Jump to content

Talk:Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case)

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

lead does not say "Federal prosecution of Donald Trump"

[edit]

says US v. Trump

something needs to change soibangla (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree. If Trump is ever charged in the January 6 investigation, there would be two federal cases. Probably a premature consideration, but in that event, it may just be easier to leave this article open to including both. Though I suppose it could always be renamed/moved. --Delukiel (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trump was sued by the Richard Nixon administration in 1973, so there is already a legal case entitled "United States v. Trump" so this issue already exists, but I don't think it's a big deal. We can always add a year to the end of the name if it becomes an issue. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to Legal affairs of Donald Trump, he was also sued by the federal government in 1988. There may be more. There could be a disambiguation page or hatnote, but as long as neither of those have articles it's not too urgent. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name is pretty bad. But also new articles on big events tend to get mired in a zillion move discussions, and it's often better to tolerate a bad name for a while until the dust settles. GMGtalk 11:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he's gonna be charged for Jan 6 soon. He just announced he got the target letter Sunday night. Multiple sources are confirming for news outlets that he did indeed get a target letter. So that other federal prosecution (when it happens) will need its own article or will need to be part of this article. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not sure I see the big concern about the name. Re: Delukiel's point—if Trump were ever separately (federally) indicted, that case would also be called United States v. Trump (and as GreenFrogsGoRibbit notes—there already was a United States v. Trump. (Per Bluebook, legal citations discussing just the most recent cases would refer to them as United States v. Trump (Trump I) and United States v. Trump (Trump II), which the media might also adopt, but that's speculating. (To be clear: That's a context-specific practice—if one work discussed all three cases, they'd be Trump I, Trump II, and Trump III—in other words, the numbering isn't official, it's dependent on the specific context in which the cases are mentioned.) Eventually, we might change the name to United States v. Trump, but I don't think that requires imminent action.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like this is worth revisiting in the weeks to come as it appears a second federal prosecution is on the horizon, at which point the question becomes how do we disambiguate that impending article from this one? Criticalus (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek

[edit]

Newsweek is currently used as reference #10. Based on the consensus described at WP:NEWSWEEK, we should try to find a higher quality source. Cullen328 (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reaction quotes it's probably ok, for reporting facts perhaps not. If you feel that strongly about it, you could use this article from Politco which contains quotes from many of the same usual Repub suspects, and Dems as well. Xan747 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my edits

[edit]

Viriditas, perhaps not surprisingly, I believe my edits are a significant improvement. can you specify something about them that makes the article worse? what do others think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump&diff=1159242385&oldid=1159242169 soibangla (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for example, one current sentence reads:

Following Trump's loss in the 2020 presidential election, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) began an effort to retrieve government documents that had been taken to Mar-a-Lago

Trump's loss is irrelevant, his presidency ended, and the sentence is phrased to suggest that NARA did something unusual because of it, when they were just doing their normal job under PRA

The FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents began when NARA met resistance

is chronologically wrong, the FBI came in months later, which I fixed.

the current version also does not mention the subpoena, which is important soibangla (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla I think I agree with all of your edits except I wouldn't remove the line effort to retrieve government documents that had been taken to Mar-a-Lago as Trump left the White House. That detail is required to understand the context of the rest of the section. The void century (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I elaborated on that sequence of events. First we need to say what NARA does, then explain how Trump didn't comply, then everything that flowed from there. Didn't I do that? soibangla (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all correct, but I'd still keep the line about Trump taking government documents, because that's the event that caused the entire chain of events including the NARA efforts. Former presidents aren't supposed to take government documents with them when they leave office. The void century (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this doesn't cover that?

NARA was responsible for archiving all documents of the Trump presidency upon his departure. In May 2021, NARA alerted Trump of missing documents but was met with resistance to return them.

soibangla (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NARA alerted Trump of missing documents but was met with resistance to return them. feels overly neutral and not providing the appropriate context on the seriousness of the situation. NARA didn't just alert Trump, they made a concerted effort to retrieve the documents diplomatically, even though they already suspected there were truckloads of docs including classified docs taken to an unsecured facility at Mar-a-lago. Trump's team undermined them at every turn. That's why the FBI got involved, why the search happened, and why the indictment happened. That background needs to be stated clearly. The void century (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can enhance it that way, but I don't see the need to sweep away a series of edits that overall enhanced the timeline, with dates for example, rather than degraded it, as the reverting editor's edit summary suggested. So can't we just restore it and tweak it? soibangla (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, maybe some of what you mention can be in an additional paragraph. I wasn't necessarily done when I was reverted wholesale and stopped in my tracks soibangla (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I hear you. They probably could have built on your edits instead of reverting them. The void century (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, I believe your reversion was excessively sweeping and I request you restore the content and make focused changes. soibangla (talk) 05:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the indictment has dropped

[edit]

it contains an abundance of information we will need to cover

I will once again, and only once again, recommend this article be moved to Federal indictment of Donald Trump soibangla (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose -- "prosecution" is an umbrella term that includes "indictment". The title should be flexible enough to incorporate new developments.
The void century (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose - above reason NeverEndingForever (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, “prosecution” is more broad and encompasses indictment. The title does not need to be as specific as possible unless it makes sense to spin-off an indictment-specific article from (this) a broader “prosecution” article. There is already precedent for this naming mentioned in earlier discussion. ZsinjTalk 00:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen 30

[edit]

Some of the media are reporting on what was found in a box that says “Aspen 30.” Aspen 30 is merely a type of paper made by the Boise Cascade company. While what was found in the box may or may not add to Trump’s criminal culpability, what the label on the box said is really irrelevant. Let’s not give it undue weight. Storing items in an empty cardboard box is very common. What was in the box may be relevant to this article, but not the name brand of the paper or its manufacturer. A brief mention of which box the evidence was found in may be relevant, but we should keep that to a minimum. It really is incidental to the boxes contents. I have removed one mention in this article of Aspen 30, because I think it’s irrelevant. Juneau Mike (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, while the label Aspen 30 may be irrelevant, it's unlikely that all labels on a box would be irrelevant to criminal culpability. For example, if a box containing top secret documents had a label in Trump's handwriting that said "Top Secret documents I illicitly took from the White House and never declassified. DO NOT let the FBI or other feds see find this!!!!!!!!!!" then I could imagine it might be relevant to at least some of the charges. (While this is an extreme example to make the point it illustrates why a label can be relevant to the charges. Even the the Aspen 30 label could be relevant e.g. if there is a recording of Trump telling Nauta that Nauta needs to move the Aspen 30 boxes since those are the ones he (Trump) stored the top secret documents in.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article for Waltine Nauta?

[edit]

Just wanted to gauge what people think about that idea. As the article in the namespace is currently a redirect, it seemed clearer to ask the question here. I'd argue he should get his own page, due to the level of importance of this case and that Nauta is named directly. But I'm not going to start an article to get it shot down right away. Moncrief (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I strongly concur. Some of the news coverage is already getting tangled up in this. The indictment is 38 counts, of which 37 are of Trump and one of Nauta — but the conspiracy counts on Trump inherently include Nauta. He needs his own BLP, and there needs to be just enough about him in the Trump article so that it makes sense. It is one of those messy little nuances that takes much more time to describe correctly than it is really worth – except when one is writing an encyclopedia, where even stubs can be vital. Thank you! Left Central (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the content in Smith special counsel investigation is adequate for now soibangla (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Nauta redirect go there then? Moncrief (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe start with a section about Nauta in this article's background and split it to its own article if we start seeing news stories that are specifically focused on Nauta. The void century (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Someone had the same idea as me and already created Walt Nauta. Moncrief (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a maintenance worker who was tasked with moving some of the boxes, although not their contents. He is not being described as a suspect. Is he a cooperating witness? Not asking for any original research, but is there any clarification on this in the reporting? It seems unlikely that he or she would know that there were classified documents inside the boxes they were tasked with moving. But I think we should explore that angle is the maintenance worker a suspect, or a witness?Juneau Mike (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tension about tenses? Past, present, future

[edit]

Verb tenses will be a bit complex in this article.

The indictment itself is a document in the present; hence, my amendment of “fell” to “fall” in the lede. But the indictment itself covers almost 2½ years of past tense. The grammar is a tad tricky. BTW, I am only a lowly 2-year* copy editor in the wikiverse (*albeit with some decades as a professional writer), with minimal personal bandwidth. So I can’t keep up constantly, and if I get big-footed on any of my little CE’s… well, c’est la vie! Thanks for all the fast work by everyone!! Left Central (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just don't use perfect unless it's necessary. Also please avoid adding images at this point. It just messes with the formatting on PC, and especially on wide monitors, because there are a zillion mile-long sidebars we "need to include" on everything Trump. GMGtalk 23:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aileen Cannon is not official

[edit]

She is one of two judges mentioned in the docs. She should be removed from the infobox (I already did, don't wanna edit war) soibangla (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon is the assigned district judge ('NYT: A Trump-Appointed Judge Who Showed Him Favor Gets the Documents Case). The other judge referenced on the docket is a U.S. magistrate judge, who (sometimes) assists the district judge. Neutralitytalk 05:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Cannon it is, as Neutrality details above. And now the latest NYT article uses the court clerk as the RS: Trump Appointee Will Remain Judge in Documents Case, Clerk Says. The article also describes why Cannon's random selection was a much greater probability than the 'one in ten shot' the NYT previously stated — they didn't get the nuances right until this new piece, which just dropped a half hour ago. SO the WP article section highlighting Cannon's low probability per the NYT was wrong and needs revisions ASAP. It almost has a whiff of a fix in the system, and that violates NPOV. I did just edit one phrase re Cannon that was clearly now incorrect per NPOV. But I have neither the capacity nor training to fix this bigger problem at the speed it deserves. (The NYT has essentially corrected itself without actually admitting that they made a mistake.) Left Central (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Both President Biden and Vice-President Harris said they would not comment on the indictment"

[edit]

The referenced source for that line is a months-old AP article concerning Trump's New York indictment, not this one. 85.65.196.165 (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my bad. Updated to a new source The void century (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

counts

[edit]

we have inconsistency between the lead and the body, and within the body, in the number of counts, which I think is a problem of distinguishing between the article being specifically about Trump but it also covers the indictment of two men. This is problematic. Because the article is Federal prosecution of Donald Trump, I think the lead should reference only the 37 counts against him. In the body we say "37 counts against Trump and 6 against Walt Nauta," which totals 43, but then break them out to total 38. soibangla (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It is now impossible to misunderstand. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"we're at war"

[edit]

I think this stunning statement should be restored

Amid online threats of a violent response to the indictment, Kari Lake told an audience of Georgia Republicans that the indictment was illegitimate and "We’re at war, people — we’re at war," adding "If you want to get to President Trump, you’re going to have to go through me, and 75 million Americans just like me. And most of us are card-carrying members of the NRA. That’s not a threat, that’s a public service announcement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1159728381 soibangla (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section still mentions her as one of the people alluding to violence. If we include every notable piece of commentary in detail, it will take up more space than the substantive content of the article. One option is we could make an article devoted to commentary, similar to Commentary on Edward Snowden's disclosure The void century (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla please discuss your edits to the commentary section before adding more. I agree that the paragraph you added about Fox News is disturbing, but it's also not necessarily WP:DUE to be on this page. Would you you like to take charge of creating a spin-off article that covers the commentary in more depth? it seems like you're more aware of it than most, but I don't think we should make that section much bigger for reasons I already said. The void century (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree it is indeed a stunning statement. It is a statement that is incendiary and was made by someone who appears to not have a legal background to reflect upon the case. Perhaps her statement should be on her page so when people look at her page they can learn more about her opinions.Pbmaise (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barr's Opinion

[edit]

Barr's opinion during his Sunday interview on Fox used to be on the page, and was subsequently deleted. The press has picked up upon Barr's statement that Trump is "toast" BBC [1] New York Postt, Reuters

Should Barr's opinion be on the page? I vote yes. I consider his opinion far more relevant than quoting from far right congressmen. Pbmaise (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am for it but the response section was paired down per undue weight. It was getting bloated because almost everyone has a take on this and more will come. The best way is to maybe address common themes in the responses and not just quote every single person who has something to say about it. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement the section was bloated. My position is that unless the person has a legal background it is simply political noise. Since Barr was the former US Attorney General, this was far from just ramblings. Further, it was consequential that his opinion was live on Fox News Sunday, a forum that is usually pro-Trump. Pbmaise (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added one line about Barr. Nothing beyond that, though. WP:UNDUE takes precedence here. The void century (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pbmaise (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had already added Barr, but the new version is a censored one that leaves out the meat of his comment. Not good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Valjean Feel free to add it back. I wasn't very discerning when I cut it out, but it seemed like the commentary in general was taking up a lot of space. I'd also support creating a separate article Commentary on Federal prosecution of Donald Trump, similar to Commentary on Edward Snowden's disclosure The void century (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The idea of a sub-article isn't totally crazy. If a lot has been deleted, then it might be a good idea to restore it in a sub-article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

[edit]

Hi everyone - I just placed a semi-protection on this article for three days out of courtesy due to the national news coverage, etc. If you need a higher level of protection or any admin actions related to this article feel free to ping me. I also archived one discussion from last week due to it being more about personal opinions than the Wikipedia article ("Trump is guilty!" "No he's not!"). Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: arraignment

[edit]

Should Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump#Arraignment say more about the scene, such as the presence of hundreds of reporters, pro- and anti-Trump demonstrators, major security efforts, etc.

---Another Believer (Talk) 19:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trump-Teixeira comparisons

[edit]

Should there be a place in this article for public speculation on what Trump’s motive may have been? This opinion piece suggests that Trump, like an overgrown Jack Teixeira, might not have had any particular ideological or financial motive for taking the documents, and could have been just doing it to show off to people he knows. Comments from some of his acquaintances such as Kid Rock seem to back this up. It seems as reasonable a theory as any. But I’m not sure if such speculations should be covered here, at least at the current time. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:3D99 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better not to use opinion pieces that speculate. We have enough facts to deal with as it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2023

[edit]

In the arraignment section, the following sentence appears:

Trump was instructed not to speak to any witnesses, including Nauta.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Reilly |first=Mollie |date=2023-06-13 |title=No Bail, No Travel Restrictions |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-arraignment-live-updates_n_64875942e4b048eb91109e5d/liveblog_6488c25ae4b0756ff860a8b7 |access-date=2023-06-13 |website=HuffPost |language=en}}</ref>

This statement is inaccurate, in that they are restricted from speaking about the case, rather than restricted from speaking at all. It also does not make clear that a restriction on co-defendants discussing a case in the absence of their lawyers is routine – as the New York Times reference that I am suggesting make clear. I request this sentence be replaced with:

As is common in criminal matters, the co-defendants were instructed that all case-related discussions must occur through their lawyers. A similar restriction applies to communications with witnesses. Trump and Nauta remain free to converse on topics unrelated to the case.<ref>{{cite news|first1 = Maggie|last1 = Haberman|authorlink1 = Maggie Haberman|first2 = Alan|last2 = Feuer|date = June 13, 2023|title = Trump Ordered Not to Discuss Case With His Aide and Co-Defendant|url = https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/13/us/politics/trump-nauta-indictment.html|access-date = June 14, 2023|newspaper = [[The New York Times]]}}</ref>

Thank you. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I added the phrase about the case. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged"

[edit]

Icanttalkaboutit added "alleged" to the second sentence in the lede, thus resulting in this sentence: The grand jury indictment, with 37 felony counts against Trump related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents after his presidency [...] I don't know about adding "alleged", since we've all seen the pictures of the boxes and boxes of classified documents in the bathroom at Mar-a-Lago, but since it's a touchy subject, I chose to start a discussion instead of blindly reverting. (And yes, I know about MOS:ALLEGED, but come on.) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's innocent of these felony counts until proven guilty, via a trial by a jury of his peers. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An indictment is a claim or a charge against someone, it is not undisputed fact. This is how USA law works. If Wikipedia started stating everything placed in a court indictment as fact, we would be abandoning the principles of neutrality and ignoring the way the US Justice system operates. Just because you think something as a result of what you have seen does not change the fact that these are only charges at this point. Doesn't matter whether you love or hate Trump.
See the lede of this CNN article: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/13/politics/trump-indictment-federal-court-appearance/index.html
"Former President Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to 37 charges related to *alleged* mishandling of classified documents." Icanttalkaboutit (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, makes sense. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term “beautiful mind”

[edit]

In the DOJ indictment, "Employee 2" sent a text containing the phrase “the beautiful mind paper boxes”. The NYT subsequently identified one former White House official, who was granted anonymity, that WH aides referred to the boxes as the “beautiful mind” material.[2] . We are discussing a living individual and the term implies something that may prevent us from using it. However, the weight of the DOJ and NYT stand behind the claim the term was employed and this renders the use of the term as well sourced. Thoughts?Pbmaise (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is nowhere close to significant enough to the subject to merit mention. Exclude. VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this reversion

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1160697144

I believe it is substantial and due. what do others think?

Trump falsely asserted during the days after his indictment that under the Presidential Records Act "I had every right to have these documents." Legal experts said there was no basis for his claim that the PRA superseded the Espionage Act with which he was charged. He said, "The Espionage Act has been used to go after traitors and spies. It has nothing to do with a former president legally keeping his own documents," though, despite its name, that Act is not limited to espionage allegations. Trump also cited the so-called "Clinton socks case," a 2010 lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch arguing that audio recordings of interviews president Bill Clinton had given during his presidency must be turned over to NARA, though the organization had never sought them as presidential records. A federal judge dismissed the case, though Trump insisted Clinton had won and was allowed to keep the personal recordings.

soibangla (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's an argument used by his lawyers or enters into the case in some way, then it's no more substantial than anything else Trump says, and we already have a general summary of Trump escalating his attacks. The goal with these reverts is to avoid the article becoming 3/4 commentary and 1/4 about the actual case. The part about the "Clinton socks case" is especially WP:UNDUE and a tangent. Soibangla, I already asked you (I think multiple times) to discuss here before adding more content to that section. Please respect that in the future. The void century (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked what others think. Please respect that in the future. soibangla (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the WP:GASLIGHT-ing and uncivil behavior. The void century (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I discourage you from going this way. soibangla (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to include Trump's assertions without editorializing while also noting that many experts disagree with his claims. Just say "Trump asserted..." and then "However, experts say..." Until the case is tested in court, wiki can't arbitrarily shoot down legal arguments, especially when none of the sources cited explicitly say Trump's assertions are false, they merely note that some experts disagree with them.
This has been an ongoing problem with this article, previously it didn't even bother to note that the charges against Trump are allegations and outright stated them as fact. I get that a lot of people don't like Trump, but that doesn't mean you get to editorialize about the case. Icanttalkaboutit (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth including. Maybe the wording could be a little more neutral? Something about it seems biased—I can't put my finger on exactly what it is. It's not the debunking. Someone smarter than me can probably pick it out. Delukiel (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it as it contains much debunking of his nonsense and is relevant in that section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get that-- my argument is more about WP:PROMINENCE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. I also think it's strange that we now have a redirect of "Clinton socks case" to this article. The void century (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the "boxes" images supposed to have been taken by Nauta and gathered from his text messages? If that's the case, being introduced into evidence by DOJ wouldn't render them an original work of the government. GMGtalk 12:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trump claims

[edit]

Icanttalkaboutit, your reversion rationale is incorrect, please restore the content:

from ABC News source:

"Under the Presidential Records Act, which is civil not criminal, I had every right to have these documents," Trump said. The 1978 law, not mentioned in the indictment, states just the opposite, as it requires records created by presidents and vice presidents be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) at the end of their administrations.

as I explained in my edit summary, your edit combines two separate issues: the issue of ownership and the issue of PRA superseding Espionage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1160790779

soibangla (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Clinton socks case" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Clinton socks case 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/2023 June 18 § Clinton socks case until a consensus is reached. The void century (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - should Trump commentary section only be one summary paragraph?

[edit]

Should the Trump "Response to indictment" section be edited down so it's only a 1-paragraph summary (something like the current first paragraph)?

  • Trump is a defendant in the case.
  • Trump speaks often about the case, and much of his public commentary receives coverage in reliable sources, so the section could be expanded significantly if oppose is the outcome of this RfC.

There are previous talk discussions pertaining to the "Response to indictment" section here, here, here, and here The void century 18:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In practice yes. Using multiple long quotes has not expanded the encyclopedia with useful information and legal disputes should emphasize what s experts have provided rather than biased public relations statements from non-neutral parties. I would allow room for this to grow if there are more things to react to and the parties' reactions meaningfully change but this can be a lot shorter for now. Jorahm (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I oppose the notion that this section can be adequately covered in a single paragraph summary, I strongly disagree with the wrongfully stated inference that an opposition outcome would be interpreted as an endorsement to expand the section further. I, most certainly, do not want my opposition to be measured that way.--John Cline (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you-- I'm sorry if I implied that oppose is an endorsement. I meant that expansion will be the likely outcome of oppose, endorsement or not. Many Trump-related articles exist in the gray area of WP:SOAPBOX, with Trump's commentary sourced from reliable fact-checker sources. Editors who think a Trump comment is WP:UNDUE begin the WP:BRD cycle. When a revert stays reverted, the reverted content will often be replaced by a different thing Trump says the next day/week/month. The editor who added the content can say "this is new and different content" even if it's the same in substance as the previous revert, i.e. Trump saying something false about his prosecution. I don't think gaming is the intention-- the additions are made in good faith -- but it does require energy to do multiple BRDs. That's why I am seeking a consensus on whether Trump commentary should be limited in general in this article. The void century 16:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In my view, it's enough just to say that Trump has commented extensively (and likely against the advice of his attorneys) without detailing every utterance. He has an uncanny ability to suck all the oxygen out of a room, and I wouldn't like this article to be subject to the same fate. The less we cover what Trump himself says about his own prosecution, the better. I'd rather see coverage of the fallout of his comments, not documenting his comments themselves. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This article should contain all the relevant information, and the things Trump publicly says about his case are noteworthy to this article, particularly given his propensity to self-incriminate (or at least various reliable sources state that his words are self-incriminating... we won't know for sure until tested in court). If this means expanding the section, so be it. It's germane. If the section becomes overly long, it can either be rewritten to be more concise without loss of information, triaged to what the majority of sources treat as being the most relevant, or if this still does not result in a short enough section, then it can be split off into a new article per standard procedure. Fieari (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: there does appear to be "biased public relations statements from non-neutral parties" that are at least used with bias.
A lack of WP:NPOV (one of our fundamental principles) is evident. I do think there needs to be some serious article NPOV review and editing.
Note: The second paragraph of the "Trump subsection" in the "Response to indictment section": Trump falsely asserted during the days after his indictment that under the Presidential Records Act "I had every right to have these documents.
Wikipedia is not in the business (not supposed to be) of trying a person. As a refresher, the title is Response to indictment. Adding "falsely asserted" seems to tilt Wikipedia to becoming a party to an indictable nuisance.
Wikipedia should be written neutrally not on a side of who loves or hates Trump. An ABA article states: "As the new ABA Legal Fact Check notes, the extent of a president’s legal authority to unilaterally declassify materials — without following formal procedures — has yet to be challenged in court."
Another ABA article states there are "...conflicting interpretations of constitutional and federal and case law regarding the handling of classified information as well as the obligations of a chief executive to separate presidential and personal materials." I would think the ABA is somewhat of an authority on the law.
I agree with the oppose !vote above "This article should contain all the relevant information, and the things Trump publicly says about his case", which means adding "falsely asserted", which is yet to be determined, violates NPOV. I would offer that the section (and article) needs to be reviewed and edited to reflect a NPOV. THEN, it can be determined if there is too much information, or not enough, possibly expanded, and just as possibly spun off if too large. If content cannot be neutral it should be removed. Contentious topics procedure applies to this page. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, "falsely asserted" accurately reflects the viewpoint of reliable sources relative to the prominence of the view, which is NPOV. This RfC is asking about how DUE should apply to the quantity of commentary, not the quality of the commentary. The void century 20:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The section seems a good length at present and covers the principal 'responses'. There may be room for copy-editing and minor 'clipping', but I don't see a single para as tenable. Pincrete (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 July 2023

[edit]
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: Moved to Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case). Consensus is to match with the other indictment. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Federal prosecution of Donald Trump → Federal prosecution of Donald Trump on classified documents – As a second federal prosecution of Donald Trump regarding attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election looms, as confirmed by a target letter publicized by the accused, this page will soon need to become a disambiguation page for the various federal prosecutions of Donald Trump lest we lump multiple criminal investigations and cases into one sprawling article. Obviously WP:CRYSTALBALL et al, no one is trying to predict the future, and I am certainly not suggesting making any of those new articles until the time comes (though if any user wants to start collating information in draftspace, sure). But given the expectation of an impending and potentially controversial move request given the contentious nature of the topic, I am opting to jumpstart conversation on this expected move now so that when the proper moment comes to make this move in the coming weeks, there is already a documented and ongoing conversation about it in move review, which can give a future closer the consensus they need to move forward at that time, rather than having this conversation then and having ambiguous names in the interim. Criticalus (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until he's officially indicted/charged. Right now this talk about him being prosecuted over his activity post-2020 election and his activity related to J6 is just speculation, though the target letter gives credence to the notion that he may be prosecuted over those activities. We need to wait and see if Jack Smith will actually prosecute over those two activities: if he does, we can go ahead with moving the page, and if he doesn't, just leave it. Unknown0124 (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NEWSFLASH: https://www.msnbc.com/trump-investigation/live-blog/trump-indictment-jack-smith-2020-election-jan-6-live-updates-rcna97476 Unknown0124 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - this is not just about disambiguation, but about making the article more useful / findable. It is worth noting that this prosecution is about classified documents. Newystats (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, I think a name change should be considered for another reason. With the new superseding indictment, this prosecution now has three defendants, not just Donald Trump. Any potential 2020 election prosecution is also likely to have multiple defendants. So "prosecution of Donald Trump" isn't a precise title here.
Once any new prosecution is announced, I might consider something like "Mar-a-lago documents" and "fake electors" (if that's what it's about) as disambiguating terms, but that will have to wait. Also, one point on the proposed title: the case resolves around improper retention of government documents whether or not they are classified. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Open to all these ideas, this initial move request was intended to jumpstart exactly this sort of discussion. I think Trump should still be referenced in the title somewhere, as although there are multiple defendants, Trump is the most recognizable and the most referenced (WP:COMMONNAME). "Mar-a-Lago" documents becomes problematic because of the documents at Bedminster and elsewhere also being charged. Instead of just "improper retention of documents" which is a subset of the charges, perhaps something about the "handling of government documents"? Criticalus (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support: We should move it promptly if he faces additional charges. But currently, this is the only federal prosecution against him, and I don't see merit in moving an article just in case. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Antony-22, but support deparenthesizing title in favour of natural disambiguation—perhaps to either Federal prosecution on Donald Trump's document handling or Federal Donald Trump document handling prosecution. They use neutral language without overemphasising any aspect, are briefer than either (incumbent or above-proposed) title, avoid the initial image of some kind of wallet which "document case" may conjur, neither imply the only or even main* defendant is Trump (*not directly supported by indictment itself), and explain how the charges relate to documents—namely, how Trump has handled them. Llew Mawr (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: let's use the current New York precedent and just have it say Federal prosecution of Donald Trump in Florida and Federal prosecution of Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. --Volvlogia (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support a move, suggesting a target of Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case) to match the style of Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (2020 election case) (or "government documents" if that's deemed more appropriate). It seems likely that neither of these are the primary topic here as of the indictment in the election case. Note that I also updated the hatnote; what's there right now is kind of verbose and I'd appreciate a sanity check on the language. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm fine with a non-parenthetical title here also (as proposed by Reywas92). The things I feel strongly about: 1) the titles of both pages should match each other stylistically and 2) neither page should be Federal prosecution of Donald Trump; this title should be for the disambiguation page at United States v. Trump (whether by redirecting there or that being moved here; no preference either way). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 23:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Name the "Trump Employees" in the indictment?

[edit]

Though the indictment anonymizes some people, the LA Times (for example) identifies "Trump Employee 2" as Molly Michael and "Trump Employee 4" as Yuscil Taveras. It might be helpful to add that info. Is there a Wikipedia rule against doing so or a guideline governing it? Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Stephen Weiss (lawyer)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Stephen Weiss (lawyer) 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/2023 December 2 § Stephen Weiss (lawyer) until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trial "indefinitely delayed"

[edit]

As according to CBS, ABC, NBC, and Washington Post. First CBS reporter finds it "worth underscoring" that the judge who has decided so was appointed to the bench by Trump himself, second CBS reporter finds that although cases of this magnitude and impact have been delayed before, it's pretty much unprecedented for them to be delayed indefinitely. NBC reporter responds likewise about the unusualness of indefinite delay. --2003:DA:CF04:958:FDEE:3CD1:2685:C280 (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of "violent" in quotes

[edit]

Hi Neutrality, about your revert I only meant quotes, i.e. quoting the paper, but even that may violate MOS:WEASEL. MOS:SCAREQUOTES seems to only apply when not actually quoting. As I stated, it's better to actually quote the people involved, i.e. according to newspaper so and so made this violent threat: "<quote>", assuming that in itself doesn't violate WP:BLPCRIME. comp.arch (talk) comp.arch (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we would need in-text attribution here. The fact of the violent rhetoric is not seriously contested. (And reporting on this point, incidentally, is not limited to the NYTimes.) Neutralitytalk 18:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, claim needs to pass WP:V and I see it does (though probably no direct link to classified documents). I just feel readers should have a (non-paywalled) reference to confirmed claimed threats and even violence, not just threats), what exactly (and who) doing: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889 https://democrats.org/news/🚨-donald-trump-is-once-again-threatening-political-violence/ comp.arch (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_(classified_documents_case)&oldid=1241036237"