Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unusual nature of the charges[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lead summary[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Protestor section missing[edit]

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

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

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

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)[reply]
To maintain a NPOV, the section within this page should be expanded.GobsPint (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that belongs at the Reactions article. Gotta ask how exactly does one summarize a circus? UpdateNerd (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Donald Von ShitzInPantz" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

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)[reply]

Extended Protection?[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2024[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Merge proposal[edit]

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

Oppose - This is A Historic Conviction, The first President to ever have been Convicted in U.S History, it is very important. InterDoesWiki (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither this article (Prosecution of Trump), nor the Conviction of Trump article, lays out and explains exactly what all of the 34 counts and charges even are. This is kind of important, since he was unanimously found guilty on every single one of those charges.
The Conviction of Trump article might be a good place to include such details, just a thought. 133.32.217.18 (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - As of right now, I think it’d be better if instead it was merged with Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York since it’s almost entirely just said reactions, and then maybe expand on or make a separate verdict section on this page. Booyahhayoob (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this duplicates Reactions_to_the_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Political and doesn't need to be separate. Reywas92Talk 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, if the page can be expanded with more than just a background section. Otherwise, merge with Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York as per Booyahhayoob's suggestion. Ships & Space(Edits) 00:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with that merger also. Just feel that the current Conviction page is not useful as a set of reactions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Beland (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, do not decide to close a merger proposal in this way. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, how about you not create articles this way, maybe propose a split first? Reywas92Talk 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was a merge, not a split. -- Beland (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support / Wait. No question absolutely, unprecedented historic event. The question is why this requires a separate page, considering it can and should be covered here. And there is also Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 00:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Oppose Support – it's best to wait for now, it's a historic and first-of-its-kind event afterall for a former POTUS to be a convict. Josethewikier (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, this conviction is indeed historic. That's why we can expend the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York article instead of creating a separated article. Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, let's not fall into recentism. Cosmiaou (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York as the conviction is the penultimate step in the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York, all that remains is sentencing. I would support redirecting to a relevant section in the article about the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York where the guilty conviction decision by the jury is discussed, at the end of the Trial section, but not to the section about the whole Trial, because "Conviction" is a specific step in the judicial process. Reactions to the conviction could be split into a separate sub-article if these became unwieldy, because the conviction itself may be a notable event receiving world-wide news coverage, commentary and analysis. At least having a redirect that points to the right section in the right article would help. However, a "reactions" article is not the right target for the redirect, although it might be for the content. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the conviction is very historic, but so is the prosecution. Having an article for both is inevitably going to produce a WP:CONTENTFORK. In the event that he is convicted in any of his other legal proceedings, a broad-scope article covering all of them could be a solid idea, but for now this just feels redundant. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I have yet to see arguments to retain this article. There is a reason this is a merge request, not an AfD. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's net opposition to merging Conviction of Donald Trump into Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York and support for merging it into Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. The content of the Conviction article 100% overlaps with the Reactions article because it only talks about reactions, and thus doesn't fit the scope of its title. I don't think there's benefit to continuing this discussion; we've already improved upon the original suggestion and found an optimal solution. There is benefit to tidying up quickly, while these articles are getting thousands of views per day that they won't be a week from now. It's possible that content will need to go under the Conviction title in the future, but before attempting to e.g. make that article a subarticle of this one, it would be good to let the in-progress renaming discussion below end. It's also entirely possible that by the end of the year, Trump will have been convicted in multiple cases and that title will not be a good fit for any article. -- Beland (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy support to either here or the reactions page since this just duplicates Reactions_to_the_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Political. Absolutely no basis for a separate article whatsoever. The conviction is part of the case, and to create this is utterly ridiculous. Perform a WP:SPLIT per proper procedure when appropriate, don't just create short redundant page. Reywas92Talk 19:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the content of this article into the reactions article as duplicative and then redirect this title to the base prosecution article. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, this feels like the most common sense option, so I support this. estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It'd extend the other article excessively and beyond scope and in general, give a singular target to targeted non-factual edits. More trouble and space than the suggested effort is worth, maybe, just maybe in a decade, when it's largely considered history. Even then, I'd debate it, due to the historic nature of this, to be frank, embarrassment.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this article isn't really about the conviction, it's about reactions to the conviction. Should be merged to the "Reactions" article. Anything that is really about the conviction should be moved to the "Prosecution" article. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there's no need to separate his conviction from his trial proceedings. It is true that the trial and the conviction is notable, but there are no need to create a separate article for his conviction. He also got more trials - and possible convictions - coming (top secret documents case, Georgia racketeering case).
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, we could be facing a POV problem if we have multiple articles about this convection. LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the existence of multiple articles on related topics as a POV problem per se – this is a matter of high historical significance and various ramifications, which may not be possible to cover adequately in one article. Note that Wikipedia articles are supposed to have a limited length. (That doesn't mean I don't support the merge – I don't have an opinion about that one way or the other at this time – it just means I don't see it as a POV issue.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because of exactly what other other editors are saying about WP:NPOV. The more that you split the page into many pages the more that you end up with wildly different POVs let alone arrangements of facts even if that isn't the intention of the split. Wikipedia readers are given the best experience when they can read about the entirety of the topic with the full spectrum of viewpoints instead of only getting one part of the story that they have to click around for and at the risk that those narrow slices of the story only give them a fragment of the truth Jorahm (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appointment of Judge Merchan[edit]

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)[reply]

[2]. Curbon7 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[3] 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)[reply]
Background on the way federal court judges are typically chosen: [4] -- Beland (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Fixing Tense[edit]

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)[reply]

I'm working on that now. Thanks for the heads-up! LostInInfinity (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Requested move 31 May 2024[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Support. I agree with the reason you gave, but I can add another: the proposed title has a more neutral tone than the current title. 71.31.85.236 (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry, Trump-Stormy Daniels Trial not lawsuit. Slamforeman (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support, although the proposed title seems a bit colloquial without his first name. Angusgtw (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Reasons listed above and also "Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York" does not give a description of the charges while this does. Brooklaika (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So then shouldn't it be "falsification of business records trial"? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep agreed. I agree that the title should be changed but this is the wrong name Joecompan (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That being the proposed name change not your one. Joecompan (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • @Cobblebricks Support acceptable reasoning. 94.175.23.202 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per above. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Beyond the fact that I don't think "hush money trial" is the common name, it isn't accurate to condense it to "hush money". This was an election interference trial, as you can see from the testimony. I think this requested move is too much WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Election interference was an alleged effect of the trial, not the main subject. Joecompan (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was also a focus of the prosecution: “This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up,” Colangelo told the jury. “The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election,” he continued. “Then, he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again.” - https://www.justsecurity.org/94927/trump-trial-opening/ ★NealMcB★ (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a tricky dilemma. I oppose for a similar reason to @Muboshgu. The trial was mostly about the hush money, but that isn't the whole picture. It's about the election, business records, etc. Coulomb1 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even if the name is commonly used by news sources, I don't believe it qualifies as the common name, and as said above it's not really a trial about hush money payments, if that was all that happened he wouldn't have been prosecuted.
AveryTheComrade (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Antony-22 and others. The proposed title reduces the subject to a single trial and inaccurately implies the criminal charge was for "paying hush money". JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that I wouldn't be opposed to a more descriptive title mentioning falsification of business records. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. This case is not just about the "hush money". The proposed The title "Trump hush money trial" diminishes the content of this artcile. The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump encompasses everything. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Genuine question, not the most experienced with legal stuff, why is it the people of new york as opposed to a more specific party? Joecompan (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the state of New York prosecuted Donald Trump. There is no other party in this case. All criminal cases are named this way. –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh righto thx Joecompan (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @KyuuA4: This was proposed previously, but MOS:LEGAL#Cases says "Criminal trials that are notable for the people or crimes involved, not for the legal precedent they set, should be titled "Trial of (defendant)" or another commonly recognizable name." @Joecompan: That's just the standard of how New York officially titles their criminal cases; different states have different naming conventions. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Joecompan (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree with that, it represents the whole trial instead of just the Hush Money part or the falsification of business records part and other Wikipedia articles like the Michael Jackson death trial also uses the official title. 8bit12man (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump seems like the obvious correct name to me. ~~ DarthCloakedGuy (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but prefer "Donald Trump hush money trial". I think it definitely makes sense to disambiguate this article title using "hush money" instead of "in New York", because that's the more noteworthy/interesting thing about the case. Sure, "hush money" doesn't fully summarize what the case was about, but no concise title ever could. Using "hush money" instead of "in New York" meets WP:CRITERIA better; it's more recognizable, more natural, and more concise. That said, I don't think Trump's first name should be dropped from the title; this is inconsistent with every other article we have about Trump. –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that "case" is less specific as it could be either a civil or criminal case, while "prosecution" must be criminal. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah sorry, your reply relates to the original revision of my message, which advocated for "Donald Trump hush money case" (I edited it because I slightly changed my mind). I could go back and forth between "case" and "trial"; either seems reasonable to me. I don't like "prosecution" because it's not very concise. I'm not worried about "case" being ambiguous, because there's no "Donald Trump hush money civil case" for this to be confused with. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The correct name for the history books is The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, and the article should reflect this fact, and not use overly familiar language.Augmented Seventh (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Actually, I even had a difficulty finding this article with such (current) title a few weeks ago. Agree that "Donald Trump hush money trial" would be better. My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Switching from my earlier "support" stance, per rationale of Antony-22 and others opposing. Instead, I support a move to The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, which - as KyuuA4 points out - encompasses everything. Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records per rationale given by others below. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While the case involved hush money, the actual charges were for business fraud. Just because the media uses a particular phrase as shorthand does not mean it's the most appropriate for the article title. Reywas92Talk 03:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records or similar. "Trump" without "Donald" is too informal, and a description of the accused crimes should be included. He wasn't on trial for paying hush money – he was on trial for falsifying the records related to the payment of the hush money. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the current page title is way to vague while calling it "Trump hush money trial" would be too informal, while both don't mention what charges he was tried for V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion struck due to comment above by Antony-22 pointing out that the suggested title would be ambiguous with the New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization, which apparently also involved Donald Trump as a person and falsification of business records. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while supporting move to Trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records. For the reasons stated by BarrelProof above. The current page is too vague, while the suggested change would be too informal and neither would state his actual charges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V. L. Mastikosa (talk • contribs) 04:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the proposed title is not the WP:COMMONNAME. I agree with the points made by Muboshgu. The election is more than about the hush money. I don't believe a common name truly exists here, and the current title is fine. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; calls for an official trial name like The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; not the correct subject of the trial, which was falsification of business records; I agree with BarrelProof above. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and adding my support for The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump - I see no reason to deviate from this format of titles for notable trials. EditorInTheRye (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I prefer Hush money trial of Donald Trump, c.f. Murder trial of O. J. Simpson. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If sources are incorrect in calling this the "hush money trial", that's an issue to take up with them, not us; we didn't pick the name, they did. WP:COMMONNAME seems to apply. I'd be okay with the formal case name as well, but it's not the common name. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The hush money was illegal because of the the checks. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose - Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York is the most widely and neutrally available term as of right now. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a date would be helpful though.
    2024 Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York as a new article title would be my proposal. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The investigations began years earlier than 2024.GobsPint (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft support Many sources refer to the topic as “hush money” but it does not cover everything. It would allow for easier understanding of the case from a quick glance, but isn’t very precise. 2600:1006:B01E:9F7:59FC:27B0:A5EC:2738 (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per WP:HEADLINES. Sensationalist media coverage is irrelevant when it does not reflect the nature of the prosecution, as is clearly the case here. yaguzi (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment I've already voted in this discussion, but the reason I voted for "Trial" in the title is because this was such a big case. The charge is notable on its own, the prosecution is notable on its own, and the conviction is notable on its own. My vote felt as though "Trial" neutrally encompassed all of it. Svampesky (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean you have !voted. WP:NOTAVOTE. :) Iljhgtn (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Greatly appreciated, I'm still learning the lingo!  :) Svampesky (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your account is not even a month old. I understand. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME. Virtually every source uses "hush money" and as other users have pointed out, people should be able to find this article on Google. Veilure (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't use redundant titles like that. (And "Persecution" rather than "Prosecution" would be POV.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose while supporting move to People of New York v. Trump (2024) per GreenFrogsGoRibbit's reasoning. Add 2024 for clarification. 2003 LN6 22:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not fond of using "Trump" by itself (without "Donald"), although I'm not familiar with the conventions for describing legal matters. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - support move to official title --truflip99 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, if moved at all I'd prefer the title moved to something like Prosecution of Donald Trump (New York) or Trial of Donald Trump (New York). Specifying the charge makes sense when it's the federal charges (Jan 6 vs documents), but there isn't another New York charge against him and potentially cause confusion. Paris1127 (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted by Antony-22, there was another trial of Donald Trump in New York. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a trial of the Trump Organization, not of Donald Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We talked about that already. It was a trial of both the Trump Organization and also Donald Trump personally. See the opening paragraph of that article: "The defendants were Donald Trump, five other individuals including three of his children, and ten business entities including some that owned property in New York, Florida, and Chicago." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The title of the article should be the full case name The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump. A redirect from something like Trump hush money trial can be implemented. --Chino-Catane (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - The examples cited in the COMMON NAME guideline are simple identifiers for persons and places which have a history, this trial is current news. At this stage the title used for the topic should be technically correct. The crime was not hush money payments, but fraud and election interference. The exact name of the court case would also be acceptable.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but instead make the title Donald Trump hush money trial. EatingCarBatteries (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Oppose because it is misleading Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:HEADLINES WC gudang inspirasi (Read! Talk!) 02:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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., [5], [6], [7], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    +1 I like that suggestion of "Criminal trial of Donald Trump for falsification of business records". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Election[edit]

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

No. [8] AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Travel ban in 38 countries[edit]

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-travel-ban-1906686 Victor Grigas (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pretty much the whole of the European Union is open to him, as well as Russia and satellites. Some of what he called "shithole countries" that banned him, he wouldn't care about.
I'd like to see more sources pick this up before we add it to the article. The consequence of having travel restrictions is already known for felons. We don't really have to explain that, like we don't need to explain other obvious facts, such as 2+2=4 or the sky is blue. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too would like to see more sources, but this could be notable to call out as if Trump is elected again, this would affect the ability of him to conduct presidential business(like being unable to enter Canada to meet with Trudeau/whoever). It could certainly be that there won't be sources until that happens. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:NEWSWEEK: "Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable" (especially when it comes to topics relating to politics). Heads of state are certainly eligible for diplomatic passports and would have diplomatic immunity in foreign settings, which may (or may not) enable a special permission for entry. Some countries would probably also be willing to change their law if the hypothetical situation arises of a felonious POTUS wanting to visit. In theory, he might be imprisoned in the United States during his presidency anyway, or at least under a court-ordered foreign travel restriction, which would make him unable to travel even if the other country would allow him to enter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even with other sources, it is conjectural unless/until he is denied entry to a country. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:D32A:A415:DE3A:471E (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably also some other hypotheticals that present interesting questions. For example, perhaps we could have a Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces who is not allowed to use or possess a firearm. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly makes his claim that nothing would happen to him if he shot someone more dubious too. Nevertheless, I don't think any of these conjectures would have coverage worthy of including in the article unless they are put to test, and then you can be sure it would be covered heavily. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether the nuclear football is considered a firearm. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that the nuclear football isn't in Trump's possession and according to my understanding of EU laws, is decidedly not only not a firearm, but a diplomatic parcel.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as a Clintonian distinction, the nuclear football isn't in Trump's possession, but if he becomes president in the future, it seems that it would be placed in his possession when he assumes that position. Under the legal definition of possession, that is. Possession is the effective control of a thing; he wouldn't need to be physically carrying it himself to be considered as having it in his possession. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The newsweek list includes the United States. Would that mean he would be able to exit the USA to any country, but not come back??? Uwappa (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The list is about entry by non-citizens. As far as I know, citizens have the right to enter the country of their citizenship regardless of their criminal status (at least in the case of the United States). They can be arrested as they enter (and perhaps then extradited if some other jurisdiction wants to prosecute them), but they can't be denied entry (or deported) as far as I know. That is why Newsweek changed the headline of their article to refer to 37 countries instead of 38, which is described poorly in their footnote that says "Update, 5/31/24, 9:45 a.m. ET: The headline on this article was updated to reflect the fact that one country with a potential travel ban is the United States." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/31/travel-trouble-gun-restrictions-and-no-more-mr-trump-the-trials-of-life-as-a-convicted-felon, GW Bush had to get a waiver to travel to Canada. The Guardian mentions "many countries" without any furhter specification. --76.14.122.5 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Factual distinction, he's not POTUS or close to it, he's a candidate, so wouldn't have the football. It's as if we're talking about Clinton, since you want to bring that up, absent Lewinsky. Or are we going to talk next about POTUS launching photon torpedoes here?Wzrd1 (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have noticed that the discussion of the nuclear football was indented as part of a chain of discussion clearly identified as being about "hypotheticals that present interesting questions", including Trump's potential future as a Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. As far as I know, he is still one of the two candidates most likely to be elected as POTUS in five months – a future nearer to us than hypothetical photon torpedoes. This whole section is about hypotheticals, since as far as I know he has also not yet expressed an interest in traveling to any of those other countries since his conviction. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Prosecutors Drop Trump's Hush Money Case[edit]

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)[reply]
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:[edit]

  • 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:[edit]

  • 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:[edit]

  • 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.

4. Challenges with Legal Theory:[edit]

  • 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:[edit]

  • 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:[edit]
  • 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[edit]
  • 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[edit]
  • 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:[edit]

  • 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:[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Did you use any ChatBot/AI/LLM technology to write this? Ca talk to me! 07:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York&oldid=1226938134"