Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York

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

Travel ban in 38 countries

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

Well, pretty much the whole of the European Union is open to him, as well as Russia and satellites. Some of what he called "
shithole countries
" that banned him, he wouldn't care about.
I'd like to see more sources pick this up before we add it to the article. The consequence of having travel restrictions is already known for felons. We don't really have to explain that, like we don't need to explain other obvious facts, such as 2+2=4 or the sky is blue. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too would like to see more sources, but this could be notable to call out as if Trump is elected again, this would affect the ability of him to conduct presidential business(like being unable to enter Canada to meet with Trudeau/whoever). It could certainly be that there won't be sources until that happens. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also see
diplomatic passports and would have diplomatic immunity in foreign settings, which may (or may not) enable a special permission for entry. Some countries would probably also be willing to change their law if the hypothetical situation arises of a felonious POTUS wanting to visit. In theory, he might be imprisoned in the United States during his presidency anyway, or at least under a court-ordered foreign travel restriction, which would make him unable to travel even if the other country would allow him to enter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Trump is currently not Head of State, nor is he, currently, in any form of government office. This might change soon, of course. 181.170.168.236 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I listen to NPR like 4 hours a day, and I hadn't heard that pointed out nor had it occurred to me. It's far from 2+2=4 obvious. They did mention that he might have trouble voting for himself unless he had completed his sentence. -- Beland (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t know trump was banned from certain countries for calling them “s***holes”.
(I apologize for my censorship; I don’t like writing cuss words on talk pages). West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now. He was banned for being a convicted felon. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even with other sources, it is conjectural unless/until he is denied entry to a country. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:D32A:A415:DE3A:471E (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably also some other hypotheticals that present interesting questions. For example, perhaps we could have a
Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces who is not allowed to use or possess a firearm. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It certainly makes his claim that nothing would happen to him if he shot someone more dubious too. Nevertheless, I don't think any of these conjectures would have coverage worthy of including in the article unless they are put to test, and then you can be sure it would be covered heavily. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether the nuclear football is considered a firearm. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that the nuclear football isn't in Trump's possession and according to my understanding of EU laws, is decidedly not only not a firearm, but a diplomatic parcel.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as a Clintonian distinction, the nuclear football isn't in Trump's possession, but if he becomes president in the future, it seems that it would be placed in his possession when he assumes that position. Under the legal definition of possession, that is. Possession is the effective control of a thing; he wouldn't need to be physically carrying it himself to be considered as having it in his possession. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The newsweek list includes the United States. Would that mean he would be able to exit the USA to any country, but not come back??? Uwappa (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The list is about entry by non-citizens. As far as I know, citizens have the right to enter the country of their citizenship regardless of their criminal status (at least in the case of the United States). They can be arrested as they enter (and perhaps then extradited if some other jurisdiction wants to prosecute them), but they can't be denied entry (or deported) as far as I know. That is why Newsweek changed the headline of their article to refer to 37 countries instead of 38, which is described poorly in their footnote that says "Update, 5/31/24, 9:45 a.m. ET: The headline on this article was updated to reflect the fact that one country with a potential travel ban is the United States." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the travel ban apply if mr. Trump would travel on a
diplomatic passport issued to him as head of state? Uwappa (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

I find this article to be of low quality

I was disappointed to read this article, as I find it to be of low quality. 2001:4C4E:1E99:6D00:4DB4:7073:29A2:5D64 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then work to make it better. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Providing feedback that's more specific might help. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 June 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. I am rather surprised to see no clear support expressed for either of these two suggestions after nearly two days, so I am withdrawing the RM. I still think the article should be renamed, but I do not sense convergence and don't want to encourage protracted random discussion under the banner of this RM proposal. (closed by non-admin page mover) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conviction of Donald Trump) or perhaps "Criminal prosecution of" without merging. The "name should be chosen that's clearly distinct from Prosecution of the Trump Organization in New York and from New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization". Adding "2024" and "New York" seem unnecessary at this point, and "Prosecution of" is ambiguous with Prosecution of the Trump Organization in New York (in which Trump was a defendant in a personal capacity and a falsification of business records was part of the accusation and conclusion). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Looks like a different editor already redirected
Conviction of Donald Trump here. Natg 19 (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with your explanation, but I don't understand how your explanation leads to a conclusion to oppose. This proposed move shares only two words with the other article's title. Since his business entity's name uses his surname, both articles must include his surname. The only other shared word is "business" -- one is "business fraud" and the other is "business records". (Yes, both cases involved business records.) So I don't see how the proposed move's title can be confused with New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization. rootsmusic (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No @JohnAdams1800, Conviction "is the determination by a court of law that a defendant is guilty of a crime." rootsmusic (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -
    Conviction of Donald Trump
    has already been merged here.

rootsmusic (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2024 (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.

Final charges

The opening paragraph does not reflect the final charges correctly.

The conviction, as per the official jury instructions and final charges document (primary source) was falsification of business records to conceal or commit another crime.

The other crime is specified as violation of Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law (page 30) which is "conspiracy to promote or prevent an election".

The article states that the other crime is one out of three possibilities "violation of federal campaign finance limits, unlawfully influencing the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and tax fraud".

The three possibilities should instead refer to the three theories offered by the prosecution that constitute the unlawful means by which the NY Election Law was violated. And even these are wrong. They should be tax violations, FECA violations, and falsification of other business records (p31+). 82.47.184.148 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change to a more accurate description of the conviction. Examples provided below which summarise the final charges as per the primary source linked above. Emphasis added to show that the current article is factually incorrect.
  • "New York jury found him guilty of all 34 charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election" AP News
  • "New York jury has found him guilty of falsifying business records to commit election fraud." Sky News
  • "Donald Trump has been found guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records in a criminal hush-money scheme to influence the outcome of the 2016 election." Guardian
82.47.184.148 (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York&oldid=1229981666"