Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page is well written, and that section seems informative and OK to me. If anything, one could probably add some background info about Cohen. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with MVBW. This article isn't too large, considering the topic and RS coverage, and, IMO, it is THAT alone that should determine the appropriate size. An important, controversial, convoluted, and widely-covered topic should produce a very large article, and this one isn't very large....yet. Let's make it our goal to get there. Background on Cohen would be good to have.

That being said, I also agree with NewsAndEventsGuy. Sometimes it's appropriate to use summaries from other articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I do not know much about court proceedings, but this is an exceptional case. That commentary by Glenn Kirschner seems to be very insightful. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

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

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

Unusual nature of the charges

This edit removed a subsection about the unusual nature of the charges. User:UpdateNerd says in the edit summary, “already covered in the text; if you want to add commentary, please do so on the Reactions article.” Please specify what part of the text you think already covers this, and why you think it’s commentary, thanks. The cited sources are a factual (not opinion) piece in the NYT, plus a statement (not a reaction) by the presiding judge. I’d be glad to footnote further reliable sources if necessary. The removed material describes that the charges are unusual, that’s not a reaction, but rather an objective fact. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

We cover that a crime can become a felony if committed to conceal another crime, and also that it's not necessary to explicate the second crime. The description of the charges as unusual is relatively subjective considering the case being riddled with historical firsts, like the first indictment of a former president, etc. It could be mentioned at a relevant location in the text or even as a footnote, but there's no justification for a subsection on this article. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The defendant being unusual is a different matter than the charges being unusual, and we say nothing about the latter. Factual statistics reported by the NYT are not “subjective” unless there is some reliable source saying the NYT got it wrong. Most importantly, the idea that the second crime need not be *named in the indictment* is very different from the idea that the second crime need not be *committed at all*. This article says not one word about the latter, AFAIK. Trying to call this NYT article subjective or reactive or the like is simply incorrect. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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

I had hoped you would not try again to remove this, I have tried to be flexible and accommodating. But we cannot misrepresent the NYT. So I reverted with this edit summary: “Restoring NYT quote instead of false summary. This is about whether the ‘other crime’ is usually *CHARGED*. It almost always is charged along with the bookkeeping charge. This has nothing to do with whether the other crime is specified or not. It’s about whether the other crime is charged or not.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Typo

"The judge again warned Trump that of possible incarceration for further violations" should be edited to delete the word "of". 71.245.224.253 (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead summary

@Anythingyouwant: Just checking in (with you mostly) to see if you mind my re-adding the prosecution case to the lead, compressing it somewhat and adding the defense, per your comment. Currently we don't cover witnesses, background or key players regarding the transactions being scrutinized by the case. If you want to edit it, feel free, I'm just making sure you don't plan to revert me again. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s hard to say without seeing a draft here at the talk page. Also, it might be better to just stick to the central legal issues in the lead? A lot of the facts that each side has discussed are not really relevant to the central legal issues. The prosecution says Trump knew about, and orchestrated, the “legal expenses” description, and alleges it was a false and misleading description, and says it was meant to conceal another intended crime that Trump wanted to hide. The defense says that Trump was not involved in the “legal expenses” description, and that it couldn’t and didn’t make any difference anyway, and also that there was no other intended crime. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

What you mean about the defense saying "it couldn’t and didn’t make any difference anyway" regarding Trump paying a lawyer (which he both denied and later admitted to). Could you clarify? UpdateNerd (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

If the bookkeepers had written instead of “legal expenses” something like “personal contractual expenses” perhaps it would have been more precise, but how could that have affected any other crime that Trump could have been intending to commit? That’s the technical legal question lying at the heart of the case, but it seems to be obscured by a lot of tawdry peripheral details. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your reasoning, although I think I can write a summary that doesn't include this point of view, which I haven't seen explained in as much detail prior to reading your comment. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I’d be glad to look it over, but the case is so weird that summarizing it in more detail might be very difficult. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I re-focused the case to just the prosecution's main claim, without going into selective detail. Also, the defense mainly presented its various arguments by going after the case itself. So this is a more balanced presentation of what happened.

Before and during the trial, the defense made requests for the case to be delayed or dismissed, for the judge to recuse himself, and for a mistrial. The prosecution asserted that Trump's 2016 campaign facilitated hush money to Daniels through Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen, who was purportedly reimbursed via a false retainer agreement. The prosecution rested on May 20 after calling 20 witnesses, and the defense rested on May 21 after calling two witnesses.

– UpdateNerd (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s past my bedtime, so this will have to be my last comment for awhile. “Before and during the trial, the defense made requests for the case to be delayed or dismissed, for the judge to recuse himself, and for a mistrial, but those motions have thus far been unsuccessful. The prosecution asserted that Trump's 2016 campaign benefitted from facilitated hush money being paid to Daniels via Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen in the guise of a false retainer agreement. The prosecution rested on May 20 after calling 20 witnesses. and the The defense argued blah blah, and the defense rested on May 21 after calling two witnesses”. It would be very unbalanced to include the prosecution argument without the defense counterargument. So please replace “blah blah” with the defense counterargument about the retainer agreement. Good night. Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the late reply, good enough for now. Will have to look into the counterargument if it exists, but there's no immediate rush. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)