Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York

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)

@GreenFrogsGoRibbit: Pages are not protected in advance of disruption. Heavy Water (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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

"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)

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)

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)

Gah fine. It looks nicer that way. SWinxy (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

:) SWinxy (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You may have to forgive a clueless foreigner here, but how does "Trump is the first president to be indicted" reconcile with the arrest of Ulysses S. Grant? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I think that was me. Whoops! SWinxy (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Shall we consider this resolved? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

@331dot Perhaps the image is more relevant for the "Call for protests" section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be a better fit, yes. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Agree it's early to think about a disambiguation by jurisdiction. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This likely needs to be moved to New York v. Trump, or whatever the case name actually is. There may need to be a disambiguation, as there's already a separate New York v. Trump case with an article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

As a short term measure, if Trump is indicted in Georgia, we could have Indictment of Donald Trump in Georgia and Indictment of Donald Trump in Manhattan or Indictment of Donald Trump in New York until better names are chosen. starship.paint (exalt) 03:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need articles about the indictments separate from the case as a whole? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Business day

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

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)

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)

The "some" word was added by @InedibleHulk. My original edit did not include that word. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It was more specific than nobody at all, but yeah, some actual critics would make far more sense to cite on this, if possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit is fully supported by the FT, though it would need to be attributed to Edward Luce and placed in the "Commentary and media analysis" section. The FT is (IMO) among the best newspapers out there, and Luce was the former FT Washington bureau chief (now FT's US national editor and columnist), so it's definitely due. DFlhb (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

And on perjury, it states that "Cohen, a convicted felon with a record of perjury, would make for a problematic witness, to say the least." in the same citation. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• @95.12.127.137: Please see This policy here, which states, in part, "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." Which is to say, that while sources are necessary, being "sourced content" has no bearing on whether or not some bit of content must remain in the article. From the same policy page "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Since you're the one arguing for inclusion, you need to make an argument as to why it should be included and have a consensus agree with you that your rationale is justified and the content should remain. The onus on establishing that consensus lies only with your side of the dispute. People are objecting to including it; you need to convince people it belongs. --Jayron32 18:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying the policy! I have started this discussion to achieve a consensus. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

We can't put such a claim in our words. As even the sources only say this might be the case. Indeed it is pure speculation. So why not wait until we know? Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Right, that second edit was an obvious revert. DFlhb (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there could be a valid way to include this information, but more as a technical discription of what the legal proceedings actually are without neccessarily framing it as a criticism. Sennalen (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Great! Do you have any suggestions on what the potential wording might be? 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal by 92.18.42.213

The IP editor has removed a sourced content. The source stated "Even some who despise the former president fear his pursuers may have become blinded by their own investigation. “Alvin is under a lot of pressure from people who are obsessed with Trump, inside and outside that office,” said one former prosecutor. “[Trump’s] not worth what we’re doing to our criminal justice system.” " in the citation titled "Alvin Bragg, the district attorney".--95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I see no use of the word "analysts", (and again) this would need attribution, even if we include it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I'm fine with attribution. Any ideas for the potential wording? 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really as it seems to be yet more speculation, I am unsure this tells us a great deal about the case. Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think attributing a former prosecutor's opinion is speculation. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

No, but it is speculation about why it's being done. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, and I don't think the source supported that phrasing. I'd instead quote the other FT piece[1], which says:

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. Karen Friedman Agnifilo, who spent the best part of three decades at the Manhattan DA’s office, agreed it was “legally untested” but an “important case to bring” nonetheless.

It's a news piece written by Joshua Chaffin, and would need to be attributed to him. DFlhb (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. How do you think we can add this, any ideas for wording? 95.12.127.137 (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Better paraphrases

I've added paraphrases of the two best points I found from the FT (not the disputed ones above), and think the dueness of both is self-explanatory. The first allows us to link to Smith special counsel investigation without committing OR, and the second provides the only serious legal commentary currently in this article. DFlhb (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!! You're amazing! SWinxy (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Far too kind; I forgot to mention that Karen Friedman Agnifilo is a former decadeslong Chief Assistant DA at the Manhattan's DA office, so her analysis is IMO quite valuable. DFlhb (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

See also link: John Edwards extramarital affair

I suggest removing John Edwards extramarital affair from the See also section, unless someone can explain the relevance? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's probably better suited for Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal instead of here. SWinxy (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree, seems like a stretch to go from indictment of a former president to affair of a former presidential candidate, if there's no other connection between the two topics. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A grand jury examined whether or not campaign finance violations occurred in the paying-off of a mistress. But I agree better off at the Stormy page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The crux is that Edwards obtained a deadlock (+ not guilty verdict on one count) after arguing that the payments were not meant to influence the election, but to save his marriage. LegalEagle (of YouTube fame) said that Trump might make a similar argument. I've expanded on that point inline, using the FT source (which calls it "an obvious comparison" for "skeptics" of the indictment), since it seems relevant. DFlhb (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Explain what an indictment is?

I’m thinking that a link may not be enough… and that we should (briefly) explain what an indictment is and means. Blueboar (talk) Blueboar (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Good idea; English Wikipedia has more foreign readers than American readers (3B Americans, 4B foreign). DFlhb (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

AI images of Trump

I think it is just some 15-minute internet fame and not really worth being included per WP:recentism. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It might have significance in an article about the ethics of AI, but it's hardly relevant to the indictment. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit needs reverting

IP trying to muddy the waters: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indictment_of_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1147576374&diffmode=source

2601:18F:1080:48F0:3850:4DD:FC69:51A8 (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)