Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal

Accuracy of opening statement.

This article would be more accurate if you said it was an “alleged political scandal”, none of it was ever proven, and in retrospect, President Trump's assertions appear to be true. BrainiacOne (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

which of his assertions now appear to be true? soibangla (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

“The Trump–Ukraine scandal was a U.S. political scandal that arose from the discovery of U.S. President Donald Trump's attempts to coerce Ukraine and other countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden and giving misinformation relating to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.” This assertion is false. The following Wikipedia page, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, states "The Special Counsel's report, made public in April 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates. James Risen claims that he wrote about the story here, https://theintercept.com/2019/09/25/i-wrote-about-the-bidens-and-ukraine-years-ago-then-the-right-wing-spin-machine-turned-the-story-upside-down/., Risen states "On Wednesday, the White House released a summary of the July conversation between Trump and Zelensky, in which Trump told the Ukrainian leader to work with Attorney General William Barr and Giuliani to find out what happened between the Biden's and a Ukrainian prosecutor. “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,” Trump told Zelensky, according to the summary. “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.” Trump never pressured anyone, he was obviously investigating a scandal, which has been confirmed by the Ukrainian prosecutor, and then Ukrainian leader Poroshensky. In an audio taped conversation between Biden and Poroshensky, Poroshensky goes out of his way to note that he had complied with Biden's demands and that he had dismissed the prosecutor, despite the fact that he had done nothing wrong. Biden agreed and then went on to say that the loan to Ukraine would proceed, an obvious quid pro quo. Biden boasted of the quid pro quo at the Council On Foreign Relations as well, and Congress is investigating the matter at this time, as a case of illegal extortion by Biden. BrainiacOne (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Congress is investigating the matter as a case of bribery, not extortion, my error. The opening statement is factual in that there was a scandal, however, the scandal has since been labeled “the Russia collusion hoax”, see https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/05/17/durham-report-vindicates-trump-fbi-russia-investigation/70222344007/ BrainiacOne (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Opinion pieces tend not to be very encyclopedic. DN (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel like I just watched a Hannity opening monologue. soibangla (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what Brainiac is saying. Remember the media used the phrase "digging for dirt" against a Political opponent. However, the use of the word dirt is too generic as it does not state if the dirt is real evidence or not, but rather presumes it is made up. It seems as if Trump kept getting into trouble for investigating prior administration's actions irrespective of whether or not the allegations were true. Also, Biden had not yet officially stepped into the race, therefore he was not a Political Rival. Another aspect is how the media made the words of Marie Yovanovitch and Alexander Vindman, subordinates to the President, as having more importance than the President. Just what was the actual scandal, the scandal appeared to be based on what the mainstream media wanted the scandal to be. Consider this, if Trump was going to make up fake evidence, then let him make it up, and then the impeachment charge carries so much more merit he may have actually been removed from Office. Instead, Trump was stopped from investigating, and that seems very suspicious. 2605:E000:2FC0:21:282B:78CA:1FFA:71BB (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023

The scandal might be known as Trumpgate, Ukrainegate, Trump-Ukrainegate, or other names. 24.46.53.73 (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, the first two are definitely not specific enough Cannolis (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No, the scandal has officially been labeled “the Russia collusion hoax”, see… https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/05/17/durham-report-vindicates-trump-fbi-russia-investigation/70222344007/ BrainiacOne (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Correct it, or I will edit it myself. BrainiacOne (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I will simply publish a Wikipedia page on the Russia Collusion hoax, cite the many sources, including the Durham report, and expose your use of Wikipedia as your personal disinformation outlet. BrainiacOne (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing that. soibangla (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Your link is to an opinion column. See WP:RSEDITORIAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

BrainiacOne, not all sources are equal, and Wiki is supposed to be a collaborative project. If you are new here, at the very least you should be aware of the rules and guidelines...Cheers. DN (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting changes to image location and pronouns

Suggestion №1: I think the image of Marie Yovanovitch which is currently in the "Communications with Ukrainian officials" section should be moved to the section "Campaign against Marie Yovanovitch". The images of other people in this article are also in the respective sections about them.

Suggestion №2: Use gender neutral pronouns when talking about the whistleblower(s). In some sections the whistle blower is already referred to as "they", but in some other instances "he/she" or "he" are used. The latter two should be changed to "they", imo. The non-gender neutral pronouns are in use starting from the "Whistleblower complaints" section. Here are the sentences where I've noticed it:

"the individual notified the CIA of his/her concerns, which were then relayed to the White House and Justice Department"

"Due to threats against him, the whistleblower spent several months guarded by the CIA's Security Protective Service, living in hotels and traveling with armed officers in an unmarked vehicle."

"After the whistleblower had informed the CIA's general counsel of his concerns, he grew troubled by "how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the CIA was unfolding", according to The New York Times. He then contacted an aide" Nakonana (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Claims that the Trump-Zelenskyy conversation was recorded?

Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed, as recently as March 2024, that his July 25, 2019 phone call with Volodymr Zelenskyy was recorded, that the recording vindicates his claim of exoneration in this matter, and that his political opponents, notably California Congressman Adam Schiff, have listened to this recording and thus are lying about the nature of the call. It's not clear whether any such recording exists, but certainly no recording has ever been released to the public -- and it wasn't introduced as evidence by Trump's legal team during his impeachment or Senate trial. Still, is the fact that the man at the heart of this scandal insists, more than four years later, that an exculpatory recording exists something that should be added to this article? And if so, what is the correct way to source such a statement? It's easy to find Trump referencing it in various speeches he's made on Youtube (including one in Dayton, Ohio today), but I haven't noticed this being reported in a reputable news outlet (although certainly it may have happened without my noticing it). NME Frigate (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed many false things. If the call was recorded, it would have been done by his NSC staff and he could/would have declassified it during his impeachment to prove it was a "perfect call" to exonerate himself. soibangla (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. But we can't speculate about what he would have done. We can, however, note things he's said about this subject if they're notable. I think these comments reach that level -- although I would certainly be interested in hearing other perspectives -- and was also wondering about how to cite them.

And lo! I'm not saying that someone on CNN was reading this talk page, but there's new reporting there today, not 12 hours after I raised the question, on this very subject, so that answers that part of my question:

[1]https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/17/politics/fact-check-trump-ukraine-zelensky-call-pelosi/index.html NME Frigate (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

We should not add his claim that there is an exculpatory recording. It's just another of his lies. We have the transcript, released shortly after the call, which confirms he was seeking a quid pro quo. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

We should document the false claim and the facts by using that RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Quick question

Which president signed off on the Ukraine aid Trump tried to withhold and thus it led to his first impeachment? Ss0jse (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump's call to Zelenskky

Trump called, rightfully so, to discuss Ukraine investigating Burisma Energy, and Hunter Biden's seat on the board, and being paid $83,000.00 monthly. Trump thought it worth investigating as to why Hunter Biden was seated, and asked Zelenskky to investigate Burisma Energy. 2601:280:C200:F340:6058:3041:982D:3232 (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

And threatened to withhold Congressionally approved funds if he didn't do so. That's the part that was an impeachable offense. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

In light of the $10B damages caused by CrowdStrike's latest shenanigans, maybe it's worth reinvestigating their alleged clean hands of years ago... 174.131.239.231 (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense, what does CrowdStrike have to do with this? And Wikipedia is not an investigative news organization anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)