Jump to content

Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 83: Line 83:


:Seems a fine removal to me. Without being able to see what the FT sources say due to their paywall, I don't see what is meant by "linking a state crime to a federal crime". Or what Cohen's perjury has to do with it if the Manhattan DA's office believes he is telling the truth now, or if they're even using his testimony as basis for the charges, which remain under seal. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 18:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
:Seems a fine removal to me. Without being able to see what the FT sources say due to their paywall, I don't see what is meant by "linking a state crime to a federal crime". Or what Cohen's perjury has to do with it if the Manhattan DA's office believes he is telling the truth now, or if they're even using his testimony as basis for the charges, which remain under seal. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 18:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] FT states that {{tq|"The wrinkle, though, is that the possible campaign finance violation would be a matter of federal law. It is not clear to lawyers if a New York state law and federal law can be joined in such a way. One former DA staffer called it “a bank shot” — and one that has not previously been attempted."}} in the second citation of the indictment section. [[Special:Contributions/95.12.127.137|95.12.127.137]] ([[User talk:95.12.127.137|talk]]) 18:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:10, 31 March 2023

Lock This Page?

We should really get an admin to lock this page as it blows up. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenFrogsGoRibbit: Pages are not protected in advance of disruption. Heavy Water (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Heavy Water I agree with WP:NO-PREEMPT which is why I said as it blows up. So far, it's just a few of us editing it, and has not blown up. As it blows up, I believe disruption becomes inevitable, but I suppose I could be wrong. Let's see. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like other sanctions, protection can be used to protect and prevent (IOW before it happens) problems, and in this case, the article will no doubt always be a target for vandalism. I doubt anyone could make a logical complaint if partial, but indefinite, protection was applied now, but what do I know.... -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the news nomination?

This is a historical event unfolding in real-time, so it should defintely be added. The article is descriptive enough so far and it warrants an addition in my opinion. Jennytacular (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's being discussed at WP:ITN/C#Trump indicted. Comment there. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"He is the first former U.S. president to ever be indicted"

Should it say he is the first former or current U.S. president to ever be indicted, or just "former"? Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 00:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to include the 'or current'. Multiple sources bring this up, highlighting that this is unprecedented both for in-office and out-of-office presidents. I would be okay to rephrase this as "No current or former president had ever been indicted before Trump." SWinxy (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just drop both and say "U.S. president", there are only two kinds. And don't say "ever". Every first is the first ever, it's redundant. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gah fine. It looks nicer that way. SWinxy (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't say "short and sweet" or "less is more" for nothing, you know. A wise mutant rat once added, we must get to the root of our problems. Always Be Chopping! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
:) SWinxy (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Error with date?

I was just wondering why the date template makes it "1 day ago" when it is still 30 March in NYC? phrogge 'sup? edits 01:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's how the template thinks time is. In reality, the only timezone to exist is east coast time. SWinxy (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NYC

There is no such thing as a "New York City grand jury"; Trump was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury (formally known as "New York County"). 331dot (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was me. Whoops! SWinxy (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we consider this resolved? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The top image seems to have little to do with this topic- it also seems to be just a random group of people, not protestors. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Perhaps the image is more relevant for the "Call for protests" section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a better fit, yes. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content of the Indictment

In the introductory paragraph, can we add something like "purportedly" or "allegedly" around the connection between this indictment and the Stormy Daniels hush money payment? As the rest of the introduction correctly notes, we actually don't know the content of the indictment and it could be for other potential crimes committed in New York. Especially since it is now being reported: Two "sources familiar with the matter" told NBC News he faces around 30 fraud-related charges.[9] it seems reductive to assume that all 30 charges are from just the hush money scheme. Mccartneyac (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More specific article title?

Given that this is the first of several possible indictments from different jurisdictions (see current investigations here, we may want to consider making this particular indictment more specific (NY State Indictment of Donald Trump), or perhaps more general as needed (Indictments of Donald Trump). And making the change now will help keep the article stable as time moves forward. Hires an editor (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently "indictments of Trump" redirects here. I don't think it's a good idea to recreate it. The pending investigations are mentioned on Legal affairs of Donald Trump and Donald Trump#Post-presidential investigations.
I think the plan should be to do nothing for now. Every source is simply calling it the Trump indictment, so per wp:commonname, that is the right name. Once another indictment actually happens, we can move this page to a more specific title based on what the sources are calling it, and turn "indictment of Trump" into a disambiguation page. But there is no hurry. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's early to think about a disambiguation by jurisdiction. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Business day

I don't believe "business day" should be hyperlinked since it's common knowledge. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism on technicality

@S51438 has removed a criticism about that the indictment uses a technicality for the charges. The criticism was sourced but s/he said that only the title supported the criticism, not the content of the source (and he was right). I have inserted other sources to the indictment section to explain the technicality. Can we add the criticism back? 95.12.127.137 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "some"? That's a WP:WEASEL word. How do they know Trump is charged on a "technicality" if the charges are under seal? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content by Speakfor

Speakfor has deleted sourced content detailing the indictment. In this edit summary he stated "removing controversial edits" but did not show any reasoning or evidence. Can we add this content back? @Speakfor: --95.12.127.137 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a fine removal to me. Without being able to see what the FT sources say due to their paywall, I don't see what is meant by "linking a state crime to a federal crime". Or what Cohen's perjury has to do with it if the Manhattan DA's office believes he is telling the truth now, or if they're even using his testimony as basis for the charges, which remain under seal. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu FT states that "The wrinkle, though, is that the possible campaign finance violation would be a matter of federal law. It is not clear to lawyers if a New York state law and federal law can be joined in such a way. One former DA staffer called it “a bank shot” — and one that has not previously been attempted." in the second citation of the indictment section. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]