Talk:Lev Parnas

Tape of Trump and Parnas conversation

There are now four different places the page mentions the tape of Trump and Parnas talking about firing Marie Yovanovitch.

I have left all references stand and cleaned them up. They should however, be consolidated. The first mention is now in the opening paragraph and someone added it to help counter Trump's denial. Personally, I don't think this particular spot of the article is necessary. The best place I see to put the information is in the paragraph about activities in the Ukraine. Then since Parnas made it a claim in the interview a simple mention of the claim. Thoughts?Pbmaise (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

An anonymous user has now removed the first mention of the tape from the opening paragraph. I am inclined to let it go and not revert this deletion especially since I already mentioned there were already other mentions of the tape elsewhere in the article. Pbmaise (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this an NPOV article on the Ukrainian-Biden Corruption or a hit piece on President Trump vs BLP?

Personal rants and opinions about Trump, Bidens, Burisma, Money, Politics -- but not article improvement.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC) First of all, the use of "scandal" here is a violation of NPOV. Trump's supporters are not scandalized. If the Democrats have been attempting to make this a Trump scandal, with the cooperation of Democrat MSM, from the POV that anything & everything Trump does is awful with a cynical attempt to gain political power vs Trump. Scandal constitutes a partisan talking point. Why was this not termed Biden-Ukraine scandal? Secondly, to term the attempts of Donald Trump to investigate persons for whom there is probable cause to conclude they may have done corrupt activities while in office or in Ukraine, to term those attempts as attacks on Trump's political rivals, is a violation of NPOV, and violation of BLP vs Trump. Those attempts are more objectively termed as a president following his constitutional duty of seeing that the law is enforced. Joe Biden has bragged on video how he got a prosecutor fired in the Ukraine by threatening the delivery of a billion dollars in loan guarantee to Ukraine if they failed to fire a prosecutor in a few hours. This Ukrainian prosecutor was investigating Burisma where Hunter Biden was on the board, receiving huge amounts of money for services which should be investigated as possible indirect bribery, there evidently being no evidence that Hunter Biden had qualifications to serve on such a company's board. There is enough evidence of possible corruption between Ukraine and Bidens to necessitate that the chief law enforcement officer, the president of the USA, should push for an investigation. The fact that Joe Biden is running for president, does not give him immunity from President Trump's constitutional duty to have him investigated. Thus terming this as Trump attempting to get Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political opponent, is a partisan spin, a violation of NPOV. The objective fact is that Trump was doing his duty to see that persons for whom there is a good possibility of corruption get investigated. And terming this a getting dirt on a political opponent is also a BLP violation vs Trump (PeacePeace (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)) PeacePeace, first, if you don't see this Ukraine situation,, resulting in the impeachment of POTUS, as a "scandal", then I don't know what meets your definition of the word "scandal". Second, there was zero "probable cause" that either Biden did anything wrong. Trump's constitutional duty to have him investigated does not extend to Ukraine, as Trump is not president of Ukraine. That's called pressuring a foreign government via a quid pro quo (specifically the withheld military aid), and hence the impeachment. So, no, this is not a "hit piece". It's just not what you're used to reading from right-wing sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC) PeacePease, this talk page is not interested in your baseless personal opinions. Unless you can discuss specific article improvements, citing mainstream reliable sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you should not be posting on this article talk page. Your comments are not worthy of any further reply. SPECIFICO talk 21:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC) If Joe Biden as vice-president of USA pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor (& got it done over a billion dollar deprivation threat) who was investigating a Ukraine company when that company paying huge money to Joe Biden's son, how does the President of USA not have a duty to investigate that? Moreover, since such corruption is covered by a special treaty between USA and Ukraine, how would the president be disqualified and not bound to do his duty to investigate such matters? Are you arguing that Joe Biden at the time was VEEP of Ukraine instead of USA?(PeacePeace (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)) This is still not a forum. If you want to propose an edit, you can start by citing sources. - MrX 🖋 21:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC) PeacePeace, if all you can do is hang your hat on Biden helping to get a corrupt prosecutor (who wasn't investigating Burisma) fired, then you've added no new talking points in the last six months, and we're just rehashing the same old shit. It's been thoroughly debunked at Talk:Trump-Ukraine scandal, Talk:Hunter Biden, and others. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Linsay Graham accusation

I read the Newsweek account of Parnas' claim that Graham "was in the loop". I do not see the report as meriting inclusion into the page and mostly at best third hand. If information comes to light that shows Graham was aware funds to the Ukraine were being blocked until Zelensky announced an investigation into the Bidens then I will reconsider. I am only one editor making this conclusion and will listen to other opinions written here. Pbmaise (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Confusing statement

At the end of this quote, it probably should read 'into the Bidens.' or 'into Biden.'. "January 16, 2020 CNN interview [...] investigation into the Biden." Jodell1 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)