The event here was, to be precise, establishing rules for the public phase of the inquiry. There was considerable hoopla over this, earlier, because the Trump administration claimed the Congressional committees lacked some powers until there was a House floor vote saying there was an inquiry, and Pelosi said they weren't going to hold a floor vote for the sake of letting Trump dictate their procedural rules; so the only way to not take sides on that point, afaics, is (as always) to simply be precise about just what actually happened. It's not inaccurate, as such, to say they formalized the inquiry; indeed it was taken that way too afaics; but that was apparently a side-effect rather than the substance of the resolution. I tried to minimize what I did to redress this difficulty, sensitive as it was at the center of the headline and lede.
Something went awry in the bit about Schiff predicting impeachment would be over obstruction. Not sure what was going on there.
The overall vote is such a prominent fact about these sorts of votes, it seemed we'd really be perceived as incomplete without it; hence, though I did like the approach of naming how many Ds supported and how many Rs opposed, it really seemed we needed to explain what other votes there were. I tried, of course, to do so as blandly as possible.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
The event here was, to be precise, establishing rules for the public phase of the inquiry. There was considerable hoopla over this, earlier, because the Trump administration claimed the Congressional committees lacked some powers until there was a House floor vote saying there was an inquiry, and Pelosi said they weren't going to hold a floor vote for the sake of letting Trump dictate their procedural rules; so the only way to not take sides on that point, afaics, is (as always) to simply be precise about just what actually happened. It's not inaccurate, as such, to say they formalized the inquiry; indeed it was taken that way too afaics; but that was apparently a side-effect rather than the substance of the resolution. I tried to minimize what I did to redress this difficulty, sensitive as it was at the center of the headline and lede.
Something went awry in the bit about Schiff predicting impeachment would be over obstruction. Not sure what was going on there.
The overall vote is such a prominent fact about these sorts of votes, it seemed we'd really be perceived as incomplete without it; hence, though I did like the approach of naming how many Ds supported and how many Rs opposed, it really seemed we needed to explain what other votes there were. I tried, of course, to do so as blandly as possible.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
@Pi zero: I restored the Schiff prediction ([1]) - NPR reported: "Schiff has made it clear that he does not plan to go to court to enforce subpoenas for testimony and documents from those administration officials who have refused to comply. Instead, he has maintained that those Trump officials 'will be building a very powerful case against the president for obstruction — an article of impeachment based on obstruction.'" - i.e. Schiff predicts that officials will build a case for impeachment based on obstruction. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@DannyS712: I saw that passage. What he's saying there is not a prediction that "any impeachment would be based on Trump's alleged obstruction of justice". To replace the unverified sentence with something else that would be verified by the source passage, one would have to make nontrivial choices, so it was clearly not something a reviewer could do without self-disqualifying. --Pi zero (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
