would but could.Vanny089 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Unwise: resignation section

Scenarios, resignation section.


If Trump were to resign, Vice President Mike Pence would become the 46th president of the United States; he would be the shortest-serving president ever, being in office for up to just 1 days before handing power to Joe Biden as the 47th president on January 20. This would surpass the record of William Henry Harrison, who died 31 days into his term. It would be the second time in history that a president would be forced to resign; the first was the 1974 resignation of Richard Nixon when it appeared inevitable that he would be impeached and removed from office for his role in the Watergate scandal.

Fine for now but after January 20, this sounds like an old newspaper. If Trump were to say he's gay, it would be the first. If Trump were to defect to Mexico, it would be the first. All these, including resignation is speculation. It should be removed now or later. Unless WP wants to look silly. Vanny089 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Also - There is plenty of evidence that James Buchanan was the first gay President. Vinny Gambino (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, although disagree on it being speculation since it is factually what would happen if discussed alternatives took place. But I digress; the "what ifs" in the article no longer inform in any substantial way as of tomorrow, and should be trimmed down to only reference what actually took place. DarkRaiiin (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Impeachment Trial Process after Nixon v. United States

In the heat of a present moment or partisan crisis, such as the HoR 2nd impeachment of POTUS Trunp, it is not always possible to find WP RS online sufficiently dispassionate to avoid some degree of misinformation or suppression. Some editors, aiming to improve the article, and therefore concerned to refresh their understanding of the political and constitutional issues in the background, may find it helpful (as I have) to see (or look again at) a cool analysis such as this review: How Much Process Is Due: The Senate Impeachment Trial Process after Nixon v. United States by Jennifer L. Blum, 1994[3]. As I see it, among the issues are questions about Right to a fair trial, Due process, Nemo iudex in causa sua (a vice-president presiding at the senate hearing), Audi alteram partem and Recusal in the United States. -Qexigator (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

In presidential impeachment trials, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides, not the Vice President. See Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7. --Khajidha (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Donald Trump's case is unprecedented. There is less than 48 hours before he ceases to be President, and if the impeachment trial had started, would it lapse or continue with v-p Harris presiding? We may surmise that all concerned will be aware that it is a question of timing. Something may be happening even as we write. Qexigator (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Neither Pence nor Harris will preside. The Constitution expressly gives that role to the Chief Justice, so I am not sure what you are even asking. --Khajidha (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
These "what if" may be interesting but shouldn't be part of the article. What if a President were impeached but the chief justice died of a stroke, the president then nominate himself as chief justice and then presides over his own trial? Former presidents have served on the supreme court, see Taft Vanny089 (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:CRYSTAL, predictions and theories made by reliable, expert sources are OK. And since this event is "almost certain to take place" and there is extensive coverage and historical precedent, it seems appropriate to keep here. However, it might be better to examine the main article (Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump) for this concern —WingedSerif (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, best to leave information about events after the Biden inauguration on 20 January to the main article Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. As said above, Trump's case is unprecedented, and now he is not POTUS, and the senate has not yet received the impeachment from the HoR. At this stage we could improve this article by trimming much of the sections on 'Impeachment' and 'invoking the 25th Amendment', which have been overtaken by the passage of the last two or three days, per section 'Senate trial'. Qexigator (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Updates please

Some of the material is out of date now, can we update the information on the Senate's proceedings, if/when/whether? GPinkerton (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, you are certainly welcome to WP:DIY if you wish. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
For instance see here CNBC Jan 21[4] and here France24 22/01/2021 [5] Qexigator (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Also the lede states the sending of Article(s) from the House to Senate and subsequent trial as a possibility rather than a certainty when it is a) required constitutionally once the article(s) have/has passed the House, and b) they actually have just been declared by Leader Schumer to be transmitted Monday and an agreement to start the trial on the 9th is reported. Lycurgus (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Kangaroo Impeachment & Kangaroo Wikipedia Article

I believe there are several reliable sources that mention there were no hearings and no witnesses in this impeachment, but the article ignores those facts. Why? "We don't need no stinkin' hearin's!" is not a good answer. -Topcat777 (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Which RS would those be, specifically? David O. Johnson (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

CNN:"Top House Republican says they are "rushing to judgment" with impeaching Trump" CBS quoting Sen. Graham: "The House impeachment process seeks to legitimize a snap impeachment totally void of due process. No hearings. No witnesses. It is a rushed process that, over time, will become a threat to future presidents." -Topcat777 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The trial is in the Senate. The House is more akin to a grand jury. And the Senate didn't call witnesses in the first trial, so these comments by Graham are quite rich. It's just hot air. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
How many impeachments has the House conducted without hearings or witnesses? Is it one (the current one)? Know of any others? -Topcat777 (talk) 24:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Topcat777, there's only been four impeachments of presidents total. This was much faster than the other three, but as Lycurgus pointed out, the House didn't do anything outside of the rules on impeachment. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's the full list of individuals impeached by the House. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Looked it up and a few were in fact, there's no stipulation for the processes you're trying to throw up. The details of the procedures within the constitutionally established quidelines are purely up to the respective bodies which are otherwise self governing. The US legislature isn't an ordinary court of common law. You seem to forget the circumstances, the fact that it's a second attempt to impeach after a first process heavy attempt and the fact of the underlying attempt to deal in a timely manner with an institutional crisis. Several of them in fact, one of which is evident in the title of this thread, the unmooring of one of the major parties. Lycurgus (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"Second impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Second impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 22#Second impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SecretName101 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I think it would be useful to cite that there was no inquiry for the second impeachment, but I'm not finding a good location to do so. Any ideas? -- Tavix (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent Quote worth adding?

Worth adding? - Following Quote ("A failed coup without consequences becomes a training exercise.")[4][5][6] seems relevant - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ Glass, Andrew (February 24, 2015). "House votes to impeach Andrew Johnson, February 24, 1868". Retrieved April 24, 2018.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference rollcall17 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Sheth, Sonam (January 14, 2021). "Trump's 2nd impeachment is the most bipartisan in US history". Business Insider. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved January 25, 2021.
  4. ^ Melber, Ari (February 12, 2021). "Latest Threads - "A failed coup without consequences becomes a training exercise." - MSNBC-TV, 02/12/2021, 06:50pm/et/usa". MSNBC News. Retrieved February 12, 2021.
  5. ^ Blumenthal, Richard (February 12, 2021). "Last Work with Lawrence O'Donnell - interviewing Senator Richard Blumenthal - MSNBC-TV, 02/12/2021, 10:17pm/et/usa". MSNBC News. Retrieved February 12, 2021.
  6. ^ Staff (January 25, 2021). "If Trump's Coup Attempt Goes Unpunished, It Will Be Considered a Training Exercise". Words & Deeds (blog). Retrieved February 13, 2021.
I think that unless the quote comes from a very reliable source—a historical academic study or a current political expert on coups—this would risk violating WP:CRYSTAL. It might be acceptable as a way to demonstrate how the event was perceived by journalists or politicians. —Wingedserif (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Why no witnesses – Never heard of The Buck Stops Here?

WP:NOTFORUM. Discuss editing the topic, please, not the topic itself. Zaathras (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

How wrong this was could be immediately seen when Trump's lawyer quite gloatingly dismissed the deposition of Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler as a mere statement without any value. How could the House managers and the Senate be so lazy? Even if there wouldn't have been 67 votes for conviction – this important revelation about Trump's behavior had to be brought to open display before the Senate and his lawyers would have had to contest it in order to dismiss it. And other issues would have come into daylight, too.

Now many facts are still buried in the dark because the impeachment managers and the Senate passed the buck to the courts: It had to be stopped here, in the Senate.

The Senate just honored police officer Eugene Goodman: Imagine for a minute Mr. Goodman would have thought for his own comfort first and Trump's mob had succeeded in getting to the chamber with the senators in it. But for Mr. Goodman the mob had to be stopped here at him and with courage, skill and luck he won and saved the Republic!

And what did the Senate and the impeachment managers do? They let Mr. Goodman and Mrs. Herrera Beutler and all the law-abiding people in the U.S. and in the West down. What was the reason for this quitting, who influenced them? This must come to light! --Sunsarestars (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sunsarestars, WP:NOTAFORUM. Let's focus on article editing. Personally, I discuss politics on Reddit. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2021 (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.

The edits in this Wikipedia article are partisan and opinionated rather than objectively/factually accurate

First example:

“ well as his pushing of baseless voter fraud conspiracy theories about the election.”

There has been no proof that the allegations of voter fraud are baseless, rather, there has been a large quanta of evidence provided to support these claims and little done to counter such aside from dismissal of the claims, ignorance of the supporting evidence and claims that since the court cases were dismissed, on procedural grounds, that there must be no merit to the cases and evidence. Such statements, viewpoints and standpoints are contra indicative to the intellectual honesty & integrity of Wikipedia and the supporting editors, scientific principal and process of theory, as well as the general laws of argument. As has been shown throughout history, framing opinions or standpoints as “conspiracy theory” is only an attempt to discredit the claimant and the argument via a straw man among other violations of the laws of argument. It would better serve history and the facts to eliminate opinion and suggestive and intellectually dishonest framing and rather utilize the facts. The USA’a CIA coined the terminology “Conspiracy Theory” and “Conspiracy Theorist” in order to discredit whistleblowers on the MK-ULTRA project and their unconstitutional and unlawful abuses of US Citizens on US soil.

Second example:

“At the rally, Trump as well as other speakers repeated the false claims that the election was fraudulently ‘stolen’...”

Again this statement is intellectually dishonest and only seeks to shape the narrative in a manner that deviates from reality. It would be better restructured to state “repeated the claims” as it is irrelevant to qualify the argument with opinion and manipulative language if statement of facts and evidence support the statement.

Third example:

“Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died as a result of the riots, while several improvised explosive devices were found on and near the Capitol grounds.[16][17]“

Framing, relevance to the intended point, etc. this statement seems to have the addition of the IEDs as a scare tactic and framing point to manipulate readers into thinking there is some sort of direct tie between the deaths and the IEDs, as well as Donald Trump and the IEDs. This is again, as mentioned previously multiple times and intellectually dishonest maneuver and serves only to violate additional laws of argument, leaning towards poisoning the well rather than allowing the facts to stand for themselves. Separate the discovery of the IEDs into a new sentence and segment that discusses related events and happenings, especially considering there is little information as to whether the IEDs were live explosive devices containing UXO, or were dummy devices. There also remains a lack of information as to who planted these devices and why there was such a delay in discovery considering the gratuitous amount of public surveillance and monitoring of the US, Washington District of Columbia (DC).

Fourth example:

“ Another Capitol police officer on duty during the riots died by suicide days later.[18]”

Relevance and framing. Why is it being structured in a manner to make the officer, who committed suicide, appear to be a victim of the alleged insurrection/rebellion? It would better suit the facts and reality to state that the officer “...riots committed suicide several days later.”

Considering all of the information involved this appears more and more to be some sort of PsyOP campaign on US soil as was made legal for the CIA to conduct on American citizens on US soil during a recent president’s tenure. Alex89ze (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Alex89ze, I removed "baseless" from #1, conspiracy theories are obviously baseless so that was a bit POV to emphasize, imo. You could argue the rest is a little strong, but I think it's what the reliable sources are saying, and on Wikipedia, we try to reflect what mainstream, trusted, reliable sources say about things. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I do appreciate that gesture in good faith here.

I understand attempting to stick to mainstream, trusted and reliable sources, but I feel I would fail in my duty to intellectual honesty and fair and accurate argument if I were not to insist that opinion is not something which has a place in an article or forum for facts outside of a specified area discussing the opinions labeled as such, rather than utilizing such as a framing mechanism to shift the arguments into a questionable direction. I believe it would be better suited to subsections within this article which discuss the differing opinions on the particular case-matter. Alex89ze (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

There are no different opinions on this matter, really. There is what actually happened vs. what conspiracy theorists claim happened. Giving conspiracy theorists equal time in a Wikipedia article violates WP:UNDUE. Zaathras (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"There has been no proof that the allegations of voter fraud are baseless" Since when does anyone have to prove a negative? There is no need to prove that something did not happen. "gnorance of the supporting evidence and claims that since the court cases were dismissed, on procedural grounds, that there must be no merit to the cases and evidence" A variety of the court cases were dismissed on merit. It is simply untrue that they were all dismissed on procedural grouns. The AG found no evidence, the courts were not provided with evidence, several large government institutions found no evidence. Therefore, there is no evidence and it does not have to proven that there is none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:ca:5713:5e00:5925:bf53:e51e:ef42 (talk • contribs)

Under WP:BLP I am removing all "false claims of voter fraud" and related allegations which source from breaking news, sensationalism sources, and op/ed's until some bipartisan and balanced sources are cited. I will continue to remove sensationalism additions until they are discussed and gain consensus. To properly tag this article would take weeks. For example:

Trump as well as other speakers[relevant?] repeated the false claims[according to whom?] that the election was fraudulently “stolen"[attribution needed][speculation?] (The New York Times)Incitement to Riot?[a]

--Frobozz1 (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Frobozz1, decent point. I made an edit to tone this down and make it more NPOV. [6] I don't recommend removing it completely, because it is well sourced and will just get reverted. I also don't recommend over-tagging it. That's called tag bombing, and will probably get reverted as well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Pop column in the poll table

What does RV, LV, A mean under the "pop" column in the poll table? RV = republican voters, LV = left voters? I'm assuming it's more like registered voters and legitimate voters or something, but it should be explained. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 09:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done PizzaMan, I googled "rv lv a poll", and added to the article what I found. Basically, "RV = registered voters, LV = likely voters, A = all adults." Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Edits regarding trump's actions

In the background section, the article states, "Trump told the rioters "We love you. You're very special," and restated his false claims of electoral fraud.", I request that an edit be made as trump says right after these words, "but go home now", and this quote in the article appears as if trump wanted the riot to continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isben88 (talkcontribs) 16:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Isben88, seems reasonable. I went ahead and made the edit. [7]Novem Linguae (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

Is this information accurate? 2600:1006:B109:68AE:6503:D234:1EB:FCCB (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If there is inaccurate information, then please state what change you are asking for along with sources. RudolfRed (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Changes by Frobozz1

I have now reverted Frobozz1 3 times for some bad additions. They are claiming BLP privilege in their edit summaries, I think that's not at all applicable here. I think their edits have some obvious NPOV issues (most egregiously tagging Trump supporters unlawfully entered the Capitol and gathered on both its eastern and western sides with "according to whom", ignoring the source for that sentence). They do need consensus for their changes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, they got blocked while I was writing this message. If any good-faith editors feel that these changes are constructive, please make a case for them here. Otherwise, this will hopefully be speedy-archived. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
That user's edits were terribly slanted and rightly removed IMO. Fringe media sources have tried to play up the "he didn't literally tell them to riot" angle, but mainstream sources are pretty clear on the meaning and intent of the words spoken at the rally that day. Zaathras (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Background section omits call for trial by combat

Trump called on his supporters to come to Washington D.C. on January 6, on the day that Congress was counting the electoral votes, to the "March to Save America" rally on the National Mall. At the rally, Trump as well as other speakers repeated the false claims that the election was stolen, used the word "fight", made an analogy to boxing, and suggested that his supporters had the power to prevent President-elect Joe Biden from taking office.

Why is there no mention of Giuliani's call for trial by combat?

From the trial by combat article:

On 6 January 2021, President Donald Trump's lawyer, and former New York Mayor, Rudy Giuliani called for trial by combat against political opponents who were in the US Capitol during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol.[1] The incident made worldwide headlines for several days, resulting in many arrests, injuries and resignations.[2]

I would like to propose adding a very brief statement to the "Trump as well as other speakers" line. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ Klein, Charlotte (2021-01-06). "Watch Giuliani Demand 'Trial by Combat' to Settle the Election". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2021-01-11.
  2. ^ Wells, Sarah E. Needleman and Georgia (2021-01-11). "Twitter, Facebook and Others Silenced Trump. Now They Learn What's Next". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2021-01-11.

Donald Trump controversies category inclusion.

This page feels like it's 'ripe' for inclusion amongst Donald Trump's controversies, give or take the presidential administration factor. This issue is still highly contentious and emotionally brittle for many Americans; so I believe this article should fall under the 'Donald Trump controversies' umbrella.Internet Informant (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or ((efn)) templates on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=lower-alpha)) template or ((notelist)) template (see the help page).

{{bottomLinkPreText}} {{bottomLinkText}}
Talk:Second impeachment of Donald Trump
Listen to this article