Jump to content

Talk:2019 Trump–Ukraine scandal/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Please remove [[File:Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky telephone conversation memorandum.pdf|thumb|150px|A memorandum with a non-verbatim record of the call between Trump and Zelensky released by the White House]] below the section entitled “Communications with Ukrainian officials,” and replace the same with {{src|White House memorandum of a telephone conversation between U.S. President Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky, July 25, 2019}}. Please remove [[File:Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance 703909.pdf|150px|thumb|GAO Report<br>Decision on the Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance]], as it superfluous to {{wikisource|Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance}}. Please remove [[File:Trump–Ukraine whistleblower complaint unclassified.pdf|thumb|A redacted version of the whistleblower complaint]], and replace the same with {{src|Letter to Chairman Burr and Chairman Schiff, August 12, 2019}}. Thank you.

This was originally not finished, and archived without response. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC).

 Partly done: ~ Amkgp 💬 19:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Citation for Impeachment and senate trial

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/susan-collins-will-vote-to-acquit-trump-saying-hes-learned-from-impeachment/ "I believe that the president has learned from this case," Collins said in an exclusive interview with "CBS Evening News" anchor Norah O'Donnell on Tuesday, before a speech on the Senate floor about her decision. "The president has been impeached. That's a pretty big lesson."

Although, she really only said he'd be "much more cautious" about seeking foreign assistance in the future. Goaded (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Relevant Information Declassified

Not a reliable source. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This showed up yesterday. It may require significant evaluations to be made: https://ricochet.com/806823/breaking-bombshell/ 173.14.238.113 (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

To summarise: "Russian intelligence told us that Clinton was approving an attack on Trump about his links to the Russians. We don't know if this is true or reliable." This piece was also previously discarded by the Intelligence Committe as irrelevant. Koncorde (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Include Wikipedia under identites

There is a mention under 'Identity' that Youtube, Twitter and Facebook censor the whistleblower's alleged name. Shouldn't we also mention that Wikipedia expunges any changes with the name and bans the account? It seems more notable than any of the other examples due to the past avoidance of censorship on Wikipedia (for example depictions of muhammad). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.236.86 (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should, obviously. We have direct info that accounts are banned for that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive317#Need_revdel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023#38.114.82.82 we have a "filter 1008" that searches for his name https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T237887 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/history/1008/item/22545 and even those who created it User:zzuuzz and User:ST47 and help maintaining it User:Martin Urbanec https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/AbuseFilter/+/550954/, I think we should open an Arbitration Committee investigation into this blatant and beyond reasonable doubt violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and those users should be banned and removed from Wikimedia Foundation company. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
They are removed because of the risk of legal challenge. This is nothing special. Meanwhile Muhammad's images were not illegal in any of the countries involved. Koncorde (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Moreover, Arbcom does not sanction users for upholding policy, and describing the actions of the Wikipedia community within Wikipedia articles is only possible when secondary sources document those actions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
"They are removed because of the risk of legal challenge", no, it is not true, his name was always present in english wiki and on other languages of Wikipedia in impeachment of Trump article, it is a policy of those mentioned above people in enwiki: (Redacted), moreover WP:DNOLT does not apply here, there were no legal threats and even if there were it must not be in disregard with WP:NOTCENSORED because of very obvious Streisand effect. The people who did this understood it, the Arbcom thus should sanction those users for their policy, that was BRD a violation of Wikipedia rules and received wide coverage in the media. I also must say that it is very dangerous that source code maintainers did not even check for this, I doubt that qualification of those Wikimedia Foundation programmers is very high, which is very disappointing. Moreover using a filter that is not opensourced and that is an obvious mass censoring tool is also in violation not only of WP:NOTCENSORED, but also of U.S. Code. This is an obvious WP:DNOLT, moreover a president's enforced WP:DNOLT: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/ I will also remind of that identity of whistleblowers under Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act is not protected. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
WMF programmers really don't have anything to do with this. In fact they were patching a CVE in the software unrelated to any content. However, yes I am one of those helping to enact the community's policy in this area, and consensus for this is clearly documented. WP:NOTCENSORED is often misinterpreted because it's not fully read. It doesn't mean one can write whatever one likes. It means content will not be removed in order to be acceptable to all readers. Content may be removed for many other reasons. Of course it is qualified, as free speech is also qualified. Plus, as far as I know, Wikipedia as a private site can remove whatever or whoever it wants to anyway. If you want to head over to Arbcom, knock yourself out. In reply to the original question, which the IP above has failed to address, Wikipedia relies on reliable independent sourcing for such claims. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. CVE-2019-18987 but the issue mentions specifically the filter 1008, that is how it was discovered, is not it? "Content may be removed for many other reasons" But it is not removed as I just showed even "in this area", on English wikisource. "Wikipedia as a private site can remove whatever or whoever it wants to anyway" yes, Wikimedia Foundation can do that. What is not allowed is to use mass censoring scripts (and apparently caring ABOUT whether they are hidden), BTW, as a creator and a programmer, do you not care that your work is used to censore and regulate Platform users (Wikipedia is not a publisher, that is under section Section 230), which is again illegal to do for a Platform? All my programmer friends I asked would never do something like that after Edward Snowden. About WP:RSPS, today's primary source from SSCI about Burisma does not even try to hide the name. Apparently no doubt in their minds. And of course there were a lot of reporting on the name (of course no WP:RSPS) and 267 000 results in google, including a lot about Wikipedia and Youtube. You and others mentioned above damaged Wikimedia foundation -- and even this did on rather low level on english wikipedia only. BTW, IMHO very real WP:DNOLT for censorship, which, if Trump will learn about it, will result in gross lawsuit as in Trump's mind and Senate's mind, this is guy is far from Snowden. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Well that is an absolute word salad. Might I suggest you try this on the admin noticeboard or something where you can try your obscure and arcane legal threats of what Trump may do. Koncorde (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
This got a bit off topic. I am not arguing that this is or is not a violation of Wikipedia's rules. I am simply saying that we should also state that along with the other examples, we too have a censorship policy in place.71.115.236.86 (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
So am I good to add this to the article? Is it ok to use wikipedia's own noticeboard as a reference? I would be open to a more formal source if one exists. Also if anyone else wants to make the edit that would be fine, I am largely unfamiliar with wikipedia editing. 71.115.236.86 (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
After having a discussion on the wikipedia discord I have been advised to drop this issue. If anyone else wants to pick up the torch, an article from breitbart mentions the issue but is considered an untrustworthy source. Due to fact that we can verify this article to be true, there may be a way to get the article whitelisted. Regardless I lack that 500 edits necessary to be able to edit this article so it is largely moot. 71.115.236.86 (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Not merely untrustworthy, but also written by a banned user, so promoting it here violates WP:PROXYING. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I was unaware the author of the article was a banned wikipedia user. Am I to understand that if a user is banned from the site, all published work from any source can no longer be mention or referenced? 71.115.236.86 (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

What I mean here is that is what will happen on "Protecting Consumers from Social Media Abuses" sammit. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Criminal Referral On Donald Trump

This Newly Released Letter Details The Criminal Referral On Donald Trump Over His Ukraine Phone Call

Valjean (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

I would like to include a citation for the following passage in the “Withholding of Ukrainian military aid” section:

“On January 16, 2020, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a non-partisan watchdog agency, concluded that the White House broke federal law by withholding of Congress-approved military aid to Ukraine.”

The official report from the GAO can be found here:

https://www.gao.gov/products/D21272#mt=e-report

And as a PDF here:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

The specific passage from the GAO’s report that corroborates this Wiki passage is this:

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.  OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).  The withholding was not a programmatic delay.  Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

The OMB is the Office of Management and Budget (an agency under the Executive Office of the President of the United States).

Thanks for your time, and have a great day! ^.^ Philogicatician (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done The sentence is already supported by a secondary source, but having a direct link to the primary-source document seems like it could be useful in this case and wouldn't hurt. XOR'easter (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Impeachment inquiry

Surely we don't need the impeachment inquiry detailed here, when we have its own article for that going in better detail. We already have details about the impeachment in the aftermath section, where it belongs. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

According to whom?

The “according to whom” link in the sentence

“As of October 2019, there has been no evidence produced of any alleged wrongdoing by the Bidens.[58][according to whom?]”

is inappropriate. According to whom applies to statements that claim that “a lot of people” or it is “well known”, etc. No one can provide evidence of a lack of evidence. If there is evidence, the evidence should be linked. This is a distortion of the fallacy that is meant to be prevented with the “according to whom” link. Viviannevilar (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Viviannevilar, thanks for pointing that out. I've removed it. The "according to whom" is answered by the multiple citations in #58. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Hunter Biden's blp page

Editors invited to consider how to describe Hunter Biden in the lead of his BLP here. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2022

Rev.Dr.ThomasYork (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

My edit was minor, but important. This platform is known for being a neutral source of information regarding all matters including politics. I am attempting to keep its appearance that way. Rev.Dr.ThomasYork (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I did all of that and provided 4 sources. Rev.Dr.ThomasYork (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You did what, where, and when? Your account has only made three edits, these three edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I made the edit using the exact instructions. I took screenshots along the way. When I finished the edit, it accepted it. It then sent me to a page that said "Note". That is weed when i left the remark about it being a minor edit. I attempted a little bit ago to put the edit here in "Note", but it didnt publish. Rev.Dr.ThomasYork (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the confusion may be that you are attempting to edit the article called Trump–Ukraine scandal but that article is page protected, meaning that newer editors cannot edit it directly (because we are trying to minimize disruptive editing). The way you edit the article is to type out your suggested edit, right below this message here. If the edit meets WP guidelines and has reliable sources, we can make the change to the actual article for you. I bet the “note” was just the notice telling you that you can’t edit the article itself. Can you tell us what you are trying to change? Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Weaponized justice system

I can see Archives has made it a point to discredit President Trump and did not tell whole truth about president Trump and was nice things about biden,biden ,so Archives working with Biden now and not reporting truth about Biden’s . 45.59.83.246 (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This makes no sense. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Maybe it's a bot or maybe it's a Google translation .---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Lev Parnas on his role

Former Giuliani Collaborator Lev Parnas Spills On Trump And Ukraine[1] -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Truscott, Lucian K (February 15, 2023). "Former Giuliani Collaborator Lev Parnas Spills On Trump And Ukraine". The National Memo. Retrieved February 15, 2023.

Opening Sentence

The opening sentence is decidedly non-Wikipedian. I suggest changing it to something along the lines of "The Trump-Ukraine scandal was a US political scandal arising from accusations that former U.S. President Donald Trump had..." 174.218.0.20 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It was indeed a weird sentence, so I have made some tweaks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Bullshit! 2601:1C2:1B80:D860:8153:18CF:6344:C29B (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Biden-Ukraine scandal

Given the burgeoning volume of evidence pointing to a possible Joe Biden-Ukraine scandal, I believe this subtopic warrants its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.217.91.34 (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

What purpose do you think that would serve? I think we already have too many related articles that have duplicate content. What content would be included in the "Joe Biden–Ukraine scandal" article that is not already included in other articles (this, impeachment article, etc.)? Politrukki (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Randomly making articles about things that have Fox News as their main source, which isn't considered a reliable source politically per WP:RSP, doesn't seem meaningful. Why would we make an article and call it "scandal" when the lead investigator is Tucker Carlson? Nythar (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this topic should be deleted from the talk page — I'm not sure when it was created but as of now there is a "Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory" article, and it would therefore be an irrelevant section to add, as they are completely unrelated. JackSitilides (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-protected Edit request

The page Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is highly related to the content of this article at a number of points. I would suggest that article be linked on the words "fueled speculation" in the Background section, as that article's content is precisely what speculation was fueled, and then perhaps have a link / mention of it in the Conspiracy Theories section further downpage. Denzera (talk) 19:04, 4 August 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)

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)

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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Trump–Ukraine_scandal/Archive_7&oldid=1284643528"