Talk:Impeachment process against Richard Nixon

Requested move December 2016

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

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

---

Impeachment process of Richard Nixon → Impeachment process against Richard Nixon – Because Nixon wasn't impeached technically, the article should replace "of" with "against" in consistency with "Impeachment process against..." articles... well, before they became "Impeachment of..." when impeachment occurred. George Ho (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Impeachment process against Park Geun-hye → Impeachment process of Park Geun-hye

Should use either "of" or "against". I am not actually proposing two different titles. I am using two titles to propose picking one of two per consistency. I can't discuss Impeachment proposal against Michel Temer as the impeachment process against him hasn't happened yet; let's leave that out. If you use "support" or "oppose", be specific. Preferably, you can say "use 'of'" or "use 'against'". Struck out. 19:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Use 'against'. When I put this article together last year I puzzled over what the title should be and came up with the current one. But 'against' reads better after 'process' than 'of'. The downside is this loses the parallelism with the 'of' in Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Impeachment of Bill Clinton, etc, but so be it. Note that Impeachment process against Dilma Rousseff is the title that eventually became Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, so there is precedent for 'against' coexisting with 'of'. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the article, Nixon was never impeached. Only the articles used against him passed before they were passed by the congress. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Use "against" for both (and any similar article). It's more specific, more forceful, and generally better. Using "impeachment proceedings against" for both would be better still. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Don't use "process of". I don't like "Impeachment process against..." on stylistic grounds, but "Impeachment process of..." is simply not proper English. I could live with the former, but better English would be "The process of impeachment of..." or better still "Attempted impeachment of...". --MrStoofer (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't like it much either (and I created the article), but that was the style that was used in previous articles on presidential impeachments outside the US. The vote is the day after tomorrow, so wait until then, and if it passes, change it to "the impeachment of president...." if it fails, change it to "the attempted impeachment of...

we can wait a couple of days as it's currently an ongoing story.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

support against for process, and if and when affirmed then "impeachment of". After all the process can still fail.Lihaas (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Struck Park Geun-hye out. Pinging MrStoofer as we are focusing on just Nixon. George Ho (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Pinging also Arglebargle79. 19:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Support against but Muboshgu already moved the page to "of" for Park. — regards, Revi 04:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

---

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

"Alleged" is not POV

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

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

"Impeachment process of" vs. "was not impeached"

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160729063732/https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/forresearchers/find/tapes/watergate/trial/exhibit_01.pdf to https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/forresearchers/find/tapes/watergate/trial/exhibit_01.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Removal of content apropos of Rodham

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

Regarding whether her experience on the committee was representative of other low-level staffers, it is Bernstein's biography that says it was. See for example this page and this page. The descriptions in that biography are also consistent with those in Woodward and Bernstein's The Final Days book, which is also used as a source in this section. If you have another source that gives a different picture of committee life, by all means introduce it. One potential good source that I haven't looked at before is this William Weld oral history, although it would be useful to corroborate that with some secondary sources. Regarding the focus drifting, I don't see it. The "Impeachment Inquiry investigations" section is 1,431 words long and by my count, the Rodham-specific material is only 99 words of that, or about 7 percent. And as a practical matter, readers will want – or need – to see this. It is interesting that a person who later became one of the most well-known political figures in the world was on such an historically important committee at the start of her career, and there is nothing wrong with telling readers something interesting. Moreover, there are hundreds of websites and email chains out there which say she was fired from the committee, a claim that is completely false. Yes, the Hillary biography article will say it is false, but this article needs to say it too. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: If her experience on the committee was representative of that of others, it needs to be explicitly stated , i.e. "low-level staffers' activities included (insert activities here)", with the appropriate citation. I do acknowledge that readers will need to know this, however, this article remains about Richard Nixon's impeachment and not Hillary Clinton. Even while a small percentage of words in this section are about her experiences, apple. (Case in point: percentage does not always make the subject). Her sub-subsection reads like a digression, especially given that the remainder of the article is tightly written apropos of the impeachment process with notations of notability kept to a minimum, almost as if sections of her biography have been copy-pasted verbatim. I will give you Clinton's notability, but her section must be substantially rewritten at the very least. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 00:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

She does not have a section, or even a sub-subsection. Just a brief passage. Anyway, I have found some additional sources that discuss several aspects of the committee's work that need adding or expanding in that section, in particular related to how some evidentiary and procedural decisions were reached in addition to the one she worked on. By the time I add this new material, and something about Weld, Hillary's presence will be even more diluted and I hope it will no longer bother you. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Trump and possible impeachment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The impeachment and consequent trial of President Trump have concluded, and the wording in question has been updated.Drdpw (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Bad sentence in lede

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

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

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Impeachment process against Richard Nixon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 22:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Will take this on. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y (Some very high false positives on account of the abundance of quotes) 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No DAB links Y
• No dead links Y
• No missing citations N: At the close of the first phase of the hearings, the committee, on June 24, issued four more subpoenas for additional White House tapes and materials related to a variety of issues of concern.
  • I have added a citation for this statement. Drdpw (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Nixon resigned from office on August 9, 1974, before the House received the committee's recommendation for action.
  • I have removed this sentence. I cannot verify whether the final report was submitted before or after August 9, when Nixon resigned. Also, the sentence really is not needed as the article later shows that Nixon resigned before the articles were acted upon. Drdpw (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Prose Suggestions

Please note that almost all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion. Any changes I deem necessary for the article to pass GA standards I will bold.

Lede

• Per MOS:LEDE, reduce the paragraphs to three or four paragraphs; this could fairly easily be done by merging the first and second, and third and fourth, IMO.
  • Y Number of paragraphs reduced to four. Drdpw (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Background

• Nixon thereupon ordered that Cox be fired, precipitating the immediate departures of Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus in what became known as the "Saturday Night Massacre. I would expand this a little to explain that the two refused to fire him and resigned and that Bork himself did so.
  • Will consider.

Push for investigation

• Importantly, Rodino told the committee that the Ford nomination would not be held "hostage" until the impeachment inquiry was completed. perhaps remove Importantly
  • The sentence needs something, as the paragraph shifts from Albert to Rodino. Perhaps something like: Likewise, Rodino refused to be pressured, telling the committee....

    Likewise would work very well

    Y changed. Drdpw (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Assembling of investigation staff

• plus scores of researchers, clerks, typists, and other support personnel, who all worked long, sometimes tedious hours. I feel like this should probably be removed, and the above paragraph merged with the one below.
  • Y Removed (though a part of me desires to keep the detail as an efn- note) and merged. Drdpw (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

    I wouldn't object to an EFN note, it just doesn't warrant prose inclusion IMO; detracts from the focus on the key lawyers

Inquiry staff investigation

• will say: This was the right course. There was no other way." it seems there should be double quotes here, perhaps: will say: "This was the right course. There was no other way.""
  • Y done. Drdpw (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• put off completing the request. suggest changing put off to delayed
  • Y changed. Drdpw (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Obstruction of justice

• and had some proponents of the article worried for a while. ... But in response, the proponents rallied seems a tad informal, perhaps which initially led some proponents of the article to worry, but ultimately caused them to rally. (bringing up the first sentence of the next paragraph to end the sentence)
  • Y done.

Cambodia bombing / war powers

• intentionally concealed from Congress "the facts" suggest reordering to intentionally concealed "the facts" from Congress
  • Y done.

Political fallout

• "Devastating—impeachable," Sandman told reporters (now having the "specificity" he had demanded during the hearings) suggest removing the parenthesis and inserting a comma, to "Devastating—impeachable," Sandman told reporters, now having the "specificity" he had demanded during the hearings
  • Y done.

Epilogue

• Suggest renaming this section to "Aftermath"
  • Y renamed.
• @Drdpw: That is all of my suggestions, passing now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)