Talk:Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)

Is "2020 election case" good enough of a disambiguation?
I suggest mentioning obstruction of the election results in the title, or something to that degree, since the obstruction of the 2020 results is the basis of his charges here. Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 22:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it might be good to move the page to something like 'Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (January 6)' just because the event at the heart of is most commonly referred to as 'January 6th' thus this is the most immediately clear disambiguation.
 * However, I do think it might be premature to do so now, a as the article is in significant flux still and I think it should stabilise more before we try to decide on a name, given that the current name is clear enough.  Mel ma nn   22:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactly what Melmann said on their latter point. Over the next day or so, RS will ingest the indictment materials and write a volume of things we can source as we expand this article. Then while the pertinent information is collated, it may become clear what to name this article and the other one through the dialogue.
 * On the first point, I disagree, the name should not have the reference to January 6. The case is far more about the longer period between the 2020 election and January 6, 2021 than it is about the day itself. The phrase or wording "January 6th indictment" is a media shorthand that was used prior to the indictment being unveiled in reference to what it might be, I don't think it makes sense to name the article based on that. 2020 election case is far closer to where we should end up, in my view.
 * I've had a move request up on the other federal prosecution's talkpage for a couple days in anticipation of this indictment. Whatever we do, it should be in coordination across so that both prosecutions have a consistent title naming scheme. Criticalus (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought "2020 election" was succinct and broad enough to cover all the conduct in the indictment. It's not just about the fake electors scheme or the January 6 attack, but about all the attempts to overturn the electoral vote count.  There may be better suggestions out there though.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Having read the indictment, the Justice Department chronicles a narrative leading up to January 6. It is not exclusively about January 6. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Koopatrev I tend to agree but nor am I that unhappy with the status quo (albeit "2020" may cause WP:surprise as to whether it refers to the date of the case, the events detailed therein or—as it actually does—the election date).
 * FWIW, there is an expression defined as "interference with the process of an election" by Wiktionary, which might make a good parenthetical disambiguator: electoral fraud. It (perhaps usefully for us) lacks legal definition in the United States, but matches the charge sheet well:
 * "a. A conspiracy to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful...function [of] the presidential election..."
 * "b. A conspiracy to corruptly obstruct or impede the January 6th congressional proceeding at which the collected results of the presidential election are counted and certified..."
 * "c. A conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted." Llew Mawr (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's see what phrases reliable sources use to disambiguate the cases in the days going forward. This will help identify a proper name. While I like the perspective you are sharing, naming based on it would feel like WP:OR. Criticalus (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Criticalus I should have been clearer that my spitballing at 4am my (British) time wasn't meant as a serious proposal so much as a way to spark ideas.
 * As you say, we need to wait a bit for more RS and for perhaps for them to coallesce on a common name (or, at least, a precise and consistent wording). However, after a little research on Google News, nearly all sources seem to distinguish the case in their headlines with "[case/charges/indictment/etc on/about]the 2020 election" or "election interference case". None use "electoral fraud" (nor do US media generally making me—OR, again, not supported by dictionaries—think it's a Commonwealth English term). They do seem to use "election fraud" but to describe Trump's allegations.
 * It might even be sensible to even abey or delay this proposal till the ongoing move proposals for the other Trump prosecution articles (for which there are more RS to judge the common name) have completed. Llew Mawr (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post and The New York Times are using January 6 (see the front page of the former and the related articles bar on the top of the latter's articles). Live coverage on CNN is using January 6 in the lower third. I am inclined to support January 6 given that the investigation Smith inherited was for January 6, though I reserve that it is not the most relevant name. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with the term 'electoral fraud' is that to me this implies that the defendant engaged in, essentially, stuffing the ballot box with fake votes, which is not being alleged in this indictment or claimed by any RS.  Mel ma nn   10:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Melmann In this case, I agree my idea causes more confusion since the way the defendant is alleged to have defrauded the electoral college and the wider electorate is by allegedly himself alleging such ballot fraud. However, historically, most election fraud (fraud relating to an election) and electoral fraud (fraud on an electorate) isn't ballot stuffing for which there is a distinct term (a distnction dictionaries and new sources do make): vote fraud. The terminology is confusing though as voter fraud means 'fraud by a voter' (someone who has voted lawfully or otherwise; e.g. voting twice or ineligible) but electoral fraud means 'fraud on the electors' (those lawfully eligible to vote). Llew Mawr (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The overarching theme of the indictment is obstruction of the electoral vote process, rather than the popular vote process. So I think "election obstruction case" might work.  Something like "electoral vote obstruction case" might be more precise but less succinct.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Antony-22 Good point! That would seem to be an apropos distinction I missed. How about the disambiguator "(electoral college interference)". "[Election/electoral] interference" is the most common term used in secondary sources, seems more NPOV and, at least, less hyperbolic or legalistic. I wouldn't immediately understand "electoral vote" as a non-American, even as a somewhat avid follower of U.S. politics, but "electoral college" is a quite well understood term amongst lay psephologists. Llew Mawr (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The term "election interference" has been widely used to refer to misinformation-peddling efforts, which this case is not about. I like the word "obstruction" because it doesn't have that connotation, and appears in two of the four charges. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Reactions by people not involved with the case
Do we really need to have a long list of expletives from backbenchers and fringe figures with no direct connection with the case? People like conspiracy theorist Marjorie Taylor Greene? Or every republican in congress or every Republican local politician? I think it is sufficient for this article to mention the reaction of the defendant and also of Mike Pence, who was the defendant's vice president and who is also to an extensive degree part of the case, as he is named as a witness in the indictment. Greene and people like her have no direct connection with the case, no expertise and no government position that makes their personal opinion WP:DUE in this article. Being a republican backbencher is not sufficient. --Tataral (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd say reactions from other Republican presidential candidates are relevant.
 * David O. Johnson (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tataral I disagree. I have restored Ron DeSantis (runner-up when it comes to the race for the Republican nomination) and Kevin McCarthy (House speaker) because those are unequivocally relevant.
 * As for others elected politicians, both Republican and Democratic, they're also likely relevant. If the RSes consider them relevant, then it's hard to argue that they're irrelevant. The Republican ones form Trump's based of support, and balance the article.  Mel ma nn   21:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I sympathize with this concern but it is worth including. However, I would say they all should be consolidated because they basically make the same arguments and it is not needed to quote every single take that says basically the same thing. A Republican who supports indictment or Democrat opposing it would be more worthy to include on their own (assuming RS of course). Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Tataral that we should limit the "reactions" section to the most prominent or most important people. I have seen articles where the "reactions" section exploded to include scores of basically irrelevant peopl; let's avoid that. The section as we now have it, with a dozen or so of the most important people, is pretty good. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

New section on additional legal issues arising from challenging the terms of post-arraignment conduct
I'm trying to keep this in encyclopedic tone. In the last 30 hours Trump has created additional legal issues by making social media posts that some have interpreted as threats against people involved in the case. The prosecution has responded by asking for a protective order. The judge asked for the Trump defense team by 5:00 pm Monday. The defense team protested the Monday, 5:00 pm deadline. The latest news is that Judge Chutkan is sticking by her original deadline. ''These are significant legal issues. I did not see anything in the article on this.'' Example of article on this: Perry Stein and Spencer S. Hsu in 'The Washington Post,' August 5 evening, 2023 The PDF of the prosecution's protective order request is at the end of this article in Mediaite, August 5, 2023: Dogru144 (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. I added a new section based on the Wapo article. Nowa (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good addition. I have expanded the section slightly. And I suspect there will be a lot more to say on this topic. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Supreme Court hearing case on obstruction charge?
It was reported a few weeks ago that the Supreme Court is going to hear a case to determine whether the "obstructing an official proceeding" charge is valid with respect to what happened on January 6. That is what 2/4 of Trump's charges are in this case. Here are 4 different sources for this:

CNN

NBC

AP

Politico

To be clear, this is a totally different matter than the immunity motion that Trump has going through the courts. I thought this should be mentioned in the article somewhere, because if I understand it correctly, it could potentially result in 2/4 of Trump's charges in this case being dropped depending on how the Court rules. But I'm not sure exactly where/what to write in the article about it, so thought I'd post here for someone better at this than me to parse through Kevingates4462 (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Now News Source?
Quick question: This articles existence seems more like current news reporting as opposed to a history article. I do understand the interest, but is this 'standard' procedure at Wikipedia? I would think it more appropriate to be written after all things are completed - trial over, verdict announced and penalties meted out. I would appreciate if a more knowledgable editor could explain the situation/policy so I can learn some more. Thanks! THX1136 (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * To my understanding Wikipedia is not necessarily trying to be a historical resource but a source of information. Sometimes these two things are one in the same, other times they are not (notably with ongoing events). Given how noteworthy this prosecution is, it's sensible that it is documented on what is likely the internet's largest source of information (however reliable it may be). This is also why events such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine are documented. Plus, pages are not static. Once everything is said and done, the page will continue to evolve. Delukiel (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)