Jump to content

Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Motion to dismiss the indictment

This article seems to have skipped over Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and Judge Merchan’s rejection of that motion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

A clarification: Anythingyouwant here links and refers to Merchan's decisions 15 February 2024. @Anythingyouwant: You argued as if this were the occasion when the defense tried to stop the indictment, and (mainly) were turned down. IMHO, the trouble with describing the pretrial motions is the multitude of similar motions from the defense. As you can see, the editors of the article have tried to tackle this by organising the pretrial motions by topic, rather than by a time-line, with all repetitive motions repeated in our article once for each time a motion of the defense brought forward the same arguments. I agree with this; I think that this is a suitable structure in order to make a reasonable and readable presentation of the pretrial motions.
With this said, I do think that the source Anythingyouwant should be useful, for several reasons.
  • First, we probably ought to add a subsection headed Requests for dismissal of the indictment; and partly this primary source (but mainly secondary ones based on it) would be good for writing and sourcing it.
  • Secondly, the source treats not just a large number of dismissals of defense motions, but also some partial sustains; and these IMHO indeed are of sufficient interest to be added to the article. Seemingly, the prosecution at that time (at least implicitly) had reserved the possibility to add further instances of the alleged 'other crimes', apart from those contained in what Merchan calls 'four theories'. Merchan dismisses the fourth theory as not being sufficiently founded at the time of the arrangement; and limits the prosecution to arguing for the three remaining theories, on the ground that the time for the trial is near, and that the defendant's side must have a reasonable possibility to prepare its defense. This did not invalidate any of the 34 cases in the indictment, but it does limit the meaning the prosecution may give to those 'other crimes' mentioned in each case.
  • Thirdly, some of the dismissed notions might be worth to mention under other, already existing, headings.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this is based on my non-expert interpretation of that primary source. Thus, as usual, appropriate secondary or tertiary sources are much to be preferred. JoergenB (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I support creating a subsection headed “Requests for dismissal of the indictment.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
IMO, the pretrial motions to dismiss should be given summary treatment in this article, and expounded upon in a separate article if and only if Trump loses and then appeals and THEN if and only if we can do so in a way that avoids tripping over WP:NOTNEWS and the various guidelines on editing according to one's personal agenda. At that time we'll see which of the arguments the Trump defense feels are meaty enough to fight over, and that's when we should bother doing critical thinking how to report them. For now, summary of the reasons raised and the reasons rejected will do just fine. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Come to think of it, we should probably summarize (30,000ft view) all the legal moves leading up to seating the jury, but I wouldn't object to having a densely detailed sub article with sections on the various defense efforts. That way the greatest possible readership can stay informed without drowning in the legal noise and those who want the legal noise can read the sub article. Which is sort of the way our sub-article system is supposed to work, anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal of new subsection; call for secondary sources

For (so far uncontested) reasons set out in the section [.#Motion to dismiss the indictment] supra, I think that a new subsection should be inserted in the section Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Pretrial motions. I'll write an outline of it infra, here in the talk page.

I do not intend to put this into the article as it is now, without improvements or at least comments from other editors (such as, e. g., one or several of TuckerLieberman, UpdateNerd, and WellThisIsTheReaper); mainly for the following reasons. This (BLP) topic is highly contentious, whence we should be extra careful to follow all relevant policies, including WP:PSTS; and I have not succeeded in finding any other source than the one provided by Anythingyouwant, an official decision issued by Merchan February 15 this year. This, I think, for sure should be regarded as a primary source as regards the decisions of 'the Court' (i. e., of Merchan in his capacity of the judge for this trial). Moreover, while it is true that the 30 pages documents do include summaries of the motions and arguments of the two parties, which more or less is of 'secondary source nature', official court decisions are not among the secondary sources that our policies recommend. In my subsection sketch, I'll try to abstain from 'synthesis' as far as possible; but it is rather hard to avoid this completely.

Thus, I would be rather happy if someone has better luck (or higher skills) in finding appropriate secondary sources than I had. Failing this, I hope that some of the presently most active editors of this article glance at this source, and judge whether the sketch or an improved verison of it would be publishable in spite of its reliance on this single source. (Self-evidently, in either case, I claim no 'ownership' to the sketch. Any editing of the version infra is welcome. So is including a completely new version directly into the article. However, if someone includes a modified version of my sketch into the article, then I think that a reference to the talk page version of the text in the edit summary would be in best compliance with our copyright policies.) JoergenB (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Post scriptum: I do not have time to polish the following outline further now, or check the adequacy of my arguments and citations selection; and I probably cannot return to this for a few days. Also, at a glance this seems to be unproportionately long, compared to other subsections. Anyone finding a more proper source, or wishing to improve it in any other way is gladly invited to do so; however, please wait a few days before dismissing it completely because of me having committed too many mistakes in the details—or for just providing too many of them:-). JoergenB (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
@Tuckerlieberman: Sorry for misspelling your username supra; this ping ought to work. JoergenB (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@JoergenB, do any of these match the kinds of secondary sources you're looking for?
"Prosecutors told the judge the six-year delay was 'justified' since there was an ongoing related federal investigation and Trump fought a subpoena for his records, which landed the case before the US Supreme Court." (What to watch for at Trump’s New York hush money hearing, CNN, Feb 15) — This article appears to have been updated with the results of the hearing at the top, while earlier pre-hearing info remains at the bottom.
"In raising five separate arguments to dismiss the charges, Trump’s legal team threw many claims at the prosecution...In our assessment...They will almost certainly all fail." (A Guide to Thursday’s Hearing on Trump’s Motion to Dismiss the Manhattan Prosecution, Norman L. Eisen and Andrew Warren, Just Security, Feb 14) — if you want to use this, please see this Wikipedia discussion on whether Just Security is a reliable source
"Trump had complained about the more than half-decade interval between Cohen’s prosecution and his own charges, seeking dismissal on the grounds of 'pre-indictment delay.' In his ruling, Merchan said he 'agreed' with the prosecution that the pause was justified by the 'complex investigation.'" (Trump Fails to Get N.Y. Hush-Money Case Dismissed, as Judge Gears Up for March Trial, Adam Klasfeld, Just Security, Feb 15) — again, see discussion on Just Security
"'It is completely election interference,' complained Todd Blanche, Trump's lead attorney...noting that the GOP frontrunner has primaries and caucuses 'nearly every day' through March...'It should not happen.'...'That's not a legal argument,' the judge responded. 'I'll see you March 25th.' Trump's side had also asked, in papers filed in September, to dismiss the entirety of the case as too old , including on statute of limitations grounds, and as legally defective. This, too, the judge rejected." (Donald Trump's Hush-Money Case: No Delay, No Dismissal, Business Insider, Feb 15)
"Defense attorney Todd Blanche pushed back against Merchan’s decision, insisting the defense needs more time to prepare and that a trial will unfairly interfere with Trump’s quest to return to the White House. He also noted that the former president is scheduled for trial in late May in Florida on charges of illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing government attempts to retrieve them. The judge in that case, however, has indicated that she may delay the proceedings to allow more time for the lawyers to review highly classified evidence....Merchan told Blanche that judges in the Trump cases simply could not wait around to see what other courts might or might not do, and said it was time to move forward." (Trump’s first criminal trial set for March in N.Y. on hush money charges, subscriber gift link, Washington Post, Feb 15)
"'I've tried to work with you where it's reasonable,' Merchan told Blanche. 'You're not going to be in two places at the same time.' ... "The constitution affords the president a fair trial," Blanche said. 'I appreciate what you're saying about your client's constitutional rights. I don't want to violate his constitutional rights nor does anyone else,' Merchan said." (Judge says Trump's hush money trial will move forward, shoots down campaign conflict arguments, ABC, Feb 15) Tuckerlieberman (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@Tuckerlieberman: Thanks! (This explains that what to me was a mystery actually more was an effect of my stupidity. Actually, I never related that occasion where Merchan declared that the trial would start as planned on March 25 with the one where he dismissed the indictment dismissal demands. Of course, news media put more emphasis on the fact that Trump's first criminal trial indeed would start within a few weeks than on the reasons for dismissing the defendant's complaints.)
I'll look this over; I'm sure much of these sources may be used. However, at a first glance, the 'best' source as regards the content, Just Security, also potentially is the 'worst' as regards WP:BLPSPS (thanks for the warnings). JoergenB (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@JoergenB
Ah, got it—
Yes, in this Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York article, there’s a section called “Request for indictment dismissal” which just has a single sentence: “On September 29, 2023, Trump's team submitted omnibus motions which pursued dismissal of the indictment, alleging its lack of legality and timeliness, further asking for the bill of particulars be explicated.”
Under that, there’s a section called “Trial scheduling” that includes this paragraph: “On May 23, 2023, Justice Merchan set the trial for March 25, 2024. Trump's team complained that he expected to have multiple trials around that time. Merchan said he would discuss rescheduling closer to the time. At a February 15, 2024, hearing, which Trump attended, Merchan reaffirmed the March 25 trial date.”
So it is already mentioned, though without details. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@Tuckerlieberman: Yes; that's the 'summary section' added by UpdateNerd, here, a few days ago, with a direct reference to the ongoing discussion here. I think it is adequately placed, but worth to expand a little. JoergenB (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for dismissal of the indictment

On September 29, 2023, the defense requested to dismiss the indictment or, failing that, to get some clarification of the charges.[1] After months of written argument and deliberation, on February 15, 2024, Merchan decided against these motions to dismiss (in other words, he decided to sustain the indictment) but granted part of the clarification demands.[1] Generally, so that an indictment can be issued, prosecutors must have evidence that provides a reason to believe a particular person committed a crime. [1] At this stage, they do not yet have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the person committed a crime; this will be a goal at the trial.

Briefly, the five proposed grounds for indictment, and the answers from the judge, were

  1. Pre-indictment delay: The defense noted that years had passed between the purported crime and the indictment, a delay they claimed caused Trump to suffer 'prejudice'.[1] However, the judge found that the delay was justified and had not injured Trump. The prosecution had waited for a federal investigation to finish; Trump had not been incarcerated; and Trump had publicly stated that these charges increased his political support.[1]
  2. Insufficiency of the charges: The defense claimed that the defendant had not 'falsified business records', and that he anyhow had had no 'intent to defraud' any specific person or entity.[1] The judge noted that 'business records' encompass much more than the bookkeeping entries of a commercial company, and decided that indeed the 34 instruments listed in the indictment could regarded as such. Likewise, he claimed that 'fraud' "is not limited to the causing of financial harm or the deprivation of money or property".[1]
  3. Selective prosecution: The defense claimed that he was targeted and unequally treated, both according to the federal and to the state constitution.[1] They gave one example of what they claimed was an unequal treatment, namely, that the "Manhattan-headquartered presidential campaign [of Hillary Clinton] improperly booked campaign expenses as legal payments in connection with the hiring of a research firm to prepare the so-called Steele Dossier...". The judge claimed that the defense (in this case) had not explained what the purpose of unjust treatment should have been. Moreover, in the Steele dossier case, the judge claimed that the defense claimed but did not substantiate that Hillary Clinton would have been the target of the investigation.[1]
  4. Dismissing the indictment as barred under the statute of limitations: The defense claimed that the charges were time-barred.[1] The judge noted that deadlines for criminal charges had been extended by the New York governor due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that this indictment fell within that extension.[1]
  5. Multiplicitous counts: The defense claimed that the indictment is multiplicitous, since it ""groups sets of charges based on the same alleged payments to Cohen."[1] The judge agreed with the prosecution that each separate instrument could be charged separately; the defendant had based their claim on a case where one and the same instrument was employed in two charges.[1]

The defense also made a motion to compel the people to provide additional particulars. In particular, the reference to "other crimes" in each of the 34 charges ought to be more specific, in order to enable a proper defense. The prosecution provided four specific laws which might be broken by these "other crimes", but were not prepared to go into detail of how each falsification would have been intended to cover any particular law before the trial.[1] The judge noted that the defense had a right to know what the defense should encompass. He also found that the first three law clauses had been clearly substantiated in the indiction, but not so the fourth. Moreover, introducing any further points this close to the trial would be improper. Thus, he ordered that any intent of an other crime instance furthered by the prosecution should refer to one of the three first law instances; although in the evidence for one such violation also other (planned or executed) misdemeanors might be touched.[1]

I tweaked the headers. Glad to tweak the rest once it’s added to the article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Juan M. Merchan (February 15, 2024). "Decision and Order" (PDF). Retrieved April 30, 2024.
The judge does not "claim" when making findings of fact or ruling on the application of law.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: Would you accept "The judge stated"? JoergenB (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
If its in the judge's opinion and ruling denying the motions to dismiss then "found" or "ruled". If it's in a bench opinion, then "found" or "ruled". Inserting weasel words like "stated" or "claimed" in place of "Found" and "ruled" in these official actions by the court risks appearance of POV. For other utterances by the judge, by word or pen, I might go for "state" but would want to review the quote and think about the context. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I would not call either claim or state a "weasel word" in any ordinary context (since in their ordinary use they're fairly neutral as regard the truth content of whatever was uttered); but, as I've said, I'm not a lawyer, and do not claim to know what is appropriate here.
@NewsAndEventsGuy: Do you accept "The judge noted" (which appears several times supra)? JoergenB (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
"What's approrpriate?" That's easy. The only reason we're struggling to choose the right word is because we're talking about how we interpret and present primary sources (court docs) instead of just writing summary text based on high quality WP:SECONDARY (or tertiary) sources, like we should be doing. If there are no high quality secondary/tertiary RSs to base this section on, then its inclusion in this top level article seems questionable. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)
Maybe we could cut this sentence?
"For an indictment to be granted, the prosecution should present charges which, if they were found valid in a trial, would constitute the alleged crime; and competent and admissible 'proofs' for the charges."
I believe this sentence is saying that (a) a charge has to allege an actual crime and not just something like "he put too much salt in the spaghetti" which is not a crime even were it proven at trial that his spaghetti was too salty (b) the prosecution has to have a reason for bringing the charges and can't just say "we charge you with robbery" of a store 1,000 miles away when there's zero evidence linking this particular person to the crime (i.e., you have to explain why you're charging this person and not some other randomly selected person). Am I correct? Tuckerlieberman (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
If I've got that right, the sentence could be rewritten (for example): "If the prosecution provides a reason for why it believes a particular person did something illegal, an indictment may be granted." Tuckerlieberman (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant: Tweaking these titles is O.K. for me. (I was quoting the headings literary from the document.)
@Tuckerlieberman: As I said, I'm not a lawyer, and cannot answer for what the best representation of the juridical formulations would be. However, I think that we should avoid writing as if the decisive factor were subjective. Whether the prosecution actually believes the defendant to be guilty or not should be completely irrelevant, I think.
The text I tried to sum up was the following (from page 7)
The standard that is to be appiled on a motion to dismiss an indictment due to legal insufficiency is "whether there was 'competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof.'" People v. Swamp, 84 NY2d 725 [1995]. A grand jury may indict a person for an offense when: (a) the evidence before it is legally sufficient to establish that such person committed such offense and (b) competent and admissible evidence before it provides reasonable cause to believe that such person committed such offense. CPL § 190.65(1).
(Note, that this text talks about (evidence based) reasonable cause to believe, not about the actual belief.)
Please, feel free to reformulate the sentence as you think is best (and still in a reasonable accordance with the source)! (But IMHO our kind of trouble here really supports the preferences for secondary sources... .) JoergenB (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@JoergenB Got it. Will this do, instead? "prosecutors must have evidence that provides a reason to believe a particular person committed a crime" Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@Tuckerlieberman: That formulation is O.K. for me. (However, I really would like to know whether there are any reliable secondary sources or not. Have the main news media become so bored with all these delay maneuvers by Trump's lawyers, that no one wrote anything about Merchan's February 15 dismissal?) JoergenB (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a Thought

If this trial goes on for much longer, it might be a good idea to create a separate article for the trial itself. 173.187.179.10 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

A WP:SPLIT may become necessary in time. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Muboshgu, I agree. In fact, there is no reason to wait as there is no doubt that the topic is GNG notable enough and that it will just grow and grow. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Somewhat relatedly: HuffPost says the "trial is now in its third week of proceedings." I suppose they're counting the week of jury selection, while we started counting weeks only with opening statements. This Wikipedia article (as currently organized) says we're on "Week 2." Is there a canonical way to count weeks of trial? Tuckerlieberman (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Please cancel my question from 30 April. This has been addressed, as the sections are no longer called "Week 1," "Week 2," but instead are grouped by the name of the witness giving testimony, which does seem more useful anyway. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph cut from Discovery section

I cut the following paragraph from the section on Discovery (law) because it does not appear to be about the ''legal process'' of discovery in ''People v Trump''. But rather than just axe it, I invite others to show me why it belongs in that section and how we could change it to make its relevance to that section clear in the text.

On June 3, the New York Post (a conservative tabloid) reported that a financial investigator for the DA's office had been suspended for his contact with Cohen. Lawyer for Cohen Lanny Davis stated that the conversations between the investigator and his client had been professional and were related to Cohen's security. The DA's office confirmed that it was reviewing an unspecified investigator's conduct. Trump invoked the report to baselessly claim that the investigation would be dropped, while insulting Cohen's reputation. Cohen responded by listing several Trump controversies and calling him "Mandarin Mussolini". Cohen previously used the nickname to call for tax-evasion charges against Trump in order to stop his alleged attempt to cause democratic backsliding for his own gain.[1][2]

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

refs for this section

References

  1. ^ Hurley, Bevan (2023-06-04). "Trump makes misleading claim that New York hush money case could be dropped". The Independent. Archived from the original on June 5, 2023. Retrieved 2023-06-05.
  2. ^ Papenfuss, Mary (2022-10-22). "Put 'Mandarin Mussolini' Trump Behind Bars With Tax Charges, Says Michael Cohen". HuffPost. Archived from the original on June 5, 2023. Retrieved 2023-06-05.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

2 typos: change "Westerbout" to "Westerhout" 24.212.191.6 (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Size is getting too big.... propose replace Stormy background section with EXCERPT template

Before we have to start talking about splitting the article due to size, I'd like to see if we can condense this one, especially by replacing detailed text here with the lead paragraphs from sub articles, and dealing with the detail in those.

For starters, we could accomplish two birds with one stone if we replace the current background section about the Stormy-Trump scandal with the lead from Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal ... or maybe alternatively the section Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal#Alleged 2006 encounter using Template:Excerpt

At the same time, detail we want to retain could be exported to the sub article about the scandal.

  • Advantage 1 - that lead in the sub article is only about 1/2 as long as the current section's text
  • Advantage 2 - we only have to maintain the text in a single place (the lead of the sub article), rather than two (both there and here).

Your thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This page is well written, and that section seems informative and OK to me. If anything, one could probably add some background info about Cohen. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with MVBW. This article isn't too large, considering the topic and RS coverage, and, IMO, it is THAT alone that should determine the appropriate size. An important, controversial, convoluted, and widely-covered topic should produce a very large article, and this one isn't very large....yet. Let's make it our goal to get there. Background on Cohen would be good to have.
That being said, I also agree with NewsAndEventsGuy. Sometimes it's appropriate to use summaries from other articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I do not know much about court proceedings, but this is an exceptional case. That commentary by Glenn Kirschner seems to be very insightful. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Typo

"The judge again warned Trump that of possible incarceration for further violations" should be edited to delete the word "of". 71.245.224.253 (talk) 10:42, 24 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.

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)
Just hold off on this; page protection in general (let alone extended confirmed) shouldn't be WP:PREEMPTIVE. There was an edit that was reverted today, but other than that, the last one was over 5 days ago – auto-confirmed seems sufficient for the time being. This can always be revisited. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:13, 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)
Overall, good call, avoids annoying nuisance edits by disaffected and bot accounts. But, allows my previous edit to remove a nonexistent wikilink, so we've balanced editing vs nuisance a fair bit.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:15, 1 June 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)

[1]. Curbon7 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
[2] says he was in fact randomly assigned to the grand jury proceedings, and then just continued to oversee charges arising from that. I added a note on this to the recusal section. -- Beland (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Background on the way federal court judges are typically chosen: [3] -- Beland (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I added that background to United States federal judge because its a bit off-topic for this article, which is about a state court. -- Beland (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Curbon7 and Beland. However I am even more confused, Curbon's WSJ ref says "New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan was assigned to preside over the hush-money prosecution of former President Donald Trump because he had experience overseeing previous litigation involving the former president and his company". Are we saying that Merchan's only random appointment was to the grand jury, in this trial? Assuming yes, is it just coincidence that he was the judge in the other Prosecution_of_the_Trump_Organization_in_New_York? Does seem odd.2.99.207.204 (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The NBC article says in part:
Lucian Chalfen, a spokesman for the state court system, said Merchan had been randomly assigned to supervise the investigative grand jury, and that judges who supervise such probes are then assigned to try any cases that come out of the grand jury.
The WSJ piece (the whole thing is available here) does seem to contradict that, and says in part:
Usually, Judge Biben selects judges to supervise special grand juries at random, the people said, but she tapped Justice Merchan based on his experience in the subpoena dispute between the Trump Organization and the district attorney’s office that began the year prior.
In the Manhattan trial court, judges who supervise special grand juries are then often assigned to resulting criminal cases. The practice is contrary to that of the federal courts in New York, where local rules dictate the random assignment of judges to most newly returned indictments.
I'm wondering if Merchan was on a rotation specifically for financial-crime trials or complex cases, which included only judges with more experience. The previous Trump case was also a complex financial crime, so it certainly gave Merchan more complex-financial-crime experience, but it's possible that's only one example out of many such cases, and the fact that both Trump finance cases were randomly given to the same judge was a coincidence (though there probably aren't that many judges to choose from in a small rotation), not a direct causal connection.
I was able to find this document from 2002. It mentions that judges are assigned randomly when a grand jury proceeding requires judicial oversight, and is mainly complaining that assignment to any trials that arise is automatically the same judge, rather than getting randomly re-assigned to a different judge (which is still done, according to the WSJ quote above). Interestingly, the 2002 report also mentioned the provision in the 1986 plan that allows for a separate pool of randomly selected judges for complex cases, which makes me even more strongly suspect that's what people are talking about when they say Merchan's experience qualified him for assignment to this case.
It would be interesting to find out more details that would resolve this apparent contradiction, but I would also point out that the WSJ was relying on anonymous sources, which are more difficult for news organizations to fact-check. I would generally trust them less than someone willing to speak on the record, especially an official spokesperson for the person who actually took the action in question. The anonymous sources could easily have been bending facts for political or personal gain, making allegations without rigorous evidence, or misinterpreted. Certainly Trump's assertion (in the NBC piece) that Alvin Bragg picked the judge for biased reasons is incorrect, as it's the chief justice of the court who does that. Both articles agree on that, even if the method of picking is somewhat disputed. -- Beland (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Federal Prosecutors Drop Trump's Hush Money Case

Nothing here has anything to do with improving the article. Closing per WP:FORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Federal prosecutors chose not to pursue charges against former President Donald Trump for his involvement in the hush money scheme for several key reasons, as outlined in the text:

1. DOJ Policy on Indicting a Sitting President:

  • The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) maintains a long-standing position that a sitting president cannot be criminally prosecuted. This policy likely influenced the decision not to indict Trump while he was in office.

2. Michael Cohen's Reliability:

  • Michael Cohen, a central figure in the case, is an unreliable witness. He admitted to lying to Congress and had a contentious relationship with federal prosecutors. This lack of credibility could weaken the case significantly.
  • The Southern District of New York (SDNY) has a strict policy requiring cooperating witnesses to disclose all their past criminal activities. Cohen's refusal to fully cooperate under this policy further complicated his reliability as a witness.

3. Witness Cooperation Issues:

  • Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's CFO, did not fully cooperate with federal prosecutors. Although he was granted immunity to testify before the federal grand jury, there was no cooperation agreement, making it challenging to build a strong case without his testimony.
  • The legal theory underpinning the case, which ties hush money payments to campaign finance violations, is complex and untested in court. This raised doubts about whether the payments could be classified as campaign contributions under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

5. Political Sensitivity:

  • Bringing charges against a former president is highly politically sensitive. The decision not to prosecute might have been influenced by the potential political ramifications and the cautious approach of Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has been criticized for being overly cautious in pursuing criminal prosecutions of Trump.
6. Precedent of the John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton Cases:
  • The unsuccessful prosecution of former Senator John Edwards on similar campaign finance charges related to hush money payments highlighted the difficulties in proving such cases. This precedent likely influenced the federal prosecutors’ decision-making process.
Hillary Clinton's funding of the Russia: Steele dossier
  • The Federal Election Commission's decision to fine the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign over misreporting spending related to the Steele dossier may have significant implications for Trump's legal strategy and public narrative. The fines highlight discrepancies in campaign finance reporting, which Trump could use to bolster his defense against similar accusations of financial misconduct in his own case. By pointing to the FEC's findings against his political opponents, Trump might argue that his prosecution is politically motivated or that the scrutiny he faces is inconsistent with how similar cases have been handled. This development provides Trump with a tangible example of another high-profile political figure being fined for campaign finance violations, potentially aiding his efforts to undermine the credibility of the charges against him and to rally his supporters around the idea of a politically charged legal system. Moreover, the fines against the DNC and Clinton's campaign underscore the complexities and technicalities of campaign finance law, which Trump’s defense could leverage to question the legal basis and fairness of the charges he faces. Source: https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/10-25-17%20CLC%20DNC%20Clinton%20%28Filed%29.pdf
Clinton Payment Ends Jones Suit
  • The resolution of President Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment lawsuit by Paula Jones, which included an $850,000 settlement, serves as a notable precedent that may have impacted Trump's case. This case underscores the complex interplay between legal strategy and political consequences in high-profile cases involving prominent political figures. Clinton's decision to settle, partly funded by personal finances, despite denying any wrongdoing, highlights the lengths to which politicians might go to avoid prolonged legal battles and further political damage. Similarly, the Federal Election Commission's fines against the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton for misreporting spending related to the Steele dossier emphasize the scrutiny and potential penalties for campaign finance violations.

7. Conclusion of the Investigation:

  • In July 2019, SDNY concluded its investigation into the campaign finance issue, signaling an affirmative decision not to charge Trump. This "declination decision" might have been influenced by the factors mentioned above, including the OLC memo and the timing relative to the Mueller report's publication.

8. Interference from Justice Department Leadership:

  • The SDNY faced interference from Justice Department leadership, which attempted to influence the investigation. Efforts to remove references to Trump in charging documents and attempts to undo Cohen’s plea deal indicate significant external pressure on the investigation.

These combined factors led federal prosecutors to drop the hush money case against Trump, concluding that pursuing charges was not feasible under the circumstances. 007DJT (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm intrigued about how you created an account to post this, but what exactly does this have to do with the article? The article isn't about federal prosecution. HaapsaluYT (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
If the page is going to include information about the court hearing then it should go into depth on how and why Federal Prosecutors Drop their case 007DJT (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Did you use any ChatBot/AI/LLM technology to write this? Ca talk to me! 07:24, 2 June 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)

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


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


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

It would be very unbalanced to include the prosecution argument without the defense counterargument.
No, I'd say WP:MANDY applies here. Giving equal "airtime" to the dismissed assertions of the defense would provide them undue weight. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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.[4] Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
"...and also that it's not necessary to explicate the second crime."
Really? Didn't know you were a lawyer? Might want to recheck that. 99.33.126.209 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 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)

It is currently not clear what his sentence will be, and to add, Trump has a case in Georgia for *trying to overturn* the 2020 election, 2 heated topics in a very interesting scenario. I suggest we keep the page alone. Hinothi1 (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2024

Change titel to "Donald J. Trump election interference of 2016 Election" 2600:1700:3C21:3160:CDA3:5CED:6DE2:848C (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion of the title of this article in another section of this Talk page. I have put a copy of your suggestion in the section for that discussion. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Adjudicated issues

Please add the adjudicated issues in re: E Jean Carroll. Thank you.Lee Nysted (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixing Tense

Oppose If we call it the Hush money trials and since he was convicted, it would falsely give the impression that hush money and the buying off of witnesses by those who can afford it, are prosecuted in this country. It's not. 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)

I'm working on that now. Thanks for the heads-up! LostInInfinity (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@LostInInfinity In the last paragraph under the Indictment section, "is convicted" should be "was convicted". In the preceding paragraph, "move" should be "moved". Seananony (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@LostInInfinity In the first paragraph of the next section, arraignment, "is presiding" should be "presided ". In the first sentence of the next paragraph, "he" should be "Trump". Seananony (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@LostInInfinity I think the last sentence in the Discovery section should be deleted, but if keeping, it should be updated for tense and Fifth Amendment should be capitalized. Seananony (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Seananony Thank you, I'll go do those! - LostInInfinity (contribs • talk) 20:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Election

Does this verdict make Donald Trump automatically ineligible for the presidential elections?"195.244.210.117 (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)"

No. [5] AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I think it may be worth having a small section or subsection on this, since many news articles touch on this point. Wqwt (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:BOLD added. Wqwt (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Prisoners can run for US president, so no. TheBritinator (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus.

While there's been vigorous discussion here, I do see consensus on two points:

1. A more descriptive title than "Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York" is desired. A description of the charges (in the article's title) is more useful than their location. See WP:CRITERIA, specifically "Recognizability" and "Naturalness."

2. "Trump hush money trial" is what this is being called in the news, so that satsfies WP:COMMONNAME; but it's not an accurate description of the issue (hush money is legal; this is about falsifying records).

The suggestion which has appeared in several comments above, "Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records", seems to address both concerns. However, comments have given several variations on this:

  • Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records in New York
  • Prosecution of Donald Trump for falsification of business records
  • Conviction of Donald Trump for falsification of business records
  • Criminal trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records
  • 2024 trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records

Discussion of these possibilities, and then a requested move to whichever is most popular, would be a reasonable next step. (A name should be chosen that's clearly distinct from Prosecution of the Trump Organization in New York and from New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization.) Brian Kendig (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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 had to search for "Trump hush money case" to find this Wikipedia article. While it is true that the entire case is not solely about his hush money, majority of the public, including the media, refers to it as the hush money case, and the hush money is part of it. Ryan York (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. The "hush money" is a journalistic term but it is not encyclopedic because it is not what the convictions are about. The convictions are about falsification of business records.
Suggestion: Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records in New York. Then the first sentence could explain how this trial has been known in the media as the Trump hush money trial, which would then redirect to the article MexFin (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Soft oppose. The current title is too broad but this is too biased. I would be in favour of something like "Trump-Stormy Daniels Lawsuit". Slamforeman (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, Trump-Stormy Daniels Trial not lawsuit. Slamforeman (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Since Daniels was not a party to the trial, only a witness, I don't think this is an appropriate title. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Support, although the proposed title seems a bit colloquial without his first name. Angusgtw (talk) 10:29, 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)
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)
It is used commonly, that does not mean it's the name most commonly used, and even if it is there's not any real consistency in news articles or colloquial discussion. Either way way the substance of the argument is that the trial is not about hush money payments, so moving the article to that, even if it was indisputably the common name, would not be a good solution. AveryTheComrade (talk) 06:06, 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)
Further comment: there seems to be some support below for titles that incorporate "falsification of business records" in the title. There are at least two other cases that also involve business records falsification—Prosecution of the Trump Organization in New York and New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization—so those proposed titles may require disambiguation, whereas the current title is unambiguous. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Those titles appear to describe actions against the Trump Organization, not against Donald Trump as a person, so I think the are WP:NATURALly disambiguated from topics about Donald Trump the person. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Donald Trump was personally a defendant in the business fraud lawsuit. That one was about asset valuation whereas this one is about hush money, so maybe something like Hush money records falsification prosecution of Donald Trump may satisfy more people, though it's a bit of a mouthful. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh. That's a problem then. I thought the "Trial of" might help, but that one had a trial too. How about "Conviction of"? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 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)
Anything else would be inventing a name that sources aren't using, or is not the formal name. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
In going over the reasons against this move, I'm not seeing a policy used to support that position, maybe I missed it. Policy would seem to support changing it. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, the current title says nothing about what it is about and now that sentence has been passed it's not just about the prosecution either. // Liftarn (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. It's what the sources call it, and it's now a conviction. Alternatively, rename to Conviction of Donald Trump in New York. Skyerise (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Hush money is not illegal in itself, which the proposed title implicitly would indicate. A better name for the article might be needed after the verdict (or generally), but this isn't the one. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: there is a specific case name which has that article, and hush money case, while slightly more common, would be factually incorrect as pointed out above. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 10:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose while supporting move to Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records or similar. I think it could be mentioned as an alternative title, as it is commonly referred to as such, but "Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records" tells us what crime he committed, which I think is more important than where he committed it. MarchRain ♡ 「weather station」 10:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposed title misstates the nature of the criminal charges. There was nothing illegal regarding the hush money deal itself. A more accurate title would be 'Donald Trump hush money cover up trial' or even 'Donald Trump hush money election conspiracy trial'. These are convoluted, but get to the actual charges at issue. S51438 (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Agreeing with the reasoning that the title would make it look like the paying of the hush money was the illegal act. Zowayix001 (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Trump wasn't prosecuted because he paid hush money, he was prosecuted and convicted for falsifying business records to cover up the payments he made to reimburse Michael Cohen, among others, to suppress (or fix) negative press coverage during his 2016 election campaign. The payment to Stormy Daniels was just the most high-profile one of several payments that were covered up by the falsification of the business records. What Trump appears to have been doing is manipulating media coverage in order to paint himself in a positive light for voters in the 2016 US Presidential elections. It appears to be perfectly legal to buy off the American news media to only publish the stories that one wants to appear in it. What is illegal is to falsify the business records to cover up the fact that one is buying the media off. Also, the Manual of Style for naming Legal Cases advises naming the article in criminal cases simply as Trial of <defendant>, or one can use the formal name of the judgement if it sets legal precedent. Neither of which includes identifying the nature of the crime involved. The current title answers the "What?", "Who?" and "Where?" questions that readers might have, the proposed title does not. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Agreeing with those above who are also opposed - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose while supporting move to Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records as per all of the reasons stated above. Bayloom (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I would support, but considering the title seems inaccurate, I weak oppose. While supported by WP:COMMONNAME and perhaps WP:NATDIS, the title may be inappropriate for the topic. It is best we redirect and refer to the nomenclature in the article.
    — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 13:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Support - obvious common name and distinct. Contrary to the oppose votes, this is about the hush money. This hush money was illegal because of the falsified business records relating to it, so it is the reason he was convicted. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The hush money wasn't illegal, entering the cheques – some of which were paid for from Trump's personal account – into the Trump Organization's books was. Had he not done that, there would not be a crime. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The hush money was illegal because of the the checks. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The payment of hush money by Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels was not illegal. Trump reimbursing Cohen was not illegal. The crime was falsifying the business records to hide the real intent of the payment to Cohen 76.14.122.5 (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
No. Numerous news outlets have explained this on numerous occasions, and they have legal experts. One would think that not all of them would get it wrong. If hush money were illegal, people like David Pecker would get arrested on the spot. Use your brain.
The problem is that he let his business pay for what is his deeply personal expenses. The Trump Organization didn't (allegedly) have sex with Stormy Daniels. The Trump Organization didn't run for president. So why should it pay for Donald's personal expenses? Therein lies the crime: falsifying business records, a misdemeanor. As the purpose was to conceal another crime, it was "upgraded" to a felony. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Though hush money is the WP:COMMONTERM used by media to generate salacious headlines, the charges are falsification of business records. Hush money itself is not illegal, and would not be descriptive of the actual charges.GobsPint (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Support - WP:COMMONNAME per nom. People should be able to find it when using search engines. Opposed to alternative of case title per MOS:LEGAL#Cases. 2601:2C3:C782:E9F0:24F7:18D9:C0EB:B061 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. This case is not a hush money trial and Trump was not prosecuted for it. I think that @Svampesky's suggestion to change it to Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records would be welcome, but between the title we have now and the proposed title I much prefer the current. Piyo99 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose strongly. He was not prosecuted for paying hush money, as that is not a crime. He was prosecuted for falsifying business records to violate campaign finance limits. ‘Hush money’ is entirely a journalistic term and in no way representative of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesifer (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Calling it hush money in title obscures that the felonies were for falsification of business records. I can see "common name" argument for the change since many in the media call it the hush money trial, but I'm not sure that is compelling enough for the change.CipherSleuth (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose the trial was not directly related to the payment of "hush money" (which in itself is legal), but rather for falsification of tax records. I would support a move to "Trial of Donald Trump in New York" Frank Anchor 19:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the above stated reasons on the legality of hush money in and of itself. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 19:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Soft Support I definitely agree with changing the name, but I think the name should be something more like "People of New York v. Trump." I understand that there have been a lot of cases involving Trump on one end and the State of New York on the other end, so I think we should put "criminal" somewhere in there. I think the change here would be a good first step. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose because the proposed title is misleading, and we shouldn't use misleading titles in articles. The trial was about criminal falsification of business records. Hush money was just part of that. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Why don't we use the official name and then use parentheticals to refer to the unofficial name? 'Persecution of Donald Trump in New York (Trump hush money trial)' seems like a fair title to me 75.137.182.149 (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't use redundant titles like that. (And "Persecution" rather than "Prosecution" would be POV.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. "Hush money trial" is just too misleading. We can't allow Wikipedia to be bound my sensationalist headlining. ErrorDestroyer (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support , while many of the objections are rooted in the trial being about the financial record falsification (etc. x34), and not the payment of the money per se, the falsified records all pertain to the underlying payment of hush money; they weren't about much else. But the main deal is that it's the WP:COMMONNAME. Chumpih t 21:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while "hush money" is the term used in the media, it does not reflect the true motivations behind the lawsuit (alleged lying on business documents). It seems like too much of an informal/sensational term to use as a title as well. Codyorb (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Support, but instead make the title Donald Trump hush money trial. EatingCarBatteries (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Support, per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose The title should either indicate the actual crimes for which Trump was indicted, or simply be full case name as suggested above.
76.14.122.5 (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose because it is misleading Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:HEADLINES WC gudang inspirasi (Read! Talk!) 02:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. According to WP:COMMONNAME, a subject's common name is "determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources". Reliable sources commonly refer to the "Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York" as the "Hush money trial" (see, e.g., [6], [7], [8], and others listed in this discussion and cited in the article). The editors arguing that the case was really about the "falsification of business records" are adhering to a formalistic view of the law (and article titling) that neither the lawyers arguing the case nor the reliable sources reporting on it have adhered to. Indeed, "Hush money trial" captures the prosecution's case theory. "Trump hush money trial" is by far the most recognizable term to describe the prosecution, it's a natural search term, and precise, in that it accurately distinguishes the trial from other prosecutions related to Trump, as well as concise. I think adding "Donald" to "Trump hush money trial" is unnecessary (for example, the title is Scopes trial, not John T. Scopes trial). voorts (talk/contributions) 02:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    In addition, references to WP:HEADLINES are inapt. Journalists themselves are using the term "Hush money trial". voorts (talk/contributions) 02:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    To clarify my point about "falsification of business records" vs. "hush money": Trump was charged with falsifying business records. But prosecutions aren't just about what someone is charged with; they're also about the theory of the case, or the case narrative, which in this case is "Trump falsified business records in furtherance of paying hush money". The media reports it as the hush money trial because that's the core of the case, even if it's not legally what Trump was charged with. It's not misleading to not use "falsification of business records" in the title. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Hush money trial", besides being inaccurate (it's actually about election fraud), is vaguely pejorative as well as a little gossipy-sounding. This trumps WP:COMMONNAME even if that is the commonname which I'm not sure. We want to be careful here as we basically all hate this guy so we want to take especial care to come off as NPOV. (Current title is also not optimal and not exactly neutral; prosecution is one side, defense is the other, and (although technically accurate) why mention just one side in the title. The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump would be best I think.) Herostratus (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. This is a historic event, blending it into an article about the general dilutes the content for historic reasons. If one has dirty laundry one is airing, one airs it or hides it, while Wikipedia is not national, it does respect national traditions, so the dirty laundry should be aired in full and with smellovision. Lest the mess get diluted.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose while supporting move to "Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records" as others have already commented. He wasn't convicted because Cohen paid hush money to Daniels. He was convicted for false business records in relation to the election. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    You may not have noticed that this discussion identified a second trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records. The New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization included Donald Trump personally as a defendant and included the conclusion that he "submitted blatantly false financial data", which fits the description of falsifying business records. That makes the title you are suggesting (which I think I was actually the first to suggest here) ambiguous. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    Missed that, sorry. Then how about "Criminal trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records"? That distinguishes it from the civil trial. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    +1 I like that suggestion of "Criminal trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with User:UpdateNerd that this should be using a formal court case name for the article, rather than a random, colloquial one. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    COMMONNAME tells us to do exactly that: use the common name rather than the official one. Hence our title is Scopes trial, not The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    Except in this case, the common name is wildly inaccurate. It would be a disservice to the reader to give them such a misleading title. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    It's not misleading. The prosecution's theory of the case was that Trump falsified business records related to the hush money payment. The hush money payment isn't the actus reus, but it's what the case is about. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree, but I'm not going to hash this out with you. Stick to your own !vote to make your arguments instead of picking a fight with others. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose while supporting move to 2024 trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records. In my opinion, hush money is somewhat journalistic and could constitute a WP:NPOV violation as the term is negatively weighted (even though Trump has been found guilty). Falsification of business records is the more specific criminal action Trump undertook. Redtree21 (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I have changed my suggested title to add the year 2024 following comments from other editors that the title I previously suggested could be confused with the article New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization, which documents a 2023 case. Redtree21 (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject United States History, WikiProject United States presidential elections, WikiProject Politics/American politics, WikiProject United States Presidents, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Donald Trump, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Law, WikiProject New York City, and WikiProject New York (state) have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
rootsmusic (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - Trump wasn't charged with or convicted of paying "hush money;" rather, he was charged with and convicted of falsification of business records. A re-direct is fine given the common phrase used by the media, but the phrase "hush money trial" is factually inaccurate. 47.46.41.164 (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - "Hush Money" is a recognized slang term. Donald Trump's convictions also weren't pertinent to paying off a porn-star, as that individual act isn't illegal. The case was misappropriation of campaign funds, and improper financial reimbursements, as a result of paying of a porn star. Boorishbrute781 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support It does appear as a WP:COMMONNAME from numerous RS and there doesn't appear to be another CN that conflicts with this.
    • Arguments that the CN isn't accurate are irrelevant, as there is nothing in the policy about ignoring a CN based on it's accuracy; it simply about common usage, and the policy is clearly to benefit accessibility for readers.
    • WP:SLANG doesn't apply here either, as this is about an article title, not the content of the article. It's also not a guideline either, but simply an essay on writing articles, so can't logically be used as an argument against CN policy.
    • WP:RECENTISM shouldn't apply here, the trial has been referenced as the "hush money trial" long before it started, and it doesn't seem like another CN will surface, or the CN will change in the future now it has been firmly established.
    • WP:HEADLINES is about sourcing, and "hush money trial" is referenced as much in the body of sources as it is in the headlines.
Based on this, I failed to find any logical arguments against this move, as many appear to be arguments indirectly against CN policy itself, as opposed to specifically the CN in question, or otherwise WP:DONTLIKEIT rationals. Either way, the title should have trial in it not prosecution, ideally something like Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records as previously suggested if this RM fails. The current title is simply too vague and needs improving, even if not to current RM. Arguments that this isn't just about the trial also appear misguided, as it's all part of the background to the trial, aka pre-trial, ie "Before a trial". CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. I believe we should use the official, court-given name for the article, rather than a de facto title. 2601:246:4A80:52A0:CCB7:DA21:2D44:6B8A (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Support as it is more descriptive. Eason Y. Lu (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. That title is too biased and I feel the current is just fine, perhaps create a page seperate to this with that title to redirect? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. The new title proposal should only be used as a redirect rather than the official title, as alot of people already mentioned, the current title is neutral in this case -as encyclopedic titles should be-, so it is fine. Apart from that, it could be used in the firsts lines in "also known as" so it keeps some neutrality while putting the more informal name of "Trump hush money trial". IRRUTIA5 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support "Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York" is very ambiguous and ignores the fact that it can easily be overtaken by time and events. If he's prosecuted again in New York, this will create a conflict. Additionally, the title is vague and fails to describe exactly what is in the article.

Kisyi (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Support as it's the most obvious WP:COMMONNAME. Merko (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment, would be wise to start winding down this discussion and moving forward with some action either way. It is becoming unwieldy and we are starting to see many of the same !votes over and over from users now. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    It hasn't been a week yet, and people are generally reluctant to close move discussions in less than that, barring a WP:SNOW situation. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    I pity the closer that needs to read through this one... Iljhgtn (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    Eh. I think it's just going to be a flat No Consensus close. There's not enough agreement that the article should be moved, and the ones who agree on that can't agree what the target name should be. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    It is certainly a large discussion, but the actual arguments are pretty shallow, e.g., no offense to Drbogdan, but "Stay Safe and Healthy!!" is not an argument. I don't think there is meatpuppeting or anything like that, it is just a popular page, but given the seemingly low expertise of the users involved, if a closer does identify a consensus for/against it is unlikely to be challenged. I would say a closer should take this into consideration and work harder to identify a consensus. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
    There's roughly a 7:5 ratio of oppose to support votes, so whoever is closing this, will have to very closely assess the weight of such arguments to identify any consensus. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    I'd think after a consensus on this has been formed there will need to be another on whether to keep it as whatever was laid out here, 2024 trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records, People of New York v. Donald Trump or something similar as no one seems to really likes the current title, it's just over if Trump hush money trial is up standard. Personally, I think the best idea would be to end this current discussion, either move the article or keep it here and open a new discussion with four options, one for each title listed above or having it be the current one. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, we'll likely need an RfC to solve this. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Support This the commonly used term to describe the basis of the this trial. Virtually every news source including those that support the former president. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would support something closer to "Falsification of business records trial of Donald J. Trump" on the same lines of the Murder trial of O. J. Simpson title. I notice that conservative media sources (not my own endorsement) seem to omit "hush money" for "falsifying business records."[9] My fear is that the suggested move is against WP:NPOVNAME as a trendy moniker. Zkidwiki (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I think the new name is a little better but the current one is fine. I feel the current one is a more traditional Wikipedian name, whereas the new one would be more recognizable. News coverage definitely leans toward support, and as he's now been convicted, there's less neutrality considerations. Amyipdev (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Trump wasn't charged with or convicted of paying "hush money;" though that term has been frequently used in contemporary media reporting, in the long term I think it would be confusing to use "hush money" rather than the actually charges he was found guilty on as the title. Idrathereatpie (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

We have heatedly argued over this for some time so I think we should choose two captains, one from each opinion, to sum up their side’s argument and then we decide once and for all whenever we do the title change or not. Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not how the RM process works. An administrator or uninvolved experienced editor will determine consensus (or lack thereof) and will close the discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok... is there a way to call an admin here? Or should we wait for some more time? Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
We would need a few more days before a consensus call can be reached. Amyipdev (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
maybe we should do my two captains idea, and then let an admin decide the consensus by reading both of them? Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
That's not how it works. Looking at the responses, this is going to be closed as no consensus, as there's many people supporting and opposing and compelling arguments on both sides MarkiPoli (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
No. The entire point of this process is that the closer will read all the arguments, weigh them against Wikipedia policies & guidelines, and then issue a close based on their assessment of which policy-based argument has consensus. If none of them have consensus, that's what the close will be ("no consensus"), and we'll have to try something else. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
ok got it Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
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:Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York/Archive_2&oldid=1229981657"