Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trump–Ukraine scandal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 30 days

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Ukraine Low‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidents / Government / 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Section sizes

Section size for Trump–Ukraine scandal (56 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	11,241	11,241
Background	22,137	75,294
President Donald Trump	3,627	3,627
Ukraine and the Bidens	19,169	19,169
Rudy Giuliani	10,129	10,129
Naftogaz	3,283	3,283
Dmytry Firtash	9,687	9,687
Kashyap Patel	7,262	7,262
Campaign against Marie Yovanovitch	24,186	24,186
Communications with Ukrainian officials	32,273	76,427
Memorandum record of the July 25 phone call	13,101	13,101
Withholding of Ukrainian military aid	27,673	27,673
Withholding of White House visit	3,380	3,380
Whistleblower complaints	32	37,029
First whistleblower complaint	39	34,569
Submission of complaint and withholding from Congress	21,336	21,336
Release and substance of the complaint	6,859	6,859
Confirmation	1,208	1,208
Identity	5,127	5,127
Second whistleblower complaint	2,428	2,428
Impeachment inquiry proceedings	131	131
Subsequent developments	31	47,536
Involvement of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman	22,247	22,247
Communications with other governments	47	16,586
Australia	4,603	4,603
Italy	3,586	3,586
China	8,350	8,350
Release of John Bolton's manuscript	4,134	4,134
Other federal investigations	4,538	4,538
Reactions	17	66,422
Congress	11,014	11,014
President Trump and the White House	19,204	19,204
Ukraine	10,430	10,430
European Union	4,750	4,750
Russia	4,500	4,500
Former U.S. officials	4,777	4,777
American editorials and commentary	6,367	6,367
Public opinion	1,807	1,807
Resignations	1,428	1,428
Internet communities	2,128	2,128
Aftermath	15	18,228
Impeachment and senate trial	1,477	1,477
Resignations and firings of witnesses	9,395	9,395
Giuliani's activities in Ukraine	4,558	4,558
Place in the Russia investigation counter-narrative	2,783	2,783
Impact on Ukraine-Russia relations	668	668
Conspiracy theories	4,856	35,030
CrowdStrike	9,431	9,431
Actions of first whistleblower	6,282	6,282
Whistleblower rules and hearsay	9,358	9,358
George Soros	3,333	3,333
Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory	1,770	1,770
See also	400	400
Notes	26	26
References	5,293	5,293
External links	5,356	5,356
Total	403,267	403,267

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

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)[reply]

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

“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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, everybody knows that Wikipedia mods dont do any research. We're lucky that you commies lost. 80.98.151.90 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]