Jump to content

Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.7.201.234 (talk) at 16:13, 6 April 2020 (→‎Rename artilce, "Trump-Ukraine Scandal" is POV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPUS50k

"Ongoing political scandal"

Now that Trump has been acquitted, can we really still call this an "ongoing political scandal"? Barring some enormous revelation, I'd say this has largely run its course.

I'm also wondering as to whether or not we should include content on the announcement over the weekend that a mechanism for Giuliani's "findings" to be passed on to the Justice Department has been put in place. No doubt these are just going to be more conspiracy theories—Giuliani is already claiming that Obama and Biden put pressure on Ukraine to dig up dirt on Paul Manafort—and wouldn't be worth giving it the time of day ... however, this seems to be stuff that Giuliani "found" in Ukraine, so Ukraine is still relevant, and Barr's announcement means that the Justice Department is taking it seriously. I also recall reading somewhere that Barr is requiring that any investigation into foreign interference gets his approval. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Lindsey Graham's statements this morning, I would say this is very much ongoing. It's still on Trump's mind, given his recent angry tweeting, and the Justice Dept. and Republican senators are actively working on it. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's definitely ongoing. XOR'easter (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO and XOR'easter: not being American, I don't get comprehensive media coverage. We get FOX, which I originally thought was satire; and CNN, but I get distracted waiting for Wolf Blitzer to pull his face mask off and reveal that he's really Simon Pegg. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mclarenfan17, hell yes. Barr has just demanded that all investigations related to any election campaign are personally approved by him, and has also put in place a back-channel for Ukraine-related dirt from Giuliani. This is not only ongoing, it's likely to get even more toxic. I subscribe to the New York Times, Washington Post and New Yorker, and listen to the Mueller She Wrote / Daily Beans podcasts, Crooked Media pods, Preet Bharara, KCRW's Left, Right and Center, including Ken White's All The President's Lawyers, and Opening Arguments pod to keep informed from over here in Brexitstan. Guy (help!) 09:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG Thanks for those. We usually only get a 90-second spot to cover American politics fifteen minutes into the evening news. Planet America is usually good, but right now they're focused on the election. The Russia, If You're Listening podcast is also good, but they're on the end-of-season break.
My main concern is that the article could easily drift too far from its topic. It's already enormous, with over 500 sources. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new subsection under "aftermath" (but should be renamed "subsequent developments" once we can think of a new name for the existing "subsequent developments" section), but it needs more references. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be enough RS to justify Cover-up of the Trump–Ukraine scandal. We're watching it happen before our eyes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: if we do that, we're going to run into the same problem as as the 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike article—there was a push to rename it "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani", but it was felt that calling it an assassination in Wikipedia's voice was too provocative. Calling it a cover-up implies wrongdoing (which it is, but bear with me here), but as I understand it, there was no legal wrongdoing in or by the Senate when they acquitted Trump. A moral wrongdoing, sure—as an international onlooker, I get the distinct impression that the GOP think it's more important to have a Republican president than a president who obeys the law—but where is the case for the Senate having been involved in some criminal conspiracy? If we were to create an article called "Cover-up of the Trump–Ukraine scandal", we'd have to discount or downplay the acquittal, so is there enough substance to sustain such an article? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Senate acquittal is seen as a cover-up which aided Trump's cover-up, but, as was explained on CNN a few minutes ago (in the context of Barr's actions), Barr is a symptom, but Trump is the problem.
Trump has been impeached for abuse of power (230/197) and obstruction of Congress (229/198). That guilty verdict stands forever. The House of Representatives found him guilty, and what happened in the Senate does not "undo" that verdict. The Senate acquitted him, and that's their vote. That also stands, but it does not undo the House impeachment. He has joined the short list of impeached Presidents. He hates that, and his actions are those of a man trying to whitewash and cover-up all the evidence of his misdeeds. The obstruction continues and is succeeding with his followers in their filter bubble of lies from unreliable sources, but the majority of voters, and the world, can still see what's happening and recognize it for what it is, a blatant cover-up.[1] RS describe it.
This is indeed an ongoing situation, and now that the Senate acquitted Trump, he feels empowered to perform his cover-up right out in the open for all to see. Now four Justice Dept. prosecutors have resigned in protest over the actions to soften Stone's punishment. The obstruction isn't just of Congress, but of justice itself. What should happen to those who have aided Trump is being blocked (and there is talk of pardons), and those patriots who have exposed the wrongdoing are being threatened, punished, and fired.
We should describe what's happening in the terms used by RS, and "cover-up" is increasingly used by them. We should not be afraid to use the term and attribute it, so we should start thinking in those terms and work toward creating content that uses those terms. Wikipedia must not become part of the cover-up by not using the term. We should not be shy. We should document the efforts by RS to #EndTheCoverUp, -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer:
He has joined the short list of impeached Presidents. He hates that, and his actions are those of a man trying to whitewash and cover-up all the evidence of his misdeeds.
I disagree with that, but only slightly. I don't think he's just trying to cover things up, but rather that he's trying to do it in such a way that completely exonerates him. That's why he brought CrowdStrike into it—not only was he trying to "prove" that Joe Biden is corrupt, but that the Democrats were behind the election hack, "proving" that the Mueller report was fraudulent and exonerating him. I'm surprised that he hasn't tried to bring Operation Gladio or SPECTRE into it. And that's where my concern about article creep emerges: so much of this is tied up in conspiracy theories that it would be very easy to fall down a rabbit hole without realising it.
This is indeed an ongoing situation, and now that the Senate acquitted Trump, he feels empowered to perform his cover-up right out in the open for all to see. Now four Justice Dept. prosecutors have resigned in protestover the actions to soften Stone's punishment. The obstruction isn't just of Congress, but of justice itself.
How does the Stone case tie to Ukraine? Trump's acquittal might have emboldened him, but Stone was arrested before the Ukraine scandal happened. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was arrested before? Okay. I guess I mentioned that because it was current news, and because this is all tied to the Russian interference and the role of Trump and cohorts in inviting, welcoming, facilitating, co-operating with it, and benefiting from it, hence their need to cover-up. If they hadn't been involved, they would never have felt a need to be secretive and lie about their involvement. Stone and others were convicted because of lying, among other crimes. That's all. It's all tied together, but since Stone isn't directly involved in this Ukraine business, we won't bring him into this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer:

this is all tied to the Russian interference and the role of Trump and cohorts in inviting, welcoming, facilitating, co-operating with it, and benefiting from it, hence their need to cover-up

I think you give them too much credit. I think the Russians view them as useful idiots and that their objective is to undermine public confidence in democratic institutions. They only really benefit from the Ukraine scandal by destabilising the relationship between America and Ukraine, and I cannot find anything that directly links them to it aside from Trump swallowing their stories about interference in 2016. This seems to be something that has taken on a life of its own. There is a place for it on Wikipedia, but I think it shoehorning it in here would be the wrong place to put it. Again, it comes down to article creep. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mclarenfan17, I largely agree. Ukraine seems to figure in the interference as a scapegoat story pushed by Putin's agents on Trump and associates. Trump finds it convenient to believe that story, although we know he knows better, because that diverts the attention of his supporters from the proven role of Russia, and that's where his proven co-operation with Russia comes into the picture.
His pushing of a "Ukraine did it" version makes it look like his accusers and U.S. intelligence agencies were wrong all along, since there is no evidence that Trump ever co-operated with Ukraine to help him win the election. He then appears to his supporters as a falsely accused victim, a role he loves to play.
In reality, and that's what we document here, this whole Ukraine scandal is about Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, et al trying to create an alibi backstory (part of a classic cover-up) which did not exist, and they got busted, literally "caught in the act". (Smart criminals create the alibi before they commit the crime.) His defense story (which he hasn't articulated clearly yet, but give him time...) can then be that he truly believed Putin when Putin told him that it was Ukraine, and not Russia, that interfered in the election. (All they can come up with is how Manafort's crimes were uncovered, and how a few Ukrainians didn't like Trump, for obvious reasons.)
It then comes down to proving that he actually did know it was Russia, but chose to ignore and deny that fact and believe Putin instead. That defense fails. It will be better for him to appear as a useful idiot than a willing recipient and facilitator of Russian help. Both appear to be true. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: the New York Times is reporting that, according to unnamed sources, prosecutors are trying to find a pretext for prosecuting John Brennan over tampering with evidence in the Russia probe. If true, that seems like something that would fit into the "aftermath" section. It doesn't seem to be fully fleshed-ouy just yet—they're looking for a pretext, but they either haven't found one or pushed ahead with it—so I'm not rushing to include it just yet. More importantly, NYT is relying on unnamed sources in their reporting. I come from a few WikiProjects where unnamed sources are frowned up (usually because they're used to justify publishing stories that the author cannot confirm), but they might be more acceptable here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We would need several RS for that, but they may shed more light on it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This just might have something to do with why Trump's goons are "investigating the investigators".
The Durham inquiry has been described as an "inquiry into its own Russia investigation",[1] "investigating the investigators" of the Russian meddling in the 2016 elections,[2][3] and a cover-up to protect Trump.[4][5] Mick Mulvaney has tied the Durham investigation to the Ukraine scandal, as Durham has sought help from Ukraine and interviewed Ukrainian citizens.[6] -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: I'd start with that last source, since it directly ties the Durham investigation to Ukraine. I'd still want something more concrete, though—right now it seems that Durham is on the fringes. If I'm reading this right, he hasn't really done anything yet, but is poised to.
I'm still worried about article creep, though. This is shaping up as a spin-off from the Ukraine scandal, so including it here might distract from the actual article. Especially if there is detail. My guess is that this is intended to do the same thing as the CrowdStrike angle of the Ukraine scandal—"prove" that Trump was not involved in the 2016 electoral interference whilst giving him ammunition to fight whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mclarenfan17: this whole mess is a scandal because it is a conspiracy theory in search of evidence, and even trying to manufacture fake evidence after-the-fact: "Giuliani says he's exposing legitimate corruption in Ukraine, even though his claims about former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden have been widely debunked."[2] (Bolding added)
That's why the concern about Trump's continuing and increasing abuses of power to bury this, which was the first charge in his impeachment. He is misusing the powers of the DOJ (investigations by Barr and Durham) for personal cover-up purposes.[4][5]
That's why Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal is a sub-article that is worthy of being the main article, with this as the sub-article. In fact, I have casually suggested the "conspiracy" article be renamed Cover-up of the Trump–Ukraine scandal. Maybe we should do it.
We all know the idiom the "truth will out" ("be sure your sin will find you out" Numbers 32:23). One way or another, in spite of all efforts to conceal it, the truth will come to be known. Well, that is the story of Trump. He undermines the very idea of truth and constantly lies at every turn (see Veracity of statements by Donald Trump‎), but the truth inconveniently (for him) keeps tripping him up.
Even Barr just complained that Trump's constant tweeting makes it hard for him to do his job of covering Trump's ass. Trump's tweets expose the real reasons for Barr's actions, including regarding Ukraine. (Giuliani's loose lips do the same thing to Trump all the time.) Barr's actions are not innocent or acceptable. The Attorney General is not supposed to work for Trump. Barr has taken an oath to uphold the law, not undermine it. Now Trump responds to Barr and disputes that he shouldn't be allowed to interfere in ongoing investigations. SMH!
Now Trump admits what he has denied about all this: "Trump contradicts past denials, admits sending Giuliani to Ukraine". This wasn't some rogue action by his subordinates, in this case Giuliani. Trump ordered it, just as we've learned about the massive and proven co-operation between the Trump campaign and the Russians when they were interfering in the election. Trump knew the Russians would help him cheat all along (at least as early as 2013, according to Russian tweets at the time and hacking in 2014), and in February 2019, Michael Cohen implicated Trump before the U.S. Congress, writing that Trump had knowledge that Roger Stone was communicating with WikiLeaks about releasing emails stolen from the DNC in 2016. Trump knew about the WikiLeaks plot, as alleged in the Steele dossier.[7][8]
So Giuliani was sent to Ukraine by Trump, and Trump has lied about that. Has that been added yet? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BullRangifer, I have added a brief statement. XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this whole mess is a scandal because it is a conspiracy theory in search of evidence, and even trying to manufacture fake evidence after-the-fact

I get that. I'm not denying any of it. But I'm seeing a whole lot of stuff that is not directly connected to the Ukraine scandal, which is why I'm hesitant to expand the scope of the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We should stick to the Trump/Ukraine scope. Have I suggested or implied an expansion? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: no, it's just that some of the articles you have been linking to make my head spin a bit as I try to process them. Mostly because whatever connection they have to Ukraine tends to only reveal itself right at the end rather than be up-front. Also, the way Americans produce and consume news is a little baffling to me since the medium is the message, right down to the individual presenter. Who you get your news from really shapes what the message is and that's quite foreign to me. I can't help but feel like it's being presented through the lens of a personality, so sifting through that takes time because I don't know the personalities or the brands they have tried to build. It has shown me why Americans have so many issues with trusting the media, though. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It's actually impossible to talk about this without mentioning the main subjects in other articles, because it's all related, and the edges where they overlap each other should be mentioned in each article, but without going into great depth. That's where wikilinks serve a nice purpose. We mention it and send people "that-a-way". -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mclarenfan17, we literally need a new article which collects all this under one umbrella, with these articles serving as SPINOFF sub-articles, per this reality: "Trump's quest to rewrite history of the Russia probe". This WaPo article outlines a new main article Trump's cover-up of Russia probe findings. It describes how he emulates Putin and other authoritarian leaders who misuse their power (the "winner writes history") to rewrite history to hide their misdeeds. RS will not let him succeed, so he attacks RS as "fake news", and some editors help him. Since policies are not on their side, there is nothing to forbid that such an article gets started in private userspace and later "goes public". -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When reality doesn't agree with the perspective of one man it's an uphill battle to try and create as many articles to cover his flights of fancy on any given day of the week. This is why wikipedia is doing a thankless task trying to document it. For posterity nobody is really going to care about these intricacies and this all really heavily reflects a dose of recentism infused with what is perceived as desperation / bias from outside. I don't know what the answer is because we have never had to deal with it previously. Koncorde (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer and Koncorde: the closest thing I can think of is Wikipedia's stance on alternative medicine, where editors have to walk a fine line between detailing the subject without appearing to give it credibility. It's one of the only places on Wikipedia where WP:NPOV is (somewhat) relaxed because "if alternative medicine worked, it would not be called 'alternative' medicine—it would be called 'medicine'". I think we're in the same predicament here: how do we document the subject without giving it legitimacy? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: do you think that Maguire's departure from and Grennell's appointment to Acting DNI should be included under the firings and resignation sub-section? I don't have the full range of sources that you do and two versions of events are emerging: in one, Maguire was replaced because he backed the whistleblower; in the other, he was replaced because of the briefing about Russian interference in 2020. I'm having trouble telling if this is relevant to the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mclarenfan17, I haven't closely examined that situation. It could be added if it is clearly related to the Ukraine situation. Otherwise, it's definitely related to Trump's cover-up of the Russian interference. He keeps trying to deny, downplay, and shift blame from Russia, himself, and the GOP to Ukraine and the Democrats. RS won't allow him to easily do that, which is why he tries to undermine confidence in RS by calling them "fake news". It's an authoritarian technique à la Nineteen Eighty-Four. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BullRangifer: this article (from our side of the Pacific) states Maguire was sent packing because of the Russia briefing. Backing the whistleblower was probably enough to put his head on the chopping block, but the article does not make the connection.
I have to say that I disagree with the Nineteen Eighty-Four analogy, though. While the Ministry of Truth does try to rewrite history, it's for a different purpose. Big Brother is trying to create a state of perpetual now; the argument is that you can't trust your memory to be objective because people remember things differently, and you can't anticipate the future, so all you can trust is what is right in front of you in this moment. Big Brother wants to extend this moment to last forever. Part of that is rewriting history to be whatever is convenient, but part of it is the "freedom is slavery" mantra—by deferring their moral decision-making to the government, people are finally free of their consciences. But I digress. I don't really have a point here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't heard the one about Maguire backing the whistleblower, do you have RSs? (post a good one here please)
To continue the digression; presumably q:Nineteen Eighty-Four's mantra "Ignorance is Strength" is more relevant. As to undermine confidence in RS for wannabe dictators is to unmoor potential future followers from reality, so they seek solace in authoritarian order; since then, only might makes right.[9] X1\ (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@X1\:
I hadn't heard the one about Maguire "backing the whistleblower, do you have RSs? (post a good one here please)
A lot of the analysis that we got this side of the Pacific suggested that Maguire's actions in withholding the whistleblower complaint and forcing Congress to subpoena him were designed to create a paper trail to demonstrate his legal obligation to forward the complaint onto Congress. But I should stress that the coverage we get of American politics is usually compressed into a short segment, so this analysis could be misleading. Our commentators seem to have interpreted Maguire forwarding the complaint on as a sign of support.
To continue the digression; presumably q:Nineteen Eighty-Four's mantra "Ignorance is Strength" is more relevant.
It all bleeds together. It's a case of taking comfort in what you objectively know (remembering that they are suggesting that you cannot trust your memory or anticipate the future), insulating yourself from anything that contradicts (and thus threatens) that. It's a way of tricking you into thinking that you are smart enough to separate fact from fiction when in reality you're swallowing the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
That's why I think WH Auden's "September 1, 1939" is far more apt for this day and age. You could probably rename it "January 20, 2017", make one or two minor tweaks and people would swear it was written for the here and now. I won't post the full thing here because of WP:NOTFORUM, but if you're interested I can break it down on your talk page. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for posting your thoughts, Mclarenfan17, I hadn't read September 1, 1939 in a long time. No need to break it down; you communicated a feeling of ominous foreboding. X1\ (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@X1\: well, it's nice to know poetry isn't a dead artform. I used to be an English teacher—hence the "breaking it down" line—and most people would look at me askance when I mentioned poetry. Change "Linz" to "Queens" (because that's where Trump was born) and "Luther" to "Washington" (for the American context) and you could swear it was written yesterday. Every time I see one of his rallies on the evening news, I immediately think of the lines The windiest militant trash / Important Persons shout and Not universal love / But to be loved alone. We can only hope the Just are out there somewhere. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@X1\: just revisiting Maguire's support for the whistleblower, he clearly testified that he thought the whistleblower did the right thing in coming forward and that the content of the complaint matched the transcript. Trump has repeatedly claimed that the whistleblower was "fake" because the complaint did not match the transcript—a lie—and given his behaviour would likely see Maguire's opinion of the whistleblower's actions as a sign of disloyalty. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ Benner, Katie; Goldman, Adam (October 24, 2019). "Justice Dept. Is Said to Open Criminal Inquiry Into Its Own Russia Investigation". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 October 2019.
  2. ^ Sullivan, Andy (October 2, 2019). "Explainer: Barr gives top priority to investigating the investigators of Russian meddling". Reuters. Retrieved October 21, 2019.
  3. ^ Berenson, Tessa (October 4, 2019). "Meet John Durham, The Man Tasked With 'Investigating the Investigators'". Time. Retrieved October 25, 2019.
  4. ^ a b Willis, Jay (September 27, 2019). "How Bill Barr Turned the Justice Department Into a Cover-up Operation". GQ. Retrieved October 25, 2019.
  5. ^ a b Walters, Greg (September 25, 2019). "Trump's Ukraine Scandal Is Also Attorney General Bill Barr's Scandal". Vice. Retrieved October 25, 2019.
  6. ^ Goldman, Adam; Rashbaum, William K. (2019-10-19). "Review of Russia Inquiry Grows as F.B.I. Witnesses Are Questioned". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  7. ^ Elfrink, Tim; Flynn, Meagan (February 27, 2019). "Michael Cohen to testify that Trump knew of WikiLeaks plot". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 27, 2019.
  8. ^ Daub, Travis (February 27, 2019). "Read Michael Cohen's full prepared testimony on Trump's Russia plans, WikiLeaks email dump". PBS. Retrieved February 27, 2019.
  9. ^ The Lies Aren’t Meant to Be Consistent; The goal is merely to disrupt the truth from being exposed. Nancy LeTourneau Washington Monthly February 18, 2020

Can it be semi now?

The impeachment is over,scandal was mostly in April 2019,so can it be reduced? 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:91 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Can ask for reduction from GeneralizationsAreBad (talk · contribs) on his talk page or see if he sees a ping here. WikiVirusC(talk) 19:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The impeachment ended (and in roughly the way anticipated, give or take a Manchin and/or Romney vote). But the scandal rolls on, and we have no real reason to think that trolls will be less of a pest to deal with now. I'd say that the protection should stay at its current level. XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Donoghue and the EDNY, update needed?

An updated is need needed regarding Richard Donoghue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and Scott Brady (lawyer) of United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Some RS leads can be found in the yt above. X1\ (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede question

Why isn't this referred to as alleged efforts?2601:405:4A00:75F0:FCD4:BC6C:6C4A:66C8 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the evidence clearly showed that he did it. Guy (help!) 21:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Denials of that fact are covered in this article: Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal. Trump uses conspiracy theories as part of his historical negationism. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

add post-acquittal purge?

X1\ (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@X1\: there is already a sub-section on firings and resignations, so maybe it could go there. I'd be hesitant to go too far with it, though—the acquittal emboldened Trump, but with each passing day we get further and further away from the acquittal itself, which means dismissals that would not have happened before the acquittal but unrelated to Ukraine could happen. We've already seen it with Maguire, who was apparently let go because of the Russia briefing. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After I posted the above, I noticed Impeachment trial of Donald Trump#Aftermath, Talk:Donald Trump#identifying and removing political appointees and career officials, and Talk:Richard Grenell#Disputed reference to "clean house", ... so I will leave it to editors with more time than I can devote, Mclarenfan17. X1\ (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@X1\: I have added the sources in, but have tried to avoid going into too much detail—especially since the deep state came up. Are all the leaks evidence of a far-reaching conspiracy against Trump, or just the product of administration members frustrated by a dysfunctional and incoherent administration? Ockham's razor says it's the latter, but conservatives are running with the former because it's more convenient than facing up to the fact that people aren't buying what they're selling anymore and they need to change. The largely-begin arrogance of their "born to rule" mentality has undergone a metamorphasis to become "we're right because we're the ones saying it", which doesn't allow them to think critically and instead embrace fanciful conspiracy theories ... and I really don't want to turn to far into that skid by acknowledging it in the article any more that I have to. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate information in the second sentence of the article.

The article is locked so it cannot be corrected, but it should be. Otherwise, more and more people will lose faith in Wikipedia articles. The problem appears to be partisan-leanings by the author. In the second line it states: "It revolves around efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidate Joe Biden". The word "ALLEGED" should precede the word "efforts" as such: 'It revolves around alleged efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries'. Since there is no proof that the president attempted to or made "efforts to" coerce Ukraine of anything, this error should be corrected immediately. Many people already feel Wikipedia is a left-leaning organization. Why would you allow careless writing like this to solidify beliefs that you far-left or even alt-left. Wikipedia should attempt to be 100% unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tit4tat (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tit4tat, nope. we've gone over this before, so just look through the talk page archives and you'll see why we're not going to make that change. Your concern trolling about whether "more and more people will lose faith in Wikipedia articles" is noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article, "Trump-Ukraine Scandal" is POV

The article should be NPOV and scandal is POV. Look up the word https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scandal?s=t How about rename this article to "Trump-Ukraine Democrat Impeachment Scandal" 98.7.201.234 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trump–Ukraine_scandal&oldid=949460088"