Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York

Unusual nature of the charges

This edit removed a subsection about the unusual nature of the charges. User:UpdateNerd says in the edit summary, “already covered in the text; if you want to add commentary, please do so on the Reactions article.” Please specify what part of the text you think already covers this, and why you think it’s commentary, thanks. The cited sources are a factual (not opinion) piece in the NYT, plus a statement (not a reaction) by the presiding judge. I’d be glad to footnote further reliable sources if necessary. The removed material describes that the charges are unusual, that’s not a reaction, but rather an objective fact. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

We cover that a crime can become a felony if committed to conceal another crime, and also that it's not necessary to explicate the second crime. The description of the charges as unusual is relatively subjective considering the case being riddled with historical firsts, like the first indictment of a former president, etc. It could be mentioned at a relevant location in the text or even as a footnote, but there's no justification for a subsection on this article. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The defendant being unusual is a different matter than the charges being unusual, and we say nothing about the latter. Factual statistics reported by the NYT are not “subjective” unless there is some reliable source saying the NYT got it wrong. Most importantly, the idea that the second crime need not be *named in the indictment* is very different from the idea that the second crime need not be *committed at all*. This article says not one word about the latter, AFAIK. Trying to call this NYT article subjective or reactive or the like is simply incorrect. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I have drastically shortened the material, and edited to try and address your objection.[1] Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I had hoped you would not try again to remove this, I have tried to be flexible and accommodating. But we cannot misrepresent the NYT. So I reverted with this edit summary: “Restoring NYT quote instead of false summary. This is about whether the ‘other crime’ is usually *CHARGED*. It almost always is charged along with the bookkeeping charge. This has nothing to do with whether the other crime is specified or not. It’s about whether the other crime is charged or not.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead summary

@Anythingyouwant: Just checking in (with you mostly) to see if you mind my re-adding the prosecution case to the lead, compressing it somewhat and adding the defense, per your comment. Currently we don't cover witnesses, background or key players regarding the transactions being scrutinized by the case. If you want to edit it, feel free, I'm just making sure you don't plan to revert me again. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s hard to say without seeing a draft here at the talk page. Also, it might be better to just stick to the central legal issues in the lead? A lot of the facts that each side has discussed are not really relevant to the central legal issues. The prosecution says Trump knew about, and orchestrated, the “legal expenses” description, and alleges it was a false and misleading description, and says it was meant to conceal another intended crime that Trump wanted to hide. The defense says that Trump was not involved in the “legal expenses” description, and that it couldn’t and didn’t make any difference anyway, and also that there was no other intended crime. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

What you mean about the defense saying "it couldn’t and didn’t make any difference anyway" regarding Trump paying a lawyer (which he both denied and later admitted to). Could you clarify? UpdateNerd (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

If the bookkeepers had written instead of “legal expenses” something like “personal contractual expenses” perhaps it would have been more precise, but how could that have affected any other crime that Trump could have been intending to commit? That’s the technical legal question lying at the heart of the case, but it seems to be obscured by a lot of tawdry peripheral details. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your reasoning, although I think I can write a summary that doesn't include this point of view, which I haven't seen explained in as much detail prior to reading your comment. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I’d be glad to look it over, but the case is so weird that summarizing it in more detail might be very difficult. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I re-focused the case to just the prosecution's main claim, without going into selective detail. Also, the defense mainly presented its various arguments by going after the case itself. So this is a more balanced presentation of what happened.

Before and during the trial, the defense made requests for the case to be delayed or dismissed, for the judge to recuse himself, and for a mistrial. The prosecution asserted that Trump's 2016 campaign facilitated hush money to Daniels through Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, who was purportedly reimbursed via a false retainer agreement. The prosecution rested on May 20 after calling 20 witnesses, and the defense rested on May 21 after calling two witnesses.

– UpdateNerd (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s past my bedtime, so this will have to be my last comment for awhile. “Before and during the trial, the defense made requests for the case to be delayed or dismissed, for the judge to recuse himself, and for a mistrial, but those motions have thus far been unsuccessful. The prosecution asserted that Trump's 2016 campaign benefitted from facilitated hush money being paid to Daniels via Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen in the guise of a false retainer agreement. The prosecution rested on May 20 after calling 20 witnesses. and the The defense argued blah blah, and the defense rested on May 21 after calling two witnesses”. It would be very unbalanced to include the prosecution argument without the defense counterargument. So please replace “blah blah” with the defense counterargument about the retainer agreement. Good night. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the late reply, good enough for now. Will have to look into the counterargument if it exists, but there's no immediate rush. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's an update. Most of the defense's case is covered by the mentioned attempts at delays/dismissal, plus a bunch of irrelevant out-of-court comments.

Before and during the trial, the defense made requests for the case to be delayed or dismissed, for the judge to recuse himself, and for a mistrial; these motions have thus far been unsuccessful. The prosecution asserted that Trump's 2016 campaign sought to benefit from the payment of hush money to Daniels through Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, who was purportedly reimbursed via a false retainer agreement. The prosecution rested on May 20 after calling 20 witnesses. The defense argued that Cohen was an unreliable witness and rested on May 21 after calling two witnesses.

– UpdateNerd (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This lines up with the closing arguments as well, so it's timely to add to the lead; anyone with input can adjust as needed. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that adequately describes the defense’s view. They said the “retainer” covered valid retainer services most of which were independent of the hush money (i.e. nondisclosure or “NDA”) payment, that NDAs are permissible legal contracts, and that no one was victimized or disadvantaged due to the use of the word “retainer” instead of a more detailed description. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

“ ”Blanche said there was a verbal retainer and asked the jury if they believed Cohen would work for free and that Trump would agree to overpay. He also pointed out times when Cohen did some legal work.” ”

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-28-24/index.html

“ ”Blanche points to the email former Trump Org. CFO Allen Weisselberg sent to Cohen when he was leaving Trump Org, which stated, ‘please prepare the agreement we discussed so we can pay you monthly.’” ”

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-28-24/h_3f7b9555cc4917eda40c6ad1f0f0c168

“ ”The defense lawyer painted Cohen as greedy and said it would be ‘absurd’ to believe that Cohen wasn’t expecting the monthly payments for his work. Cohen held that he was working for free, without a retainer agreement. Blanche also leaned into Trump’s reputation for being stingy. He argued that, if Cohen’s $35,000 monthly checks truly were repayments as Cohen had claimed, then Trump was overpaying — something he never does as a self-proclaimed penny-pincher.” ”

https://www.courthousenews.com/trumps-lawyer-pans-michael-cohen-stormy-daniels-during-closing-arguments/ Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Protestor section missing

There's coverage on the protestors (or lack thereof somedays) outside the courthouse. Should this be included in its own section? The article doesn't mention the self-immolation that occurred.

• Swan, Jonathan; Haberman, Maggie; Schweber, Nate (22 April 2024). "The Circus Trump Wanted Outside His Trial Hasn't Arrived". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 May 2024.
• Ngo, Emily (April 15, 2024). "Status update outside the court: The crowds have thinned out". Politico. Retrieved 25 May 2024. Even at their peak in late morning, Trump supporters gathered were outnumbered by the media.

19:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC) GobsPint (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that would go in the article Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

To maintain a NPOV, the section within this page should be expanded.GobsPint (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree that belongs at the Reactions article. Gotta ask how exactly does one summarize a circus? UpdateNerd (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

"Donald Von ShitzInPantz" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Donald Von ShitzInPantz has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 30 § Donald Von ShitzInPantz until a consensus is reached. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended Protection?

A new massive thing happened and I really think that it could cause issues being just standard auto confirmed and many political articles are extended protection and It could cause issues as just plain auto comfirmed BelowFlames (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I second this Victor Grigas (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Its only a matter of time before people from both sides start sounding off and putting biased info in. Joecompan (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

At the start of each of the two middle paragraphs under "Closing arguments and jury instructions", I'd like to suggest changing "On May 28, the defense gave a three-hour closing argument" to "On May 28, the defense gave a three-hour closing argument (including breaks)" and "The same day, prosecution gave a four-hour and 41 minute closing argument" to "The same day, prosecution gave a four-hour and 41 minute closing argument (including breaks)".

The latter edit is because we give the time down to the minute, so including the breaks definitely affects the total and should be mentioned. The former is for consistency. 166.181.85.234 (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Conviction of Donald Trump into Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York (this page). No reason to have a separate page on his conviction, especially as it is just filled with "reactions". Natg 19 (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - This is A Historic Conviction, The first President to ever have been Convicted in U.S History, it is very important. InterDoesWiki (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither this article (Prosecution of Trump), nor the Conviction of Trump article, lays out and explains exactly what all of the 34 counts and charges even are. This is kind of important, since he was unanimously found guilty on every single one of those charges.

The Conviction of Trump article might be a good place to include such details, just a thought. 133.32.217.18 (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose - As of right now, I think it’d be better if instead it was merged with Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York since it’s almost entirely just said reactions, and then maybe expand on or make a separate verdict section on this page. Booyahhayoob (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, if the page can be expanded with more than just a background section. Otherwise, merge with Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York as per Booyahhayoob's suggestion. Ships & Space_(Edits) 00:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm okay with that merger also. Just feel that the current Conviction page is not useful as a set of reactions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, do not decide to close a merger proposal in this way. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak support / Wait. No question absolutely, unprecedented historic event. The question is why this requires a separate page, considering it can and should be covered here. And there is also Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 00:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

(weak) Oppose – it's best to wait for now, it's a historic and first-of-its-kind event afterall for a former POTUS to be a convict. Josethewikier (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Appointment of Judge Merchan

I am unable to find out how the judge was appointed to this case. I gather from MSM that it wasn't a random selection and after all he was the judge in the previous Trump case. The BBC rather have a section "Who appointed Judge Juan Merchan? which just unhelpfully concludes that he was "appointed a family court judge [in] 2006". I think it is important to know who appointed the judge in this particular case if only to reduce conspiracy theories. 2.99.207.204 (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

[2]. Curbon7 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixing Tense

I noticed most of the article is in the present tense rather than the past tense. I'd appreciate it if someone could go in and fix this. Thanks! SSBelfastFanatic (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2024

Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York → Trump hush money trial – Almost all reliable sources refer to the trial as this or some variant of this, such as CBS News^[1], Business Insider^[2], BBC News^[3], the New York Times^[4], and many others, so it should be moved per the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Cobblebricks (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with the reason you gave, but I can add another: the proposed title has a more neutral tone than the current title. 71.31.85.236 (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

*Support per all above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Reasons listed above and also "Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York" does not give a description of the charges while this does. Brooklaika (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

So then shouldn't it be "falsification of business records trial"? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep agreed. I agree that the title should be changed but this is the wrong name Joecompan (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

That being the proposed name change not your one. Joecompan (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that title is that there is more than one case involving Donald Trump and falsification of business records (New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization). "Hush money" concisely disambiguates this article from Donald Trump's other litigation. The literal criminal charge was not "making hush money payments", but the case was all about the hush money payments; it's not inaccurate to have a title that suggests they are the focus of the case. IagoQnsi (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, it helps that "prosecution" is specifically a criminal proceeding and "lawsuit" is specifically civil. Words like "trial" and "case" aren't specific for that, and don't help to disambiguate the large number of notable legal proceedings involving Trump that we have articles on. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Cobblebricks Support acceptable reasoning. 94.175.23.202 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support as per above. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Beyond the fact that I don't think "hush money trial" is the common name, it isn't accurate to condense it to "hush money". This was an election interference trial, as you can see from the testimony. I think this requested move is too much WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Election interference was an alleged effect of the trial, not the main subject. Joecompan (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a tricky dilemma. I oppose for a similar reason to @Muboshgu. The trial was mostly about the hush money, but that isn't the whole picture. It's about the election, business records, etc. Coulomb1 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Even if the name is commonly used by news sources, I don't believe it qualifies as the common name, and as said above it's not really a trial about hush money payments, if that was all that happened he wouldn't have been prosecuted.

AveryTheComrade (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

"Even if the name is commonly used by news sources, I don't believe it qualifies as the common name"

The WP:COMMONNAME policy literally defines the common name as the name commonly used by reliable news sources. Cobblebricks (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose because the proposed title is incorrect for two reasons. (1) Trump was not charged with paying hush money, which is not illegal; the charges were for falsifying business records. (2) This article is about the entire prosecution, including pre- and post-trial proceedings, and not just the trial itself. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Antony-22 and others. The proposed title reduces the subject to a single trial and inaccurately implies the criminal charge was for "paying hush money". JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Adding onto @Antony-22. Hush money is not what's being discussed, the allegation was the falsification of business records. Joecompan (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. This case is not just about the "hush money". The proposed The title "Trump hush money trial" diminishes the content of this artcile. The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump encompasses everything. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Genuine question, not the most experienced with legal stuff, why is it the people of new york as opposed to a more specific party? Joecompan (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Because the state of New York prosecuted Donald Trump. There is no other party in this case. All criminal cases are named this way. –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oh righto thx Joecompan (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @KyuuA4: This was proposed previously, but MOS:LEGAL#Cases says "Criminal trials that are notable for the people or crimes involved, not for the legal precedent they set, should be titled "Trial of (defendant)" or another commonly recognizable name." @Joecompan: That's just the standard of how New York officially titles their criminal cases; different states have different naming conventions. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! Joecompan (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  • @KyuuA4: @Augmented Seventh: @A. Randomdude0000: There is no other article title on English Wikipedia which uses the full unabbreviated name of a criminal case that I am aware of. See Category:21st-century American trials, Category:2020s trials, etc. Per WP:CRITERIA, titles should be as concise as possible. –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support, but prefer "Donald Trump hush money trial". I think it definitely makes sense to disambiguate this article title using "hush money" instead of "in New York", because that's the more noteworthy/interesting thing about the case. Sure, "hush money" doesn't fully summarize what the case was about, but no concise title ever could. Using "hush money" instead of "in New York" meets WP:CRITERIA better; it's more recognizable, more natural, and more concise. That said, I don't think Trump's first name should be dropped from the title; this is inconsistent with every other article we have about Trump. –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that "case" is less specific as it could be either a civil or criminal case, while "prosecution" must be criminal. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ah sorry, your reply relates to the original revision of my message, which advocated for "Donald Trump hush money case" (I edited it because I slightly changed my mind). I could go back and forth between "case" and "trial"; either seems reasonable to me. I don't like "prosecution" because it's not very concise. I'm not worried about "case" being ambiguous, because there's no "Donald Trump hush money civil case" for this to be confused with. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The correct name for the history books is The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, and the article should reflect this fact, and not use overly familiar language.Augmented Seventh (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 31 May 2024‎ (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Actually, I even had a difficulty finding this article with such (current) title a few weeks ago. Agree that "Donald Trump hush money trial" would be better. My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Switching from my earlier "support" stance, per rationale of Antony-22 and others opposing. Instead, I support a move to The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, which - as KyuuA4 points out - encompasses everything. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose While the case involved hush money, the actual charges were for business fraud. Just because the media uses a particular phrase as shorthand does not mean it's the most appropriate for the article title. Reywas92^Talk 03:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records or similar. "Trump" without "Donald" is too informal, and a description of the accused crimes should be included. He wasn't on trial for paying hush money – he was on trial for falsifying the records related to the payment of the hush money. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, the current page title is way to vague while calling it "Trump hush money trial" would be too informal, while both don't mention what charges he was tried for V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose while supporting move to Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records. For the reasons stated by BarrelProof above. The current page is too vague, while the suggested change would be too informal and neither would state his actual charges.