Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

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

Devon Archer testimony[edit]

I ask consensus for restoration of the reliably referenced edit that reports Devon Archer's comment in his testimony that Joe Biden and Pozharskyi had dinner together at a restaurant. DonFB (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source that gives more complete and contextualized coverage of Archer's statements in the Washington Post The proposed addition to the article was SYNTH, suggesting the Bidens were lying and did not fully represent the facts and circumstances. Yes, the NY Post jumped on the hearing as a chance to re-up its discredited narratives, but it's not been demonstrated that the proposed text is NPOV weight and non-synth. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For Restoration. Shouldn't have been deleted by Specifico. The edit in question is the sentence "In July 2023, Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's former business partner, testified that Joe Biden had dinner with Pozharskyi." The two cited articles provide direct support for this. First from Axios, "Last month, Archer testified to Congress that Biden did have dinner with Pozharskyi, Hunter Biden and other associates at Cafe Milano in Washington." Second from Politico, "Under penalty of perjury, Devon Archer said that the Ukrainian executive [Pozharskyi] did dine with Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and several others at Cafe Milano in April 2015." Fx6893 (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They had food?! Wowzers!!!! Now, provide a source that this consumption of sustenance is relevant to the article. Zaathras (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently has content discussing the meeting between Biden and Pozharskyi and gives substantial content to how so many MSM and experts questioned it, using news articles dating back to October 2020. The laptop contained an email, the authenticity of which was later verified by The Washington Post in 2022, showing what the New York Post characterized as a "meeting" between Joe Biden and Vadym Pozharskyi, a Burisma advisor, in 2015, though that characterization was disputed by witnesses. The article's veracity was strongly questioned by most mainstream media outlets, analysts and intelligence officials, due to the chain of custody of the laptop and its contents, and suspicion that it may have been part of a disinformation campaign.
WP:NPOV would demand inclusion of the newer relevations from Devon Archer, for example with this WaPo article that similarly questioned the events, but since updated it with Devon Archer's testimony calling it out and describing a sit down at the table where Biden and Pozharskyi (and others) met during the Cafe Milano dinner. Plenty of other MSM have also brought this up, such as Politico, the Guardian and Axios, describing how this contradicted Biden's repeated denials, and helped lead to his impeachment inquiry, which is also mentioned in the article lead. The existing descriptor of the meeting between Biden and Pozharskyi as being questioned and disputed by everyone and their mother is obviously outdated and fails NPOV. KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPUNDEL applies here. If contentious material about living people is removed in good faith the onus is on those who want to restore the material to obtain consensus from others. We don't have to meet your demands, you have to obtain consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 13:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I'm posting on this talk page? I'm referencing what longstanding Wiki policy requires, not my own requirements. I'm hoping to center discussion around policy so that there is a neutral reference point. If someone can come up with an explanation as to how content that describes the meeting using outdated reporting can be present in the article while excluding updated RS reporting on this topic fulfills NPOV, I would like to hear it. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How dishonest can you get? It's obviously the fact that these two particular people met which is at issue. 71.69.185.243 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what "met" means is what is at issue soibangla (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say here Joe Biden and Pozharskyi had dinner together at a restaurant. Your edit said Joe Biden had dinner with Pozharskyi. But the source says Last month, Archer testified to Congress that Biden did have dinner with Pozharskyi, Hunter Biden and other associates at Cafe Milano in Washington. I have previously mentioned that it must be made clear it was a group dinner of perhaps one dozen people, to avoid creating any impression that Joe and Pozharskyi had an intimate dinner together to scheme over candlelight. soibangla (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair point, and the edit to be restored can be modified as follows:
"In July 2023 Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's former business partner, testified to a congressional committee that Joe Biden attended dinner with a group that included Pozharskyi." DonFB (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It remains UNDUE. See, among many other mainstream RS, Washington Post today

Archer testified recently before Congress that Hunter’s approach was to sell the illusion, rather than the reality, of access to his father.

SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Archer testified about a variety of items, this doesn't negate in any way his testimony regarding the meeting. How can this be undue, when the article already brings up the purported meeting between Biden and Pozharskyi, an inclusion dating back over a year ago, and characterizes it exclusively by mentioning how everyone is doubting it?
The laptop contained an email, the authenticity of which was later verified by The Washington Post in 2022, showing what the New York Post characterized as a "meeting" between Joe Biden and Vadym Pozharskyi, a Burisma advisor, in 2015, though that characterization was disputed by witnesses. The article's veracity was strongly questioned by most mainstream media outlets, analysts and intelligence officials, due to the chain of custody of the laptop and its contents, and suspicion that it may have been part of a disinformation campaign.
Does it suddenly become UNDUE when a witness testifies under oath that it occurred? NPOV would demand inclusion of an update regarding the purported meeting with Archer's testimony. Inclusion of Archer's testimony is the standard for how MSM (Ex: Politico, Washington Post, Axios, Guardian) now characterize the purported meeting between Pozharskyi and Biden, even updating articles that previously published doubts. By all means, add that Archer mentioned that Hunter was influence peddling via an illusion of access, but it's well established that his testimony is a deeply relevant part of Biden-Pozharskyi, and that needs to be updated in the article. KiharaNoukan (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's called illusion-peddling. SPECIFICO talk 12:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, by all means you can include that in the article too. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New York Post you say? Please refer to WP:NYPOST. Anything touched by them is tainted. Now about your claim that WP:NPOV DEMANDS anything, you need to consult WP:BLPUNDEL. As this material pertains to living people then Wikipedia's polices regarding WP:BLP apply. If contentious material about living people is removed in good faith the onus is on those who want to restore the material to obtain consensus from others. We don't have to meet your demands, you have to obtain consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 13:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you reference where I cite the NY Post as a source? The sources used are Politico, the Washington Post, the Guardian, and Axios. It would certainly be a considerable and unprecedented accomplishment for a NY Post story from October 2020 to reference testimony released in 2023. I really have to hand it to their oracle. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Near as I can tell from your links, The Guardian and Axios are using the unusable NYPost as a source. The Politico article says several of the NYPost large number of emails had been authenticated by Politico. But, their link to the authentication does not say that Pozharskyi was at the dinner and they have different sources saying he was and was not. The Politico article about the emails also adds the proviso While the leak contains genuine files, it remains possible that fake material has been slipped in.[1] I don’t have access to the Wapo site. This is too fuzzy for a WP:BLP O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would check the links again. This isn't sourced from Biden laptop emails. This is about Devon Archer testifying under oath, under penalty of perjury, in person, to a Congressional committee 3 years after the emails were released. Unless this is the first event of time travel or prophetic powers being demonstrated in history, it is temporally impossible for a NY Post article from October 2020 to have Devon Archer's testimony from 2023. This other WaPo link that also discusses the event and Archer's testimony worked for me without subscription (not sure how their wall works). KiharaNoukan (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have just split the long paragraph. This will make it easier to deal with the NP Post stuff. There is nothing weird or wrong about mentioning, or even quoting, the New York Post in this context. We are not using it as the source, but using mainstream RS which quote it and put it in context, IOW that it is "strongly questioned by most mainstream media outlets, analysts and intelligence officials". This is standard debunking where we show why mainstream RS have more due weight than an unreliable rag like the NY Post. Now let's move on and stop quibbling about the NY Post. What's written is proper. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian says Devon Archer, gave sworn testimony to congressional investigators that Hunter was selling his foreign clients “an illusion of access to his father”. That doesn't implicate Joe Biden or fit into the subject of this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we're past the claims of "NY Post as a source"? As I mentioned earlier, we already have content in the article, that discusses the purported meeting, except that it utilizes outdated sources that don't include Devon Archer's newer testimony. How can that fit, but not newer reporting on the same issue? Nobody here is claiming this is a smoking gun implicating Joe Biden being up to no good. If it were, this discussion would be over changing the title and entire focus of the article. However, as I demonstrated with the passage I referenced in my first reply, this article does discuss the events that contributed to the allegations, such as his meeting over dinner with Burisma exec Pozharskyi. The sources themselves also directly link this to the Shokin-firing claims. Per Politico Biden’s alleged contact with a Burisma executive is a sensitive matter in part because of claims, promoted by Trump’s allies during the last presidential campaign, that Joe Biden demanded the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had been investigating Burisma on account of his son’s position with the company.KiharaNoukan (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the edit that we are talking about left out But when asked whether he had any evidence of "wrongdoing" by Joe Biden, Archer said: "No, I'm not aware of any." Archer said they talked about the World Food Programme probably." O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that part of Archer's testimony should be included too. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you add that it doesn't appear relevant to this article. This article is about the conspiracy theory that the firing of Viktor Shokin was an attempt by Joe Biden to protect Hunter Biden. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I linked a passage from the cited Politico article plainly laying out why this is relevant: Biden’s alleged contact with a Burisma executive is a sensitive matter in part because of claims, promoted by Trump’s allies during the last presidential campaign, that Joe Biden demanded the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had been investigating Burisma on account of his son’s position with the company.
As I mentioned earlier, I also linked the existing content on this Wikipedia article that mentions this meeting and discussion of whether it actually occurred, which is the focus of these additions. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
why is it a "sensitive matter" because of claims, promoted by Trump’s allies during the last presidential campaign, that Joe Biden demanded the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had been investigating Burisma on account of his son’s position with the company when those claims have been proven false? soibangla (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to argue the merits of claims that Biden corruptly got Shokin fired, this isn't a forum after all.
This article is called Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, and currently contains substantial content on the events that helped promulgate the conspiracy theory in question, such as the purported meeting between VP Biden and Pozharskyi. Updated reporting that covers these same events, which explicitly link such events to formation of the conspiracy theory, clearly merit inclusion. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you are arguing the merits, but you are citing Schreckinger who says it is a "sensitive matter" though it was debunked three years ago. I remain unimpressed with his reporting. soibangla (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well we have a rather lengthy Wikipedia article on this debunked allegation and the surrounding controversy, so I imagine this is the "sensitive matter" that he's referring to, since everything indicates that Schreckinger doesn't believe in the idea of Biden corruptly getting Shokin fired. He's also obviously not the first one to establish relevance of the dinner meeting to this case, since as I mentioned earlier, we have content in the article, using sources dating back 3 years ago, that already discuss the Biden-Pozharskyi meeting. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second check confirms your article text misrepresents Archer and frames it in misleading manner. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate? I already stated that I agree with inclusion/mention that Archer stated Hunter sold illusion of access. I also pointed out that he said Biden had a dinner meeting with Pozharskyi and others in Cafe Milano, an event covered already in the article with outdated sourcing.KiharaNoukan (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I yield to O3000. SPECIFICO talk 19:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH I don't see where these articles directly talk to the conspiracy theory that the firing of Viktor Shokin was an attempt by Joe Biden to protect Hunter Biden without a lot of imagination filling in gaps. I realize that's what the Republicans are trying to do with testimony. But the only thing I see that is relevant to this article is that Archer testified he is not aware of any wrongdoing on the part of Joe Biden. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Politico: Biden’s alleged contact with a Burisma executive is a sensitive matter in part because of claims, promoted by Trump’s allies during the last presidential campaign, that Joe Biden demanded the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had been investigating Burisma on account of his son’s position with the company. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly at a table of 10-12 people talking about the World Food Programme? Yes we know that Trump's allies have pushed a large number of conspiracy theories. But the nub of this man's testimony is that he said he was not aware of any wrongdoing on the part of Joe Biden. Implying wrongdoing based on this testimony is too far a stretch for an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that the mere mention of Archer's testimony equates to "implying wrongdoing" is actual WP:SYNTH. Plenty of RS have been able to clearly articulate the significance of testimony from Archer laying out Biden's meeting with Pozharskyi and others at the Cafe Milano dinner while simultaneously stating that there is nothing to demonstrate a crime. By all means, include Archer's testimony regarding World Food Programme discussions. I agree that it should be included. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is nothing to demonstrate a crime is there even anything to demonstrate a chat? a handshake and hello? a smile and nod? that Joe was even aware of Pozharskyi's presence? soibangla (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Archer testified that VP Biden participated in dinner discussions about the World Food Programme and a "table of conversation". KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems vague. DN (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed? Nobody is arguing that the Biden-Pozharskyi meeting indicates a crime. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where did anyone but you call this the Biden-Pozharskyi meeting? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask the same thing. DN (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reference to the existing content in the Wikipedia article that discusses a purported meeting between Biden and Pozharskyi, which I cited in my first post here. I interchangeably refer to it as a purported meeting in earlier posts. I can only hope we were all talking about the same topic?
The laptop contained an email, the authenticity of which was later verified by The Washington Post in 2022, showing what the New York Post characterized as a "meeting" between Joe Biden and Vadym Pozharskyi, a Burisma advisor, in 2015, though that characterization was disputed by witnesses. The article's veracity was strongly questioned by most mainstream media outlets, analysts and intelligence officials, due to the chain of custody of the laptop and its contents, and suspicion that it may have been part of a disinformation campaign. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the New York Post characterized" that might be an issue. DN (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, that is an issue, since that is outdated reporting to only mention that when RS nowadays include Devon Archer's testimony on it as well. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what other RS refer to it as the "Biden-Pozharskyi meeting", as you put it, besides the New York Post? DN (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the intention is to add this text back in....
  • "In July 2023, Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's former business partner, testified that Joe Biden had dinner with Pozharskyi."
It seems as though we are trying to put a New York Post "characterization" into the article. DN (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that is actually a Devon Archer characterization, since that is attributed to Devon Archer via witness testimony, as opposed to emails retrieved from a laptop. That text should be added in, and as others have mentioned, alongside content such as other attendees and topic of discussion being the World Food Programme. Here are a multitude of sources that bring up Devon Archer's characterization. Politico, Washington Post, Axios, Guardian. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say Joe Biden had dinner with Pozharskyi? I think the testimony was that Biden and Pozharskyi were at a dinner with 10-12 people. That is not a Biden-Pozharskyi meeting. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that it doesn't count as a dinner if you have X amount of participants sounds like WP:OR. The cited sources all describe Archer's testimony as saying Biden had dinner with Pozharskyi.
From the Guardian article, saying that Archer's testimony contradicted characterizations of a non-meeting or a brief stop:
Biden’s team said the meeting did not occur, while other attendees of the dinner told the Washington Post that the then vice-president only stopped by briefly to visit with Alex Karloutsos, a leader in the Greek Orthodox church. Archer contradicted that characterization, telling investigators: “He had dinner.”
From Axios:
Last month, Archer testified to Congress that Biden did have dinner with Pozharskyi, Hunter Biden and other associates at Cafe Milano in Washington.
From WaPo, again noting Archer disputing minimizations of Biden's dinner:
Hunter Biden’s former business partner Devon Archer, asked specifically about this report, disputed those recollections that Biden spoke only to Karloutsos.
From Politico, noting testimony under penalty of perjury:
Under penalty of perjury, Devon Archer said that the Ukrainian executive did dine with Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and several others at Cafe Milano in April 2015. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that it doesn't count as a dinner if you have X amount of participants sounds like WP:OR. You need to stop referencing PAGs because you keep getting them wrong. I didn't say it doesn't count as a dinner. There is a huge difference between someone having dinner with someone and someone attending a dinner with many other people one of whom is the person in question. Through his career as President, Vice-President, and Senator, Biden has attended thousands of dinners. Saying he had dinner with someone, as if it was a meeting with that person, because the two attended the same dinner is highly misleading. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly stated that there is nothing wrong with also mentioning that the dinner had multiple participants. This is something I've recommended in my proposed edit. This is something the sources themselves mention as well.
Saying he had dinner with someone, as if it was a meeting with that person, because the two attended the same dinner is highly misleading
Here is a RS that has been cited and utilized in the Biden-Ukraine Conspiracy article dating back since October 17, 2020, which has since been updated and states in their own voice that the two met:
Per the factcheck.org article specifically covering the allegation of Biden corruptly firing Shokin, utilized in this Wikipedia article for over 3 years:
Update, Aug. 16, 2023: Pozharskyi met Joe Biden and others at a dinner in Washington, D.C., in April 2015 – which is when Pozharskyi reportedly sent Hunter Biden the email mentioned in the New York Post story. Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s former business partner, discussed the dinner during a closed-door interview with the House oversight committee on July 31, 2023, according to a transcript of the interview. However, Archer said business was not discussed at the dinner and that Joe Biden had nothing to do with Hunter Biden’s business ventures.
Are all the RS updated with Archer's testimony saying Biden dined with/had dinner with/met Pozharskyi wrong/misleading? KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But why ignore the rest of what those articles say? Those articles by and large seem to dismiss Archer's alleged POV. How can we make sure we aren't cherry-picking in order to bolster credence behind the conspiracy theory rather than explain it? DN (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite the articles saying they dismiss Archer's POV? They attribute his statements and attribute the characterizations that it disputes. It generally seems pretty neutral. The only weighing in I have seen is generally on the side of Archer, such as the Politico article noting that his statements carry actual legal consequence, since he testified under penalty of perjury.
The articles that focus in on Archer's statements tend to give them weight in how they contradict prior denials by Biden.
From Politico: ...a POLITICO review of recent developments casts doubts on several statements.
From Axios: Both of those claims were false, according to recent sworn testimony by Hunter Biden and his business partner, Devon Archer.
Neither of these indicate dismissiveness, the opposite if anything. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They "by and large" dismiss the "characterization" of a "Biden-Pozharskyi meeting/dinner" ie Archer's alleged POV according the NYP...I could easily quote those parts of the article that for you, but I think you've read them, so I'm not sure why you are asking me to do that for you unless you intend to keep splitting hairs, no offense. DN (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it? Are you referring to the Washington Post article which initially dismissed the claims but then updated their article 2 years later with Devon Archer's testimony? KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Today's new text about the dinner and Leach's comments contributed to this article's lopsided coverage by adding yet another refutation about Joe Biden's participation, while the article still fails to include any text about Devon Archer's reliably-sourced congressional testimony about the same event. Here is text that should be added to this article to provide a semblance of balance:
"Devon Archer, a former business partner of Hunter Biden, testified to a congressional committee that Joe Biden was present at the restaurant dinner with a group that included Pozharskyi. Archer testified further that he was not aware of any wrongdoing by Joe Biden." DonFB (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the WaPo source I cited above does not emphasize whether Joe was standing or seated when he greeted Mr. P and there is plenty of other sourcing that similarly does not support the NY Post version, with mentions in two other mid-tier sources, as significant. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Parnas testimony[edit]

It's about time to update this article and those mentioned here (sources below). Lev Parnas has named multiple parties who knowingly peddled Russian lies about Joe Biden: The GOP, Fox News and a few other right-wing media groups, Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Devin Nunes, Pete Sessions, Ron Johnson, John Solomon, and Sean Hannity.

Some sources, with properly formatted refs, ready for use:

  • Lev Parnas, ex-Giuliani associate, testified allegations against Bidens are false and 'spread by the Kremlin'[1]
  • Comer Keeps Stepping In It as Impeachment Witness Dishes Dirt on Giuliani[2]
  • Written Statement of Lev Parnas, March 19, 2024[3]

Political strategist Rachel Bitecofer wrote: "House Republicans knew their source was a Russian asset, the same House Republicans did the same thing during the Ukraine blackmail impeachment where intel told them their info was Russian disinformation but they used it anyway." She described Republicans as "a national security risk".

Pings: Soibangla, Muboshgu, Zaathras, Victorgrigas, KiharaNoukan, Darknipples -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His testimony was relevant to this page. What do you propose to add? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that Soibangla has already added something good to the Parnas article, and that might be good here. I'll let Soibangla do it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is that addition to the Lev Parnas article (I have tweaked the ref format and added a wikilink):

At the invitation of committee Democrats, on March 20, 2024, Lev Parnas testified before the House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family that was pursuing the impeachment of President Joe Biden. Parnas testified, in part:[4]

The American people have been lied to, by Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani and various cohorts of individuals in government and media positions. They created falsehoods to serve their own interests knowing it would undermine the strength of our nation ... Congressman Pete Sessions, then-Congressman Devin Nunes, Senator Ron Johnson and many others understood they were pushing a false narrative. The same goes for John Solomon, Sean Hannity and media personnel, particularly with Fox News, who used this narrative to manipulate the public ahead of the 2020 elections. Sadly, they are still doing this today as we approach the 2024 elections ... The only information ever pushed on the Bidens and Ukraine has come from one source and one source only: Russia and Russian agents.

This might be good here. I'll install it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With added references it looks like this:


At the invitation of committee Democrats, on March 20, 2024, Lev Parnas testified before the House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family that was pursuing the impeachment of President Joe Biden.[1][2][3] Parnas testified, in part:[4]

The American people have been lied to, by Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani and various cohorts of individuals in government and media positions. They created falsehoods to serve their own interests knowing it would undermine the strength of our nation ... Congressman Pete Sessions, then-Congressman Devin Nunes, Senator Ron Johnson and many others understood they were pushing a false narrative. The same goes for John Solomon, Sean Hannity and media personnel, particularly with Fox News, who used this narrative to manipulate the public ahead of the 2020 elections. Sadly, they are still doing this today as we approach the 2024 elections ... The only information ever pushed on the Bidens and Ukraine has come from one source and one source only: Russia and Russian agents.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Fitzpatrick, Sarah; Concepcion, Summer (March 20, 2024). "Lev Parnas, ex-Giuliani associate, testified allegations against Bidens are false and 'spread by the Kremlin'". NBC News. Retrieved March 21, 2024.
  2. ^ a b Rohrlich, Justin (March 20, 2024). "Comer Keeps Stepping In It as Impeachment Witness Dishes Dirt on Giuliani". The Daily Beast. Retrieved March 21, 2024.
  3. ^ a b Parnas, Lev (March 19, 2024). "Written Statement of Lev Parnas, March 19, 2024" (PDF). House Oversight Committee. Retrieved March 21, 2024.
  4. ^ a b Walsh, Sheri (March 20, 2024). "At House impeachment inquiry hearing, key witness Lev Parnas blasts Republicans for pushing 'falsehoods'". UPI. Retrieved March 22, 2024.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2024[edit]

Not a platform for conspiracy-mongering. Zaathras (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It has been proven true that Hunter Biden received millions of dollars and funneled some to “the Big guy”. Vice President Biden even laughed about forcing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was looking into his sons company. 184.177.36.238 (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This has, in fact, not even proven, and may in fact have moved all the way to "disproven". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an absolute fact, denied by no one, that Hunter Biden received millions of dollars from Burisma. It is unknown as to whether Joe Biden personally benefitted from that arrangement, other than the benefit of your child earning millions of dollars. Please try to be accurate. 204.144.209.73 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory&oldid=1219458680"