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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: American Low‑importance 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 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 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 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) 11,449 11,449 Background 22,202 75,436 President Donald Trump 3,631 3,631 Ukraine and the Bidens 19,174 19,174 Rudy Giuliani 10,192 10,192 Naftogaz 3,285 3,285 Dmytry Firtash 9,687 9,687 Kashyap Patel 7,265 7,265 Campaign against Marie Yovanovitch 24,244 24,244 Communications with Ukrainian officials 32,302 76,470 Memorandum record of the July 25 phone call 13,109 13,109 Withholding of Ukrainian military aid 27,679 27,679 Withholding of White House visit 3,380 3,380 Whistleblower complaints 32 37,062 First whistleblower complaint 39 34,598 Submission of complaint and withholding from Congress 21,348 21,348 Release and substance of the complaint 6,865 6,865 Confirmation 1,212 1,212 Identity 5,134 5,134 Second whistleblower complaint 2,432 2,432 Impeachment inquiry proceedings 131 131 Subsequent developments 31 47,584 Involvement of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman 22,282 22,282 Communications with other governments 47 16,595 Australia 4,603 4,603 Italy 3,586 3,586 China 8,359 8,359 Release of John Bolton's manuscript 4,134 4,134 Other federal investigations 4,542 4,542 Reactions 17 66,467 Congress 11,018 11,018 President Trump and the White House 19,237 19,237 Ukraine 10,428 10,428 European Union 4,750 4,750 Russia 4,502 4,502 Former U.S. officials 4,777 4,777 American editorials and commentary 6,375 6,375 Public opinion 1,807 1,807 Resignations 1,428 1,428 Internet communities 2,128 2,128 Aftermath 15 18,295 Impeachment and senate trial 1,477 1,477 Resignations and firings of witnesses 9,442 9,442 Giuliani's activities in Ukraine 4,576 4,576 Place in the Russia investigation counter-narrative 2,785 2,785 Impact on Ukraine-Russia relations 668 668 Conspiracy theories 4,856 35,067 CrowdStrike 9,460 9,460 Actions of first whistleblower 6,282 6,282 Whistleblower rules and hearsay 9,368 9,368 George Soros 3,335 3,335 Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory 1,766 1,766 See also 360 360 Notes 26 26 References 5,297 5,297 External links 5,338 5,338 Total 403,894 403,894

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 Lowercase sigmabot III.

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]

It was definitely an unfounded conspiracy theory. The theory that there was collision ended up being bogus. That specific page should be renamed to the 'Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory'. For intellectual consistency.

It is beyond the scope of this specific page however. 31.201.108.155 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2025 (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]

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]

I've read the transcript. It was a great transcript, and some would say PERFECT. 31.201.108.155 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2025 (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]

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 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]

Probably, the article could be a place to mention or even to elaborate on the scandalous summit on Feb 28, 2025. 78.37.216.35 (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that Trump–Ukraine scandal be renamed and moved to 2019 Trump–Ukraine scandal. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Trump–Ukraine scandal → 2019 Trump–Ukraine scandal – Given recent events, I think this article needs to be renamed to distinguish it from the controversial events of Trump’s second administration. Open to other ideas on how best to title this article. Rafts of Calm (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose move. There is no scandal related to Ukraine in Trump's second term. O.N.R. ^(talk) 23:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle - I think a descriptive title would be best, but this is still better than the current title. Red Slash 17:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unnecessary disambiguation. When we create an article on a 2025 Trump–Ukraine scandal, we would need to move this page, but no earlier. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]