In this case, given my general awareness of the allegations surrounding Burisma, absolutely.
You did not even know the case involved him, and are willing to take as gospel a Tweet with zero sources? You can surely admit this is an extraordinarily low bar you've set?
Yes, I don't really care for Wikipedia's political biases. I invite you to consider what
Larry Sanger has to say about Wikipedia's neutrality.
You cited Wikipedia, not I.
Largely because the media narrative has been poisoned with claims of Trump being a power-mad dictator and these sorts of claims are used as an excuse to paint Trump as the next Mussolini or Hitler.
This doesn't stop Trump and his support base saying all sorts of arguably outlandish stuff, why would this particular thing give them pause? Trump by his own admission is happy to rail against the fake media, and it seems a bit odd to imply that they are effectively cowed by the existence of biased media.
If you are actually interested in this question, I suggest you pay closer attention to the witnesses who testified in Trump's impeachment hearing. I remind you that technically the justification for the impeachment hearing was that Trump had the temerity to ask a foreign leader to look into something troublesome...
I am looking into it, as I was not paying attention at the time. I do tend to try and look at things before commenting on them, hence why I at least knew who court case involved. I struggle to fathom how much stock people are willing to put in a Tweet. If that's considered an adequate source, then I'd be comfortable suggesting that whatever would replace the so-called fake news will be even worse.