Talk:2019 Trump–Ukraine scandal

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

Claims that the Trump-Zelenskyy conversation was recorded?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

Addition request

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)

Requested move 5 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

---

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)

• Oppose move. There is no scandal related to Ukraine in Trump's second term. O.N.R. ^(talk) 23:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

For. Per Rafts of Calm.— MykolaHK (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support I think it's very reasonable for readers to be confused based on current titles between this event and recent events which transpired in Trump's second term so far. Yeoutie (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Support given recent events. Sushidude21! (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2025 (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.

Can someone please reduce the protection level?

This article's been on extended confirmed since 2019, I believe. Please, someone, lower it – there are many of us on semi-protection that just want to make uncontroversial fixes to it! WikiEdita65 (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)