Figures to include

Agree. The gentleman mentioned are not part of the House Impeachment Inquiry.

Lol

oh yeah I know that doesn't appear to be unbiased at all let's leave out the very actual people who are being spoken about in these impeachment hearings let's pretend like they don't exist yeah that's a great narrative.

I'm not sure I'm going to be able to cooperate or collaborate in a project we're in certain members think that we other members are supposed to just disregard the simple fact of the matter is that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden are spoken of directly in these hearings and spoken about the whole impeachment inquiry involves the president of the United States of America asking the new president of the Ukraine to look into the corruption both Trump and zielinski ran on anti-corruption platforms and it would seem that these men are doing what they said they would do.

From a genealogy standpoint I think there is much work that we can do in here.

I don't like the idea of the controlling of the narrative by on including the people who are actually being mentioned in these impeachment inquiry.

to me that seems quite absurd that we are going to discuss the genealogical connections of an impeachment in query but we are going to somehow just pretend to forget to include some of the individuals who are actually named in the inquiry directly.

I do not see that as an unbiased means of study it's almost seems like a censorship of sort.

Remove them all.

The Bidens have not been deposed or called to testify. I haven’t looked at the updated narrative for the project, so it depends on how the background is described. In similar-enough event projects I have linked to the Geni profile within project “about” but not added to the project, as they are not “in” the Inquiry; they are background.

First, I could not agree more with Private User, this should absolutely not be made political or partisan in any respect. I think others will agree that the genealogy community should be free from the politics that pervade nearly every aspect of life these days. I'd rather not know the political leanings of my friends in the genealogy community.

As to the substance, I do agree with Private User to an extent (though I take exception to the political undertone of the comment). The mere fact that we're debating whether to include them means that their tangentially involved. Any historical discussion of these proceedings is bound to include mention of the Bidens, regardless of your opinion of them. I say keep them. McCarthy can go.

As an aside, why not include Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelensky, 6th President of Ukraine?

And Rudy Giuliani, 107th Mayor of New York City ?

But they would need another category in the project “about.”

Rudy Giuliani, 107th Mayor of New York City is in the project! He actually qualifies two ways -- as counsel to the president and as a witness. I had already listed him with the other witnesses, but I guess we could list him in both places if you think he's not visible enough?

>>> "The mere fact that we're debating whether to include them means that their tangentially involved."

I tend to agree, but I'm also inclined to stick to our rubric in order to avoid any politicization. And officially, they *aren't* part of the inquiry at this point. So do we change the rubric, and if so, how?

I don't think it's as simple as in-or-out with them, which is why I wanted to hear everyone's feedback. If we're going to stick to the pure facts of the inquiry proceedings (versus its precipitating events), they have to go (for now). If we're going to involve the broader story, we still need some kind of guideline for inclusion. Otherwise, we could technically have Jay Leno and A$AP Rocky included, too.

ASAP Rocky alol

Jay Leno’s involved?? I wouldn’t mind trying a tree for A$AP Rocky. :)

I do see the point that without Pres. Zelensky & the Bidens the raison d'être for the Inquiry - and the project - is not sufficiently clear. But I’m inclined to see it as background, not category. And another issue with it as a category is that could expand unnecessarily.

Right, that's my concern -- we can have a background category, sure, but there's gotta be strict parameters. Because otherwise, it's not just the Bidens -- it's everyone mentioned. David Holmes testified about not just Zelensky, but also Jared Kushner and Jay Leno, because they all had dinner together. Gordon Sondland talked about A$AP Rocky and "the Kardashians," which refers to Kim Kardashian and Kanye West.

So without parameters, they're all in. Hence this discussion!

(But I am going to remove McCarthy, since he's not directly involved and no one seems to be objecting.)

Private User Erica Howton
Not to beat a dead horse but there's a big difference between the Bidens and the other names that were mentioned in passing and have no material bearing on the matter. I don't think including them opens the door to more "background" personalities.

How about another category - Additional People Republicans think should be Called
- or think are Relevant - or keep asking to have called -- or ....
the phrasing almost certainly needs to be tweaked, but I think that is the basic idea

[possibly - with a comment that currently, the Democrats control who actually is called, so it is clear to any not following it that by including that Category but not a matching one for Democrats that the Project is not short-changing the Democrats ]

Since the Inquiry phase seems to be about over, potential witnesses / asked for witnesses etc don’t seem so relevant.

I’m mulling over the Biden / Zelensky issue. As I said, in other projects I’ve handled it as Links is narrative, not as category. If we can come up with a sentence, that would solve it for me (limiting the scope so the Kardashian’s don’t show up).

I’m mangling a sentence from Al Jezeera.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2019/05/imp...

How’s something like:

[House Democratic leadership] swung in favour of an impeachment inquiry following reports that [President] Trump pushed [asked?] Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for help investigating Democrat Biden and his son [Hunter Biden] during a summer phone call.

—-
And that’s it.

I really want to avoid the whistleblower.

The inquiry now moves to the House Judiciary Committee, so unless there are objections, we can add them as well?

I wonder if any of you have taken the time to actually read the actual transcript of actual phone call between zelinski and Trump.....you know....the actual phone call which allegedly sparked this whole impeachment inquiry?

Joe Biden is a key person.
To say that is is not is absurd.

READ THE TRANSCRIPT?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/read-ful...

Private User
1) We do not have an actual transcript of the actual phone call -- the NBC News link you provide calls it a "transcription memo" -- In it, towards the bottom of Page one it explicitly says
"Caution -- A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELECON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion." and it goes on to say it reflects the notes and recollections of folks.
Read everything in that paragraph starting with "Caution" -- and realize it is not actually a Transcript of the Conversation, and stop saying there is a Transcript of the Conversation.

2) Just as we heard directly from Donald Trump way back when, it shows him saying, top of p. 3 - "I would like you to do us a favor though ..." - that much I registered the first time I heard Trump report the Call. And there is also "I would like you to get to the bottom of it" And "Whatever you can do, it 's very important that you do it if its possible" --
to me, each of those three 100 percent read, Trump is leaning on Zelensky to do something for him - with the definite implication that Zelensky needs to do that to get what he, Zelensky, wants.
I do understand that it does not read that way to you - but my reading the Transcript again and again and again is not going to change what I am seeing there, so you need to get over the idea that if people will just read the transcript they will see it the way you see it.

And on page 5, in the paragraph at the top, to me it definitely reads that Zelensky makes it clear he sees a quid pro quo, and is promising to 'do his part' so he will be rewarded with the visit: "I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC." -- paired with the comment immediately after - "On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation."

3) Finally, top of page 4, he explicitly mentions the Bidens -- but I do not see that as a reason to include them in the project - Because - . The fact remains - Joe Biden is a political opponent of the President, and reading this 'Transcription Memo" shows very clearly that the President was using his office to have a political opponent investigated.
Whether or not Joe Biden is guilty of anything is totally irrelevant to whether or not the President used his office to try to have a Political Opponent (Joe Biden, in this case) investigated.
There is nothing whatsoever in that "Transription Memo" that shows the Bidens should be part of the Project.

Remember, we are not debating the evidence or political situation in this project.

Almost everyone is in agreement that Joe Biden is a relevant figure. What we have been discussing is how to create/word an appropriate rubric for including him and other background figures.

If you'd like to constructively contribute to that effort, please do so. But please do *not* get into a debate about the political case.

Private User - Agreed, I do not want a Political Debate here.
But thought it might, possibly, help if I made it clear that people could read the Transcription Memo - at the link Cheley provided - and still not see things as Cheley sees them.

You refer to Joe Biden above as a "background figure"
That is NOT how I see him. Tho perhaps the problem is that I do not know what you mean by the term "Background Figure"

To me, the only reason to include Joe Biden is because the Republicans insist he should be called as a Witness. And I already made some suggestions for that category;
"Additional People Republicans think should be Called" - or "think are Relevant" - or "keep asking to have called" -- possibly - with a comment that currently, the Democrats control who actually is called [so it will be clear to any not following it that by including that Category but not a matching one for Democrats that the Project is not short-changing the Democrats] - but instead is trying to treat the Witnesses the Democrats choose and the Witnesses the Republicans choose a bit more equally]

See my eyes shut eh?
How ever can I just do geneology if my eyes are to be sewn shut?
Lol
This has become a political thing weather folks like it or not.

It's like saying here behold this apple ( and everyone knows it's an apple)...but then they say here behold this apple, that is not an apple....

I really don't find anything on this site to relevant with regards what's going on with the impeachment inquiry anyway.

it has really nothing to do with genealogy honestly at this juncture it's just an opportunity for certain types of people to come in here and behave as though they know everything and everyone else knows nothing.

I'm finding myself less and less interested I must be honest...

Thank you Ashley...good moderation... IMO

I won't be letting Lois sew my eyes shut...

Where's Mavin? ...lol I keep expecting her to chime in any time....

Best wishes kids

Goodnight for now...

Cheley, if you feel this project is unrelated to genealogy, I'd encourage you to look at the teamwork-driven genealogical work that's happened in just the past few days. While some have been debating whether the project should exist, others of us have been busy doing actual genealogy work. We've connected at least a dozen diplomats, members of Congress, attorneys, military leaders, and other prominent figures to the World Family Tree.

Anyone is more than welcome to join us in this work. Doing the work *of* a project is certainly a better -- and more fun -- use of time than talking *about* the project.

I think Lois L's last rant deserved being reported for such gross political bias...
I see that Loretta layman was reported...

Lois isn't offering anything from a genealogical standpoint whatsoever.

only her political opinion.

That's not helpful in any way whatsoever.

it's also been explicitly forbidden by the general manager of this website so you would think she would already know this by now...

Thank you Ashley for all your hard work.

A additional category called 'the phone call' would make sense to me.

You have a Category "Witnesses" -- how about a Category "Additional Requested Witnesses" -
without any labelling of which party was suggesting or requesting?

+1 “the phone call”