This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A news item involving Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 June 2023. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 26 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Federal prosecution of Donald Trump on classified documents. The result of the discussion was Moved to Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case). |
says US v. Trump
something needs to change soibangla ( talk) 01:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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/?title=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump&diff=1159242385&oldid=1159242169 soibangla ( talk) 04:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
soibangla ( talk) 05:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Never mind. Someone had the same idea as me and already created Walt Nauta. Moncrief ( talk) 01:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?title=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1159728381 soibangla ( talk) 18:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Federal prosecution of Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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. GMG talk 12:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
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/?title=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1160790779
soibangla ( talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
Should the Trump "Response to indictment" section be edited down so it's only a 1-paragraph summary (something like the current first paragraph)?
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)
Trump falsely asserted during the days after his indictment that under the Presidential Records Act "I had every right to have these documents.
Contentious topics procedure applies to this page. -- Otr500 ( talk) 16:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A news item involving Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 June 2023. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 26 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Federal prosecution of Donald Trump on classified documents. The result of the discussion was Moved to Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case). |
says US v. Trump
something needs to change soibangla ( talk) 01:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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/?title=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump&diff=1159242385&oldid=1159242169 soibangla ( talk) 04:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
soibangla ( talk) 05:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Never mind. Someone had the same idea as me and already created Walt Nauta. Moncrief ( talk) 01:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?title=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1159728381 soibangla ( talk) 18:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request to
Federal prosecution of Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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. GMG talk 12:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
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/?title=Federal_prosecution_of_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1160790779
soibangla ( talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
Should the Trump "Response to indictment" section be edited down so it's only a 1-paragraph summary (something like the current first paragraph)?
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)
Trump falsely asserted during the days after his indictment that under the Presidential Records Act "I had every right to have these documents.
Contentious topics procedure applies to this page. -- Otr500 ( talk) 16:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)