Talk:List of impeachments of heads of state

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Title column

Why is there a "Title" column when all titles are/should be President? --213.112.65.159 (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the list also includes the holders of other, equivalent titles, like
problem solving 20:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Oops

There have been no completed USA impeachments.


I disagree, but I suppose it depends on the nature of the argument. Impeachment does not mean removal from office (at least in the USA). It is similar to an indictment or an arrest, for sanctions to occur (removal from office) the impeached official must be tried and convicted by the Senate (for US federal officials) or the appropriate body politic.

Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached but they were not *convicted* so remained in office. I suspect that is the same for many of the others in the list.N9jig (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those should be listed under failed. FinalNemesis (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be specific, Impeachment in the United States requires a Guilty Verdict by the Senate, as the House's Articles of Impeachment are legally just a list of charges.173.17.209.23 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Tricky Dickie” and impeachment”

The impeachment proceedings against Richard M. Nixon were not a failure at all, but were the one totally successful use of the process. In almost a quarter millennium since the constitution was ratified, he’s the only president to have resigned. It’s all about removing a president. In 1974, Nixon was removed from office by his own hand.Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon is a special case and probably deserves to have a section all by his lonesome self. Impeachment of a U.S. president does not automatically remove him from office without the trial in the U.S. Senate. A number of other countries listed here are similar, in that they also require another body to actually remove its president. Going down the two recent entries listed here, the impeachment of Park Geun-hye required the Constitutional Court of Korea to actually remove him. In the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, another vote had to be taken by the Federal Senate after the Chamber of Deputies (Brazil) passed the impeachment. No, Nixon was the only one resigned before ever facing the impeachment vote, and thus should be listed separately. Otherwise (especially for international readers), he'll get buried in the list where this unique case will likely be overlooked. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was a
Movement to impeach Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan and he resigned to avoid being impeached, should he be included in the same section? --Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The Prime Minister of Iceland Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson also resigned before being processed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.188.177.251 (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing impeachment inquiries

@

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump
to this article. In addition there are two IP users who have either added or removed the content.

We should probably have a discussion and hash out what sort of criteria there should be for inclusion. There is a good argument to be made that Trump should not be on this list until he has actually been impeached - i.e. the house passes articles of impeachment. That said, if that's the case than Nixon should not be on the list either, and most (or all) of the "Failed impeachment attempts" section should go. (Certainly Bush and Tyler should go in that case, although Warren Hastings should stay since his impeachment actually went to trial. I'm not sure about the others.)

On the other hand, I can see merit to including serious impeachment investigations that fall short of formal proceedings in a separate section, which is what I think is being attempted with the failed impeachment attempts section.  If we are doing that, then Trump definitely belongs. The problem there is separating serious investigations from frivolous ones. At least in the U.S., virtually every president has at least a fringe on the other side calling for impeachment from day one, and we have an article about Efforts to impeach Barack Obama, but I don't believe the efforts there ever rose to a level where they should be included on this list.

At any rate, for the moment I have commented out the section including Trump, but left the older Failed impeachment attempts section and Nixon. What are everyone else's thoughts? ~

problem solving 13:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, from the page history, [1], note "Ongoing impeachment attempts" regarding
problem solving 13:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for the discussion. You're right about Nixon, he wasn't impeached and should be removed because that's what the reliable sources say. The same thing would be true about Donald Trump.
As far as needing a criteria, I don't think we need a specific criteria for this page, we already have a criteria governing all of Wikipedia, essentially, if it's in a realiable source, it can potentially be printed in wikipedia, if it's not a reliable source that it cannot be printed Wikipedia. What do the rest of you think ? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I edited the page, Trump was listed under "Successful impeachments," which is factually incorrect because there hasn't been a vote yet. It seems some people are confused about what an impeachment inquiry is and isn't (not only on Wikipedia, I've seen the same confusion on social media and in a few media reports). A section called "Ongoing impeachment inquiries" sounds good to me, although strictly speaking it doesn't fit the page criteria (yet), as it is called List of impeached presidents. But the same could be said for the "Failed impeachment attempts" section. Maybe the page should be renamed to be more inclusive? Johndavies837 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I would change the first line to "This is a list of presidents or holders of other offices equivalent to a head of state who have undergone impeachment proceedings, or have been subject to formal impeachment inquiries by an overseeing body." and change the article name to "List of presidential impeachments" so as to encompass the proceedings/inquiries themselves, and not just the people subject to them or the outcomes, which differ from country to country depending on how their impeachment laws work. A sentient pickle (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was
bold and made this change. I believe refocusing the wording in the title and lead to the impeachment attempts/inquiries themselves makes more sense. This way those that succeeded, failed or are in progress can be included. A sentient pickle (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Vandalism relating to American President Donald Trump's recent impeachment

Anonymous editors have been repeatedly removing him from the list.

Sinsoto (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast. Sinsoto (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He should be removed from the list. The Democrats' own witness during the impeachment proceedings wrote an op-ed insisting that Trump has not been impeached until the process in the House is complete and the articles are sent over to the Senate for trial. If you have a shred of integrity, you'll remove him from the list yourself.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats 2600:1012:B165:9CCE:6194:C251:E700:C2EA (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second this last edit request Keleusx (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump does not actually belong on the list of Successful Impeachments, as such impeachment is contingent of a Guilty verdict by the Senate. If he is to be on this wiki page, he would have to be in the list of Ongoing Impeachments.173.17.209.23 (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

The Wikipedia article "Impeachment" is linked twice within in the opening sentence, one immediately after the other. I propose we remove one of the links. Which one, it doesn't matter. 47.13.147.63 (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

The line: "where he will likely be aquitted and remain in office" is speculative and can have a propagandist effect, and thus should be removed. It's sufficient and factual to write: "Impeached by the House of Representatives. Awaiting trial in the United States Senate." Pavlovius (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a foregone conclusion that he will be aquitted in the Senate. Not including that he will likely be aquitted is lying by omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec935 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done DannyS712 (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except if the articles of impeachment are withheld indefinitely, the status should revert to "likely"...not so foregone of a conclusion as originally assumed. That would also necessitate removal from the list of successful impeachments. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019

Donald Trump needs to be removed from the Successful Impeachments list and put back on "Ongoing" since he was added too early. Per the United States Constitution impeachment is a process and not a vote, the process is not complete until the articles of impeachment have been transmitted to the senate which they have not as they are still held in the House of Representatives. Once they are transmitted Donald Trump will be legally classified as Impeached as the process for impeachment will have been completed. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats. The status of "Awaiting Trial in the United States Senate" should also be removed as such being that the impeachment is not in the senate yet so the House still has control of it and can vote on adjustments etc... It will be awaiting trial in the senate, once its in the senate. Keleusx (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Not technically impeached"

Trump's impeachment was edited to say that he was not technically impeached because the impeachment was not formally transmitted to the senate. There is a bloomberg article arguing this, but this opinion seems to be very far from a hard fact about the constitution. I believe this should either be removed, or should be reworded to say that "some have argued ..." but this opinion should not be presented as an absolute truth about the constitution

I think this article should follow the precedent of Talk:Impeachment of Donald Trump in stating in the affirmative that Trump has been impeached and not present a single law professor's opinion as objective fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.140.23.146 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019

The House has the sole power to impeach, the President is not 'technically not impeached' he is impeached 2600:6C5A:6F7F:FF7C:6CFE:5E75:D6F7:183A (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Not technically impeached" is absolutely correct

From the United States Constitution: Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides that "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provides that "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments"

From the wikipedia page on impeachment located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States : "Procedure At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.[19] First, the Congress investigates... Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". Third, the Senate tries the accused..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.50.75 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the Wiki Article on the Impeachment of Donald Trump has several citations making clear that Trump has been impeached. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.50.75 (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

”If a federal official commits a crime or otherwise acts improperly, the House of Representatives may impeach—formally charge—that official. https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Impeachment.htm
The legal meaning of “formally charged” is that charges have been filed.
Even though the house has voted to impeach, charges have not been filed. Hence Donald Trump has NOT been impeached.MoMoBig (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really true. Impeachment is contingent on a guilty verdict in the Senate. The Articles of Impeachment is not a "You are impeached", but rather a list of charges the House provides to the Senate for the Senate Trial.173.17.209.23 (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

technically impeached

Since fucking when is an opinion article a valid source for a claim here? Remove the section that says "technically not impeached." The House voted and the yeas have it. He is impeached. This is not a debate. Remove it now. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I did it myself. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The word “impeached” means that charges have been filed to remove him from office. The house has NOT filed charges, so Trump has NOT been impeached. The fact that they voted to impeach him is not enough. They have to file charges. That’s a fact. But since wikipedia is not about correctness or truth but instead about what certain “reliable sources” say, you go ahead and claim that he was impeached, even though it is undeniable that he was not.MoMoBig (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
My source is the official website of the Senate: https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Impeachment.htm Are you telling me that the Senats own website is not a reliable source? MoMoBig (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's a reliable source. You've misinterpreted it though. Nothing on that page supports your claim, as far as I can see. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve explained my viewpoint on this talk page several times now. Simply calling what I write flawed and misinterpretations is not an argument.MoMoBig (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also said "nothing on that page supports your claim, as far as I can see." That's an opportunity for you to show me wrong. You just linked me a page that has a bunch of links to other pages. Be more specific. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 00:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a source on the process the House must follow in order to file charges? I thought the "filing" was House Res 755. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to various sources and even statements by Pelosi and other members of congress, the resolution has not been sent to the Senate. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pelosi-sending-impeachment-articles-senate-sees-details-trial/story?id=67824327
The meaning of the word impeached is “...to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeach
In this case the “competent tribunal” which makes a decision based on the accusations brought forward by the House is the Senate. So for actual impeachment to take place, the house has to bring the charges to the Senate, or as the website of the Senate puts it, they have to formally file charges there. So far the House has not done so. They have merely declared their will to impeach in this resolution that keeps getting quoted.MoMoBig (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a dictionary's entry, and it isn't specific to the U.S. The Constitution states that impeachment is the sole power of the House. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, impeachment is the sole power of the house. And so far the house has not impeached. What’s your point?MoMoBig (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. House Resolution 755 impeaches him. The House has voted, and impeached. If you're wondering, I keep pointing back to 755 because it answers what you're asking or wanting. It states the House has impeached, and you're arguing that they did not. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The House has the sole power to impeach but the House does not define what “impeach” means. By the meaning of the word, passing a resolution on it’s own is NOT impeachment.MoMoBig (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the U.S., to impeach means to convict of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”, as per the Constitution. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trump has not been convicted of anything ... MoMoBig (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, since the trial is yet to be held. But it it also not wrong to say that he has been accused and charged. To me, saying he has not been convicted alone gives the tone of "he did nothing wrong, and the charges did not pass". Again, to me. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That source makes it clear that the impeachment and trial are two separate processes. ThermalDetonator (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source states that “...the House of Representatives may impeach—formally charge—that official.” Do you have a source that confirms that Donald Trump has been formally charged?MoMoBig (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reference the house’s resolution rather than your flawed understanding of the senate’s wording, please.ThermalDetonator (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merely calling something flawed is not an argument and the House resolution does not cause impeachment, because of the meaning of the word.MoMoBig (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution of H Res 755 is that President Trump is impeached. See 755 Resolution. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the constitution the House has the sole power to actually impeach but not the power to merely declare someone as being impeached. For impeachment to take place, the resolution has to be filed with the Senate otherwise no impeachment happened. That is because the goal of the impeachment is a trial in the Senate. The point of impeachment is NOT declaring someone as being “impeached”.MoMoBig (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "declaration of impeachment" is the charges you are talking about. The articles declare those charges. The goal of impeachment is to charge someone, not necessarily hold a trial (although it is part of the process later on). WhoAteMyButter (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. No. No. Of course making a declaration does not count as formally filing charges. Just like in any criminal proceeding, publicly accusing someone is not the same as the prosecutor filling charges. The prosecutor files charges with the court. In this case the House has to file with the Senate. They have not done so.MoMoBig (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Impeachment is the accusation and charge. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not impeached yet. Per Harvard constitutional scholar and impeachment trial witness: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democratsRotaryenginepete (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. It’s a fact that he has not been impeached. You don’t need some lawyer to tell you that. But as other guys have mentioned, wikipedia is not interested in facts. They merely repeat what their “reliable sources” claim. I’ve had this problem with other stuff on wikipedia that is just blatantly false and it all boils down to what those “reliable sources” claim. I personally think that is a massive problem and gives tremendous power to the people who select those “reliable sources”.MoMoBig (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
House Resolution 755 states in the resolution that Trump is impeached. "Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors". Is this wrong? WhoAteMyButter (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an unarchived version, here it is. 00:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoAteMyButter (talk • contribs)
The resolution you linked to is the articulation of the will of the house to impeach. Nobody is doubting that. But for the impeachment to actually happen, the house has to file charges with the Senate. That is because according to the meaning of the word “impeached” it is necessary to formally file charges. The house does NOT have the power to just declare someone impeached, because that is not what impeached means. They have to file charges. They have not yet done so, hence Donald Trump has NOT been impeached.MoMoBig (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the Constitution states. It says the House has the sole power to impeach. The House has presented articles for impeachment, and the House voted Yes on the articles, which charges him. That is impeachment. Senate trial is seperate, but related. The trial is the actual trying of the charges, and determining if they are valid. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you wrote is correct, except the House has NOT filed the charges yet.MoMoBig (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What relation does "filing charges" have to do with this? Even so, you could interpret 755 as the filing. (p.s. I corrected your indentation for you.) WhoAteMyButter (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting my indention. I’ve explained previously that the filing of charges is the very definition of impeachment, according to the website of the Senate and the dictionary. It is also readily apparent that the filing of charges is necessary because that’s the conclusion of the second step of the process, which ends in formal impeachment. Filing charges means that the case is brought to the Senate and this has not happened. I’ve also explained this somewhere on this page and gave sources.MoMoBig (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The House documented the charges and set them up, then voted. I believe that counts as proper filing. Also, filing of charges is the 1st step, not 2nd. 2nd step is the trial, which (as I know you know) has not happened yet. Are are correct in that the conclusion of step 2 is the end of the Senate trial. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. In the US impeachment is a three step process. The first step are the impeachment inquiries. The second step is delegates of the House building a case, the judicially committee making a decision on the impeachment vote and finally the vote whether or not to impeach. The Third third step is the trial in the Senate. We are at the end of step two. The question is: Does the declaration of impeachment count as charges filed? The answer to this is a definite: No! - that is until the declaration has to be brought before the Senate.MoMoBig (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Please point to the official and reliable source that states that the House must present the articles to the Senate for impeachment to be complete. The Constitution disagrees with this, again quoting "sole power". WhoAteMyButter (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 says "The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." meaning they have the sole power to initiate the impeachment, not declare it finished or completed. No other body in government can initiate an impeachment. According to the Constitution and Impeachment Rules, the Senate has the sole and final say on impeachment, they consider it in a preliminary hearing made by the House impeachment managers, and they can (and did in 1797) dismiss the impeachment resolution altogether. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 says "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." So, this is just like any other regular H.R. legislation bill. If the lower House passes a Resolution and it is not transmitted to or approved by the upper house of Senate, then said legislation isn't passed or completed. The official and reliable sources include those Constitutional scholars originally cited, the Constitution and history from https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/17/trial-of-impeachment , and the Senate website https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/1_1868ImpeachmentRules.pdfRotaryenginepete (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The House has sole power. NO WHERE in the Constitution does it say they can only initiate, and cannot finish it. They have full control over the impeachment. Period. The Senate TRIES the impeachment. The impeachment already exists. Impeachment is different and separate from Trial, but they are related. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is based on exclusion. But you're still missing what I put down. Look at the historical precedent. The 1868 Senate Impeachment rules and the instance where the Senate dismissed the impeachment in 1797 both hinge on a critical detail. The House must have brought the impeachment to the Senate, a.k.a. filed the charges with the court. Until that happens this impeachment resolution is nothing more than symbolic. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The trial began because the impeachment charges were sent to the Senate. Before they were sent over, he was still impeached. The trial simply had not began yet. You keep confusing Impeachment and Trial, and it's really getting repetitive. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before the articles of impeachment were sent, he was not impeached because the charging process wasn't completed. The charges were not brought yet, per the definition of impeachment. Confusing the impeachment from the trial is a strawman argument, as the trial cannot be conducted without a completed impeachment.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The articles of impeachment are what impeach him. They document the/(his) impeachment. The charges were brought. They were voted on. They passed. This impeaches him. You are correct in that the Trial cannot happen without a completed impeachment, but the impeachment is completed. Pelosi simply has withheld them from Trial until McConnell asserts there will be a fair trial. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, Impeachment requires that the Senate Trial concludes with a guilty verdict. All the House did was vote on what to charge the president with. The Articles of Impeachment are legally not a "You are Impeached", but rather a "We are charging you with X " in the Senate Trial.173.17.209.23 (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2019

On the table of impeached presidents, for Trump, the Crimes need to be changed from "Abuse of power, obstruction of Congress" to "Alleged Abuse of power (non-statuatory), alleged obstruction of Congress (non-statuatory)" Alleged because the impeachment trial has not been conducted yet, and non-statutory because the articles of impeachment allege no violation of any statutes. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: you don't charge someone with "alleged X", you charge them with "X." The charge is the allegation. There's no need mention statutes. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe that column should be titled "Charges" instead of "Crimes", or this impeachment was prematurely placed in the "successful impeachments" table. If the impeachment was "successful", wouldn't that mean it meets the legal definition of impeachment? https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/impeachment clearly states it is a TWO STAGE PROCESS. The House vote to impeach, without being sent to the Senate nor a trial being conducted, constitutes an incomplete impeachment...hardly successful.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Should be in Ongoing Section.

Common sense, keep this page factual so people don't lose faith in Wiki. FinalNemesis (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's factual as-is. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

factually inaccurate. Trump's impeachment doesn't even meet the legal definition of impeachment yet. If it isn't completed, you can't call it "successful" https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/impeachment Rotaryenginepete (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legally speaking, Trump has not been impeached. The Articles of Impeachment were passed, true, but impeachment is not complete until the outcome of the trial. At the very most, Trump would be in the ongoing section. Trump's entry should not be in the 'Successful Impeachment' section unless the trial in the Senate finds him guilty, as the Constitution itself states “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”[1] 173.17.209.23 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump has been impeached. End of story. - MrX 🖋 00:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why Trump is not in the list? The process looks exactly like it happened for Clinton: Impeached by the House, acquitted by the Senate? maye (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

How are we numbering impeachments?

For Martin Vizcarra, we are counting impeachment attempts: 2 failed, 1 successful but resigned before trial. For Donald Trump, we are only counting successful impeachments, but the attempts that didn't pass the house are not even on the page. In the case of multiplicity, should only successful attempts be counted, or should failed attempts be counted too? Caleb M1 (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_impeachments_of_heads_of_state&oldid=1216661751"