Jump to content

Talk:FBI search of Mar-a-Lago/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

May 2021

May 6, 2021 email from NARA to Trump attnys - “It is also our understanding that roughly two dozen boxes of original presidential records were kept in the Residence of the White House over the course of President Trump’s last year in office and have not been transferred to NARA, despite a determination by Pat Cipollone in the final days of the administration that they need to be,” wrote Gary Stern, the agency’s chief counsel, in an email to Trump lawyers in May 2021, according to a copy reviewed by The Washington Post." https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/24/trump-records-archives-2021/ MBUSHIstory (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

NYT - "May 6, 2021... Mr. Stern’s email was addressed to Scott Gast and Michael Purpura, two of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers, and to Patrick F. Philbin" https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/24/us/politics/national-archives-letter-trump.html MBUSHIstory (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

MBUSHIstory This article should reflect the above as a part of the prose timeline, if it already doesn't. I support placing this in this article. Feel free to do so. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I've added the points above to the article. Feel free to improve! Phillip Samuel (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Is it too much detail to include the names of attorneys that the email was sent to? This level of detail makes the article hard to read for general readers, but it is helpful for political junkies and historians. Is there a standard for who the intended audience of an article is? MBUSHIstory (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I think less is more in this instance. It is better to have a simple narrative. Maybe put that information in a footnote or two so political junkies can get their fix. I think it would be alright to have a footnotes section.---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Subsection "Handling of classified material"

A long section that is off-topic and not really background. IMO opinion it's mostly an obstacle on the way to the boxes at Mar-a-Lago. Cavalier attitude, erratic behavior, blabbing secret information on Twitter — remarkable, remarkably stupid, etc. but legal because he was the sitting president. Biden barring Trump from receiving courtesy intelligence briefings — also remarkable but off-topic unless Trump's security clearance had also been revoked (do former presidents normally keep it?). I was going to remove the subsection but decided to put it up for discussion first. I'll briefly delete it to demonstrate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems like at least some of that is relevant in terms of providing some background? 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x I am giving some thought as to whether this belongs in the article. On the one hand, I do see your point. On the other hand, in this instance, maybe legal behavior doesn't equate with coverage in reliable sources and having relevance to this topic. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Upon reading the section that you removed I think it is best to leave it out. It does seem off topic for this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Some of this content might have a place in some other Trump article but with less detail. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how including some mention of Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information is off-topic at all, if anything, it helps to establish some background regarding potential concerns about the current issue at hand. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Can I suggest we move or copy the text in question to Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information? I worked on the lead there, but that article is a bit bare and maybe can do some "heavy lifting" for this article ("FBI search of"). I have ambivalent feelings about the inclusion of this material in the FBI search article. Do agree that this topic can be a bit rambling. But I think part of the current rambling-ness, at least at that other ("disclosures of classified") article, is that we still don't know the nature of the documents recovered at MAL. Maybe we'll know more in a few hours from the affidavit? -- LumonRedacts 13:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
LumonRedacts, I just added the pre-trim version of "Trump's handling of U.S. government records during his term in office" at the top of the body of Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information. The rest of the article has the feel of a random collection of news flashes mostly from 2017 (I wonder whether former House Speaker Ryan ever got the full explanation he was hoping for) and a few from 2018 and 2019. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Space4Time3Continuum2x, cool! Yes, that article could use a little attention. I've been hesitant though... <insert some reasons here>. I think it started as solely focused on the March 2017 Russia Oval Office thing and then became more broad. There is a lot going on over there. cheers! LumonRedacts 14:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
LumonRedacts and Space4Time3Continuum2x – Personally, I'm glad the removed content found a home! . --Steve Quinn (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, looks good! Thank you!! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Tom Fitton (NARA actions to retrieve presidential records)

The cited source doesn’t mention Fitton, swapping. It was actually Fitton who contacted Trump in February 2022 and put a bug in his ear. Rmv out-of-context quote from the court’s opinion which also says that the PRA distinguishes between materials "of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. … The PRA provides that 'diaries, journals or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Governmental business' should be treated as personal records." Hard to make that claim for correspondence with foreign heads of state or classified documents originating with the NSA. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x The cite was fixed, the info comes from the CNN article as well as the second paragraph of the opinion from the case link. Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

NYT chronology

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/us/politics/trump-documents-search-timeline.html MBUSHIstory (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Use of "Search" instead of "Raid" not consistent, should be changed to "raid" or raid should be mentioned in the introduction.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Police_raid

> A police raid is an unexpected visit by police or other law-enforcement officers with the aim of using the element of surprise in order to seize evidence or arrest suspects believed to be likely to hide evidence, resist arrest, be politically sensitive, or simply be elsewhere during the day.

This was a textbook police (FBI) raid. It is appropriately referred to as so in many news articles that were linked here as well, although some seem to have been pruned for articles which use a search or other executed warrant, etc. There is no reason to try to control the tone of the article. It can be made clear in the text what a police raid is, and why this is referred to as such. I know there were concerns that using "raid" was somehow making it seem violent. But a police raid is a well defined term, defined right here on Wikipedia. So this can be an opportunity to educate and use specific language instead of broad and unspecific terminology such as "executing warrant" or "search". As those can happen under willful admission by the home owner or suspect while this was a Raid, happening as an unexpected visit with the aim of using the element of surprise. 130.225.21.22 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to start a new thread. There's already a discussion of this above. The discussion determined the article will remain at the current title for now. Andre🚐 19:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I searched for instances of the word raid but did not find a discussion specifically around using the word raid in the introduction and referring to it as such. The discussion seemed to be about moving the article and about whether anything was seized or not. 130.225.21.22 (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I guess it's been archived, the thread was here and it does get into raid vs search more generally. Editors were generally split on raid vs search in general. Andre🚐 19:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
The RfC on moving the page to "FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago" or keeping it at "FBI search of Mar-a-Lago", archived here, was closed with no consensus. Per WP:NOCON, "in the event of a lack of consensus the applicable policy preserves the most recent prior stable title." (By my count, the votes weren’t evenly split, with 16 editors opposing the move to "raid" and 10 supporting it, so retaining the status quo seems fair to me.) defined right here on Wikipedia - WP:REFLOOP "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources since Wikipedia is considered as a user-generated source." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Opinion

I seem to be getting a lot of pushback on trying to say which sources say what without giving the article bias: Neutrality, Space4Time3Continuum2x. I'll justify my changes below.

  • In the first place, I made a number of changes to improve the flow of the paragraphs, which you are not justified in reverting en masse.
  • Trump "baselessly alleged": He did not "baselessly" allege, he merely alleged; while we can site sources that say that Trump's allegations have no support in fact, we cannot, especially at this early stage, say that he "baselessly alleged" the claims. Again, cite sources which say that they are baseless; don't put words into his mouth.
  • The "baselessly" comment is repeated in the next paragraph; this is superfluous, and poor writing.
  • I also feel like "his allies" should be made more specific, as it is very vague as it now stands.
  • The "conspiracist claims": this should not be the last sentence, added on at the end. The paragraph should open with, Trump made some claims, which were deemed "conspiracies" by source, source, source, etc.
  • Reverting again after I added a source is also poor taste, "Neutrality".
  • "the falsehoods": the claims, which were false, were repeated; the falsehoods (by claim) were repeated as a secondary effect, so the sentence is incorrect. And, again, it is repetitive, as you declare that he claimed "falsely" in the previous sentence.
  • The last sentence in the last paragraph duplicates content mentioned elsewhere; that is why I removed.

Please respond etc. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Oh, and as to "BLP", Neutrality, claiming that someone made statements "falsely", that they echoed "falsehoods", that they made several claims "baselessly", is also a BLP issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
No, he made a baseless allegation. That's what the reliable sources say, so we reflect that. Pretty straightforward. Neutralitytalk 14:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I reverted one of your edits that reverted an unspecified previous edit. I've now gone back through the history to see who did what when.
your edit, reverted by 98.155.8.5
readded by you, reverted by 98.155.8.5 with the request to discuss the changes on the Talk page
readded by you, reverted by me saying "some of it can be discussed"
mostly readded by you, reverted by Neutrality
You ought to have discussed after the first revert or at the latest after the second one asking you to discuss on the Talk page. And it seems the first "en masse" edit was done by you. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Space4Time3Continuum2x: That's clearly not what I meant by "en masse". I would've reverted, but I got an "intervening edits" warning, so I had to revert manually (I was away at the time, or I would've reverted again). Reverting IP vandalism doesn't need a talk page discussion, so I didn't start one at the time. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
It's an IP address with a lot of edits, and their edit summary said "supported by sources". I'm as wary of IP address edits as the next editor but this doesn't look like vandalism. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Space4Time3Continuum2x: The edit summaries are more detailed than most, but that doesn't make the contributions genuine. Vague claims that "much" of the material is supported by "sources", without specifying which material or which sources; and referring me to the entire talk page for a discussion which never existed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Your edit was reverted. You should have started a discussion. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: There have been several conversations which mentioned this topic: here, here, and here. It seems that you may want a point by point breakdown, showing that these sources legitimately show Trump's claims to be "false" or "misleading" or "baseless" or "conspiracist" or whatever. But all you need to do, is read the articles that the reliable sources point to, in order to verify. If you would like to make the case that the sources don't support using the wikivoice to show that Trump's statements are likely false (or inflated & hyperbolic), then go ahead. But please do so one by one, not with a wholesale edit. You need to show that for each statement in this Wikipedia article that you take issue with, that the cited sources are not sufficient. Please elaborate one by one, for simplicity, clarity, and ease of discussion. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  • § Speculation on Possible motivations for keeping documents doesn't talk about it. § Trump’s claims was NPOV-motivated and dismissed by "[w]e follow the sources", which I am claiming that the current text does not. § Would a timeline of Trump statements be a good idea? refers to a timeline that would be helpful but doesn't exist. "If you would like to make the case that the sources don't support using the wikivoice to show that Trump's statements are likely false (or inflated & hyperbolic), then go ahead." There shouldn't be a presumption on me to show that BLP material (saying that Trump's statements are false and baseless) shouldn't be projected in the encyclopedic voice, especially when the opinionated words and phrases are not sourced but paraphrased from numerous sources. You and others keep reverting me, as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
    The onus is on you to go through and clarify which specific sentences you take issue with, one by one, and showing that the cited sources do not cover the relevant material. This is also what I mentioned to you on your talk page. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Again, no, it's not. When adding contentions, opinionated language, especially where, as here, it concerns BLP, the onus is on the person adding the language to justify the contentious matter by direct reference to reliable sources. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
      That language is derived from the reliable media sources that are duly cited and referenced. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
      • The "is derived from" part is the problem, though. For most information, direct quotation isn't necessary. But for contentious, opinionated language, especially with BLP concerns, more is needed then a general hope that the language "is derived from" some unspecified sources. See, for example, the InfoWars lede: the contentious titles all have direct sources. Without that, the article constitutes a BLP policy-violating attack. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
        Well, I disagree. This article isn't violating BLP due to the well-established exceptions to BLP for a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so long as the sources say it, we should say it too. "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Andre🚐 23:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
        • User:Andrevan: You can "violate" BLP (in that you can say negative things) where sources back up the claims; with this much I agree. I focus on "[articles] should simply document what these sources say". My original edits were intended to reflect what the sources said about Trump's claims; and I have been saying that, as it is currently written, the prose does not "simply document" the sources—especially considering the use of the encyclopedic voice. That was the basis of my edits: to bring the article in line with what the sources say, by quoting the sources and the claims they make. To do otherwise is to say, without (specific) evidence, that some claim is false or baseless, which, when related to a person (as it is here), is a BLP issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
          No, it's not a BLP issue to characterize a claim as false or baseless, so long as the reliable sources agree that it is in fact false or baseless. "Making a false claim" isn't an attack or some kind of slanderous statement under BLP. Andre🚐 00:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
          • User:Andrevan: Especially considering these circumstances, claiming that someone lied (in relation to a prominent legal dispute) would be a BLP policy violation if such a claim was not backed up by reliable sources. If it was backed up, it would not be problematic. My claim is that the prose, as currently phrased, does not back up the BLP-concerning phrases with specific references to reliable sources, not that under no circumstances can such language be inserted into the article. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
            Well, you'll have to be a little more specific, because although I've been following this article since it was created, it's quite long now. Which lines in particular are you objecting to? Andre🚐 00:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
            • User:Andrevan: This reversion was the basis of the dispute in issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
              There's too much stuff there. If you want, pick through them one by one and show what the sources say and how the article text should change. Or don't, but I'm not going to do that work for you. The diff was rightfully reverted. Those claims, at a cursory glance, do indeed appear to be false. Andre🚐 00:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
              • User:Andrevan: "There's too much stuff there." Exactly! That's why I was so bothered that it was all reverted, without discussion. There are some non-controversial changes mixed in there—such as adding a source to validate one of the claims I made—but all of my changes were reverted, leaving the article in a demonstrably inferior condition. As I have said, time and again, the article as it now stands, with the poor citations, is BLP-concerning; thus, the onus should be on the ones seeking to keep the contentious material in the article to show that those claims are verified by the sources. I should not be forced to say, as I already have, that declaring that someone "falsely" and "baselessly" made claims is a BLP issue if those claims are not sourced; that much is obvious. My edits brought the prose in the article in line with the claims made in the provided sources; the reversion removed the direct referencing to sources and reintroduced the claims whithout attribution to specific sources. That is the problem of which I complain. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
                @TE(æ)A,ea.: But with the issues you are mentioning, they are sourced. Please be extremely specific about your particular concerns with the cited media articles, as I have mentioned on your talk page. Wholesale/bulk changes are not the way to do it. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
                • Like here? The problem is that the citations are to the sentences (providing support for the whole matter of the sentence generally) and not to the specific, objectionable words and phrases. Because of that, the clearly quite contentious claims (by liberal commentators) that Trump's claims were made "falsely" or "baselessly" are taken as the gospel truth, not needing any specific reference. I refer you again to my reference to the InfoWars article—the contentious claims in the lede are all directly tied to references. Without that, as in this case, the claims stand without specific support. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
                  And you've been told repeatedly by many editors that you are wrong. These are not liberal statements by liberal commentators. Reliable news sources have confirmed that Trump's allegations, for example about Obama (and I note you have no concerns about Obama's BLP rights?), are baseless[1], his narrative is baseless[2], his assertions that the FBI planted evidence are baseless[3] Andre🚐 01:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
                  • User:Andrevan: What do you mean by "Obama's BLP rights"? It's not BLP violation to state that someone made a claim about someone else, if it is true that the first did make that claim about the second person. As for the rest of your comment, you again miss my point. I do not claim that it is a BLP/POV violation to write that some journalists have called Trump's claims "false[]" or "baseless[]"; but for such contentious claims, a specific citation needs to be provided. In the section at hand, the only references are lumped at the ends of sentences which also discuss other, more factual matters regarding Trump's claims. I only ask that, if reliable sources declare falsily or baselessness, that such claims are illustrated by specific, targeted citations. As it is, the references are not specific enough to avoid BLP concerns. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Neutrality and SpaceTime. The allegations are baseless. They are lies. They lack a basis. Andre🚐 18:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, not only did I revert and request that further discussion happen here, I also posted to TE(æ)A,ea.'s talk page about this, as well (and got no response). From what I can recall, some of this has already been mentioned in a previous conversation, that many of Trump's claims are false, and that this distinction is noted as such by reliable sources that have been cited. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
    Several cited sources use unfounded or baseless in the headlines. I'll have to read the cites but that won't be today. If you think material is in violation of BLP or not supported by the sources, please do them one at a time with an edit summary explaining your reasons. Since Trump was the one who went public with the search and the accusations of planted evidence, witch hunt, etc., and there are a ton of RS, BLP isn't much of a concern, I should think. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Section at page United States government security breaches

Discussion of proposed edits for adding info on classified documents recovered at Mar a Lago - on talk page here - Talk:United States government security breaches#Donald Trump MBUSHIstory (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the heads up! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Speculation on Possible motivations for keeping documents

Is it really necessary to have a section solely for possible motivations of why Trump would have those documents? None of it has been factually confirmed and seems to fly in the face of WP:UNDUE. Most of the responses are people guessing Trump's motives, and Wikipedia should not be a platform for such voices. If news articles report on Trump himself discussing his motives, then that would be worthy of inclusion. We had a similar discussion in Talk:FBI search of Mar-a-Lago#Speculation by Michael Cohen and Mary L. Trump. Phillip Samuel (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. Some of the claims around nefarious motives could be seen as BLP violations. Even though James Clapper has expertise on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah it's just a bunch of speculation by pundits, remove is good. We'll know more soon enough. Clapper is credible if he has anything more concrete to say. Andre🚐 03:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
We obviously have differing understandings of what constitutes the "sum total of human knowledge" we are supposed to document here, which includes speculation, conspiracy theories, lies, pseudoscience, etc., as long as it's found in RS. In light of reports from Russian media that Moscow has already viewed the nuclear documents, some of these are expert speculations based on knowledge of Trump's character, his history, and what he is capable of doing. Clapper and other former intelligence personnel (Rebekah Koffler) should certainly be kept. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
That is never Wiki's purpose. Do you want the details of how to build a nuclear weapon, bio-weapon, and other extremely dangerous areas of knowledge to be in the hands of some goober with a grudge? Let's be careful about that loaded phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.29.1 (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Some of the things I took out could be appropriate to put back in, but you know that WP:BLP is king here and we do have to be cautious that when we document the "sum total of human knowledge", that we don't throw in fake news along with it. Ideas of kompromat or Russia seeing our nuclear secrets needs a lot more than idle speculation. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Eh, I think we should go light on the conspiracy theories and pseudoscience if we include them at all. We do have some caveats on what we include - it has to be notable, reliable, encyclopedic, etc. I can be convinced that per Muboshgu, some of the material could be valid to include. Clapper and Koffler are at least credible experts. Former Clinton aide and columnists' idle speculation I'm not too keen on. Andre🚐 03:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Muboshgu, why do you poison the well with "fake news"? That's a low blow. That's news mentioned in RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Valjean, I think you're misconstruing what I'm saying. This is a WP:BREAKING news situation and we need to be careful not to inadvertantly spread falsehoods by including something that later becomes discredited. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Muboshgu, thanks for the clarification. Point well taken. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I think the entire section should be removed because it is all speculation, even if it is in RS. I agree BLP is in play here. And there is also a lack of factual information. Unfortunately, no one has any idea of the motivations behind what Trump did at this time. So, I also agree it is UNDUE for this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
OK. It looks like I showed up a little late for this discussion. It seems the section has been removed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I only mentioned "conspiracy theories and pseudoscience" to remind you of what we are allowed, indeed are supposed, to include, as long as it's found in RS.

We attribute allegations, opinions, and speculation and use RS. That's the BLP WP:PUBLICFIGURE requirement, especially for notable people like Trump. The Russian media reports could be trolling, but they are documented in American RS, so don't dismiss the reports out of hand. They too are attributed where mentioned. I fear your caution is getting a bit extreme. The burden is on RS, not us. We document what they say and attribute opinions. That's a very important part of human knowledge, the most interesting part. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

We should not give undue weight to speculation that will likely be, at best, fleeting in the long term (cf WP:10YEARS). If all we had was speculation about an event long after the fact, then speculation by experts would be appropriate. But adding speculation in the absence of highly likely answers yet to come is not appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind that censorship is a violation of NPOV and also WP:PRESERVE. Do not just delete, but seek to improve. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

And NPOV also say WP:DUE. Don't forget WP:CONSENSUS either. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but CONSENSUS should never stand alone. It should always be backed by multiple PAG, so it's not really valid to even mention it without mentioning the discussed PAG. Few have been mentioned, and several ignored, such as NPOV and PRESERVE.
Expert opinions should be included. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
As others said, they'd be UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Valjean, your content was on the page for a total of 48 minutes before I reverted it. PRESERVE is about general long-standing content. NPOV is a core policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
PRESERVE is also for new content from RS. Seek to improve it rather than just delete it. I saw no attempt to improve the wording, attribution, sourcing, or other improvements. It is a very important policy, not just a guideline. It is the good faith we extend to all serious editors. It's our basic AGF. Deletion is very discouraging and causes very dark thoughts.... -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
PRESERVE says things should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research and it seems like everyone here is telling you that this violates NPOV. There's no rewriting this without playing out WP:BRD to form a consensus. You know all of this. You and I have agreed on a lot of things so why you're very dark thoughts...., I don't know. But maybe you should take five to cool off? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, we have one motive that is not speculation. Trump told NARA on June 19 that he had given Patel and Solomon access to the records, and two days after the FBI subpoenaed the surveillance footage, Solomon said that Trump specifically directed the Archives to give him access to documents related to the Russia probe that were declassified in the final days of his administration. And he said the Archives have been cooperative and accommodating. Oh sure, as indicated by the subpoena. Also, what are the chances that Trump was not planning another immensely profitable coffee table book, this time containing his correspondence with his favorite dictators? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Even with the strikethrough, let's take it easy on the speculation and stick with the objective and NPOV. We can include Solomon and Patel and NARA, sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll take a chance then and share what I've added to both bios:
On June 19, 2022, Donald Trump sent a letter to the National Archives naming Kash Patel and John Solomon as "representatives for access to Presidential records of my administration".[1]
Muboshgu, you can add that. I don't dare. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Valjean, you can go ahead and add that sentence yourself. I have no objection and I don't see anyone else raising one. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I do not object, but this comment is a valid surrealist technique. Andre🚐 22:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Removed content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
=== Possible motivations for keeping documents ===
Although Trump released many, often contradictory and unsourced, defenses, none of them actually explain why he continued to keep the documents for over a year.[2] Many have speculated about possible reasons he did it.
In an August 11, 2022, CNN interview, Sara Sidner asked James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, about possible reasons why Trump would keep the documents. She mentioned carelessness, "trying to [keep] a souvenir", or something "more nefarious". Clapper hoped that it was carelessness, but did speculate on a nefarious motive: "Was there, for example, and I'm really going out on a limb, some prospect for some kind of sweetheart deal with Putin?"[3]
Jennifer Rubin speculated his "ultimate motive" could have been "selling secrets, showing he’s somehow still in power".[4]
Timothy L. O'Brien described "three likely reasons Trump wanted to keep all that top-secret paperwork and classified paraphernalia to himself". First: nice souvenirs from his time as president. Second: "Money. Unfettered greed". He could sell state secrets or peddle classified information". Third: To prevent "reputational damage....[related to] his communications with foreign leaders [Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and Volodymyr Zelenskiy] — and anything disreputable or possibly illegal that took place in connection with those — could have been something he felt compelled to hide."[5]
Jennifer Palmieri, a former aide to Hillary Clinton, implied that the documents marked "info re: President of France" could be kompromat possessed by Trump, and that damaging information on Emmanuel Macron might also be "useful" to some world leader: "Palmieri also implied in the tweet that the information could be useful to Vladimir Putin."[6]
Newsweek reported that in an interview with "former intelligence officer and Russian expert Rebekah Koffler", "Fox News anchor Eric Shawn floated the possibility that former President Donald Trump may have tried to 'sell' classified documents to Russia or Saudi Arabia." She replied: "The real question, Eric, is what Russian President Putin has already done?" possibly referring to Russian claims that "officials in Moscow have already studied the records."[7]

References

  1. ^ Bump, Philip (August 15, 2022). "Analysis - The curious timing of Trump naming two allies to access his records". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kanno was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Transcripts". CNN. August 11, 2022. Retrieved August 16, 2022. Whatever the motivation was, you'll find yourself almost hoping this was carelessness, and that there wasn't some more nefarious motivation, here. Was there, for example, and I'm really going out on a limb, some prospect for some kind of sweetheart deal with Putin?
  4. ^ Rubin, Jennifer (August 15, 2022). "Leaving with nuclear secrets would be Trump's dumbest, scariest stunt yet". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 16, 2022. Whatever his ultimate motive (e.g., selling secrets, showing he's somehow still in power), no senior civilian official, let alone the president, has ever engaged in such appalling conduct.
  5. ^ O'Brien, Timothy L (August 15, 2022). "Why Did Trump Take Classified Documents in the First Place?". Bloomberg News. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  6. ^ Zitser, Joshua (August 13, 2022). "Ex-Clinton aide implies 'President of France' file found at Trump's home during Mar-a-Lago raid could be valuable to Putin as 'kompromat'". Business Insider. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
  7. ^ Lemon, Jason (August 14, 2022). "Fox News host floats possibility Trump tried to "sell" classified documents". Newsweek. Retrieved August 16, 2022.
– Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Citations relating to released documents

When I was adding archives to some of the sources in § Release of redacted search warrant affidavit, I saw that most of the quotes in that section are taken directly from the affidavit, but are sourced to secondary sources. I was thinking of changing the source to the affidavit (especially now that it has been transcribed), but keeping the other sources there to show relevance. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I don't know which edits your post refers to specifically, but keep in mind about this:
Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and, this
Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#Primary sources should be used carefully
There's good reason behind why editors are quoting from the secondary journalistic sources, rather than from the primary document/affidvait/legal brief/whatever.
Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Rolling Stone: Trump bragging to have intel on Macron's sex life - worth adding?

Rolling Stone released a report about Trump bragging to have intelligence on French President Emmanuel Macron's sex life. Some reputable news sources are picking up on the RS report, including the Guardian, Politico, The Independent, and the Times. I noticed however that Rolling Stone isn't a trusted news source for politics per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, so I want some opinions if this report should be added or kicked to the curb. Phillip Samuel (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think there's two issues to be sorted out.
  • First, is the RS article relevant? I think yes, but only because the existing, uncontested "info re: President of France" information on the docket. It may only be worthwhile to mention it, and then add "Rolling Stone speculated, citing unnamed sources..."
  • Second, why/how is it relevant? So far, the true relevance is that there's U.S. regulations that require notification of victims of an intelligence breach, including foreign governments. (That is here). However, there is also the previous issue of the 2017 Macron e-mail leaks, mention of which should be handled with care.
Evackost (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
While I think Rolling Stone (under new editorship) has largely turned things around, and these reporters have good reputations, this is a sensitive BLP concern regarding two world leaders. Even if Rolling Stone were a sterling source (which it is not, at this point), I would personally want multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident per WP:BLP. Since we do not have that here, my opinion is that we should leave it out. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I think if there was better sourcing it would be worth it for purposes of clarification. Mostly just in terms of specificity, regarding vague sentences in the seized materials section of this article, about items "related to the President of France" and "Info re: President of France" etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Don’t include. Rolling Stone is not a reliable source, and the articles in the Guardian, Independent, and in Politico are entirely based on Rolling Stone’s reporting (can’t read the Sunday Times due to the paywall). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Trump lawyer searched Mar-a-Lago for subpoenaed records in New York probe - relevant?

According to Politico, The Trump lawyer searched through the premises in response to the separate New York Trump Organization investigation. There are concerns of whether she searched through the classified documents and whether she had the clearance to do so. I'm not sure how important this is to add to the article, considering Trump's lawyers have searched his residence for subpoenaed records in numerous investigations, and the same concerns would apply to all of them. Phillip Samuel (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Unless it becomes part of a federal case, e.g. who unlawfully accessed classified material or similar, I don’t think it belongs in this article. Habba searched Mar-a-Lago on May 5, so at least some of her comings and goings should be on the surveillance videos subpoenaed by the FBI on June 22. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

List of documents

A judge just released a list of everything here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.39.1_1.pdf Victor Grigas (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Secondary source, from the Beeb: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62771613-- 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:CC51:D6FE:1169:1299 (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice photo!

Love the new photo, Jengod! Andre🚐 03:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I just updated Commons page w better source link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.48.1_1.pdf jengod (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it clear where this photo ("Redacted FBI photograph of certain documents and classified cover sheets recovered from a container in the '45 office'") was taken? Is this an FBI office or is it at Mar-a-Lago? --2A0A:A540:F02E:0:DB2:B95E:7C66:72E3 (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

According to sources, Mar-a-Lago. The photo shows the cover pages of a smattering of paperclip-bound classified documents — some marked as "TOP SECRET//SCI" with bright yellow borders, and one marked as "SECRET//SCI" with a rust-colored border — along with whited-out pages, splayed out on a carpet at Mar-a-Lago. Beside them sits a cardboard box filled with gold-framed pictures, including a Time magazine cover. [4] – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
It's at Mar-a-Lago. The carpet matches the one seen here and here. Articles by the Washington Post and the New York Times explain why the investigators took the documents out of the container they found them in and displayed them for the photograph. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I moved the picture down to "Search of Mar-a-Lago" section. This is causing too much clutter at the top of the article page. We already have the Donald Trump series template in the "Intro" section. Also, "Search of Mar-a-Lago" seems to be the appropriate place for this image, imho. Feel free to discuss per WP:BRD---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I kind of liked it where it was... how would you feel if we took out that grinning photo of him and make the infobox photo be the pic? Andre🚐 05:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Currently the image is the iconic image for the search and seizure. I put a slightly downsized version of the image back into the lead. It's now the same width as the Donald Trump series infobox and doesn't crowd the text in the lead. I left the larger image with the longer caption and explanation in the search section. Hanging on to TOP SECRET//SCI material after retirement boggles the mind — feels important enough to justify the duplicate images. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks! Andre🚐 22:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@Space4Time3Continuum2x:. Good compromise! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The photo was removed from the intro by a well meaning editor [5]. I restored it per this discussion [6]. Also, in my edit summary I said please come to this discussion on talk before removing it again. I left a link for this section. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Nice going thanks Steve! Andre🚐 02:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I just added a note to both, with a link to this section asking to please not remove despite the duplication. That should work (or not, as it does or doesn't at Donald Trump ). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Judge Cannon "showing concern" and "signaling intention"

(Furrowing her brow, hand signals?)

Phillip Samuel, Cannon showed concern about potentially privileged material is not what the source says. You're generalizing where the source is specific about a couple of instances, i.e., two documents, that the investigative team thought might be potentially privileged while the filter team had not thought so. I initially clarified but then removed the sentence altogether, together with the next one because both "signaling concern" and "seeming to be leaning toward" are speculation by the source. And now you've put both back in, slightly reworded but without discussing it on the Talk page. Why? You didn't add an edit summary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the judge "signalling her concern" of privilege material issues, the Politico reporting is characterizing her questioning, not speculating. Regarding the judge "considering" letting ODNI review the documents but not the DOJ, the CNN reporting is describing what she said. I tried to originally cite the subpost from the live CNN reporting in my edit, but as of late I can't get subposts to link correctly, and the one source I cited phrased it in a way that you took issue with. In any case, the judge just ruled on most of her points I've mentioned in writing, so I added reporting about her ruling on those points. Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Fox News sources? Best to avoid when possible?

Just before this becomes a potential thing, I wanted to address the issue.

As far as I know, if there are other more reliable sources available, it's best not to use Fox News, is that correct?

WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Fox News (politics and science)

Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't use Fox. If it's self-referential or an "attributed opinion," i.e. Fox News said X, or if a person appeared on Fox News and said X, then Fox News is the firsthand source to substantiate that. But for topics other than Fox itself, I'd rather find the facts elsewhere, assuming another outlet is reporting on the same stuff. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, Fox's reliability is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Fox News (news): politics & science, for at least another couple of days. Andre🚐 03:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree Fox News should be avoided. They do not meet the criteria of being a neutral, unbiased source of info. PatriceMO1 (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Fox "News" is notoriously and grotesquely unreliable, yet I've never seen it correct itself. There was a study done by Fairlawn University, I think, a decade or more ago, that found that Fox viewers actually knew less about the subjects it featured than others polled who didn't watch any news at all. Activist (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Right. As opposed to CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, The Washington Post and The New York Times, all notably hostile to liberalism and the Democrats.  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.29.1 (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
That's a pretty clueless comment. The issue isn't bias, it's reliability. If the NYT, Guardian, etc have a far better reputation for fact-checking and accuracy than Fox, then we go with reliability regardless of bias. There are biased but reliable sources on the right too. The question is whether Fox qualifies as one of them. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Number of classified documents recovered unclear?

Is the number of recovered classified documents => 320, 300, 103 or some other?

Specifically, in the current main article, the number of classified documents seized are variously noted (or referenced), as => 320, 300 and 103.

Even more specifically, in the current lede, "more than 320" are noted and referenced;[1] and, as well, "more than 300" referenced[2] - further, in the "FBI search of Mar-a-Lago#Seized materials" subsection, "103" are noted and referenced.[3]

QUESTION: is there a need for clarification and/or content adjustment(s)?

in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Herb, Jeremy; Sneed, Tierney; Cohen, Marshall; Perez, Evan; Murray, Sara (August 30, 2022). "Justice Department says classified documents at Mar-a-Lago were likely 'concealed and removed' to block investigation". CNN. Retrieved September 9, 2022.
  2. ^ Barrett, Devlin; Leonnig, Carol D. (September 6, 2022). "Material on foreign nation's nuclear capabilities seized at Trump's Mar-a-Lago - Some seized documents were so closely held, only the president, a Cabinet-level or near-Cabinet level official could authorize others to know". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 9, 2022.
  3. ^ Sneed, Tierney (September 2, 2022). "Mar-a-Lago search inventory shows documents marked as classified mixed with clothes, gifts, press clippings". CNN. Retrieved September 9, 2022.

Drbogdan (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup: tried to reconcile the various numbers (supported by "WP:RS") of classified documents in the article with the following edit => "over 100, and possibly over 320" - seems ok (for now) - please comment (or further update) if otherwise of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The larger number includes all documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago, i.e., the documents turned over in January 2022, the documents turned over in June (after the subpoena), and the 103 documents found during the search on August 8. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Just made an update in language to help clarify. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Info is classified, NOT documents

Information is classified/declassified, NOT documents. Documents have classification markings, and may contain classified info. The info may include the overt substance in the document body, and the implicit info about human sources, signal sources, and AI or other analysis methods to get that overt substance. Article should be careful wbwordkng here, since it's not a trivial point MBUSHIstory (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your note of caution, but even the government is fairly loose on this point, using "classified document" as a shorthand for "document containing classified information." Witness, for example, Executive Order 13526 which uses the term in just this way--with respect to each classified document, the agency originating the document shall, by marking or other means.... So while I think your point is well-taken, it strikes me as more of a stylistic than substantive point, but reasonable minds may differ on the issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 August 2022

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: not moved. Calls for merge notwithstanding (evaluating solely on the request to move), majority of the participants oppose the move on grounds of notability at the articles' current title and form. There are also wait/not now reasonings given. Merge discussion should take place on another thread and/or time separately from this RM thread. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

FBI search of Mar-a-Lago → FBI investigation of Donald Trump and classified materials – The previous move discussion was focused primarily on whether the title should include "search" or "raid", and gave little consideration to the larger picture and longer-term development of the case as a whole. This article should be moved to a title reflecting the investigation, of which the events at Mar-a-Lago were only an element. BD2412 T 21:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

"The 4 major criminal probes into Donald Trump, explained" by Ian Millhiser   Could be helpful with future article about Trump investigations. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Donald Trump has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment — This move request is specifically for moving this article (FBI search of Mar-a-Lago) to a current redirect to this article (FBI investigation of Donald Trump and classified materials). The discussion regarding the article for the investigation (FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of presidential documents) is entirely separate and any discussions should pertain to moving this article to the redirect (which I oppose to). I am aware there are many people who want to merge pieces from this article into the investigation article, and we should decide how to handle both angles of this discussion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. What is the point of relisting this RfC for input from editors who know even less about the investigation than the editors on this page who have delved into the subject for the past four weeks? consideration [of] the larger picture and longer-term development of the case as a whole is speculation at this time. If intel officials determine there was security damage, we may never (or at least not for a long time, i.e., years) hear about it unless there is an indictment. According to intel experts, there may not be an indictment because a trial would potentially result in more damage, i.e., intel methods, sources, etc., being divulged. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
    "What is the point of relisting this RfC for input from editors who know even less about the investigation than the editors on this page who have delved into the subject for the past four weeks?" This is the inherent nature of garnering consensus on Wikipedia: Obtaining wider input from uninvolved users who bring a variety of new perspectives to the dispute. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a notable event separate from the investigation itself(even if it's related) as a former president's home had never been searched per a search warrant before. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


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.

Detailed chronology article needed

This article needs a detailed chronology article to accompany it, similar to a list article to accompany the associated narrative article MBUSHIstory (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this. I say go for it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Missing events, Trump lawsuit

The article jumps from the search to the case that is now under way with Judge Cannon presiding, with the heading Special Master the first topic there. However, it fails to mention that Trump sued the USA in connection with the documents. This is what is the status of the documents. Trump has not been charged following the FBI raid. NY Times has the various filings under this case. I copied the title and number from the pdf: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 22-CV-81294-CANNON DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Tero111 (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Trump sued for the appointment of a special master and the return of government property to him. See this rather large section. The DOJ investigation will resume after the special master has finished his review or when and if the stop to the investigation is vacated by the appeals court, whichever comes first. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
That's fine, but it does not state at the first paragraph that Trump sued the USA.
Tero111 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think Trump sued the USA. Especially in regards to this article's topic. Do you have any reliable sources that you can post here for verification? If it's true, it sounds like it belongs in some other article.---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The reliable source is the lawsuit title DONALD J. TRUMP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.--Nowa (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
My first thought also was that the article makes it clear that Trump is suing the government (for appointment of a special master to review and return property (that doesn't belong to him but meh)). Second thought: it would be clearer if that whole section was called "Trump's lawsuit" or something along those lines. I changed the heading accordingly. I don't think we need to mention the defendant. Trump's motions (August 22, August 26) didn't mention a plaintiff or a defendant, but the judge's preliminary order did. (What are the chances Trump and his attorneys didn't know they were suing the U.S.A.?) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The section on Special Master leads off "On August 22, Trump filed a motion in the Southern District of Florida..." Is that not clear? Nowa (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The RS don't actually say that Trump is suing the U.S.A., so if we do that it would be WP:SYNTH, I think. Trump filed a motion in court to get a judge to interfere in a proceeding handled by a magistrate judge. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that if the RS doesn't actually say Trump is suing the USA then we cannot say that is what is happening. And I believe that is what I was thinking. He filed to have a special master. I don't know about Trump filing a motion in court to have a judge interfere with what a magistrate judge is doing. Unless you are talking about Trump's filing a motion in the Florida court to interfere with the first (magistrate) judge's proceedings - the one who signed off on the search warrant. I thought I was up to date, but maybe I am not. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
You are up to date, and I was talking about Trump's motion to appoint a special master. He could have filed his special master request "with the federal magistrate judge who had signed off on the warrant and was already presiding over a case related to the release of warrant materials" but he filed a new case. In the Southern District of Florida cases are assigned on a "blind rotation" basis which isn't random. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

11th Circuit Stay -- Abuse of Discretion in exercising jurisdiction

So, for me, this was far and away the most striking part of the 11th Circuit decision, both because of the abuse of discretion language, but also because the logical upshot of this is that Cannon's entire ruling was in error due to a lack of jurisdiction. Some sources agree, but many seem to sort of quickly skip over this in favor of the more substantive analysis. Should we include this in a sentence or two? Feel free to tell me I am just being a nerd. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

No 100% I think that is worth mentioning and the sourcing you've linked is great for this purpose, though may need to be attributed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, go for it !! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"Appeals"

So, I have been fighting something of a losing battle to keep both the DOJ's request for a stay to the 11th Circuit and now Trump's application to vacate part of that stay to the Supreme Court from being called "appeals." Recently, Space4Time3Continuum2x used this word. While I understand that is something of a common term, there is the matter that one generally doesn't appeal to the Supreme Court (since 1891 at least), one seeks a writ of certiorari, and the fact that both of these actions are seeking injunctive relief. "Appeal" generally means one is seeking to overturn a decision by a lower court, and we have had no decisions as of yet. As such, I would urge that we should use terms other than "appeal," but reasonable minds can differ and if consensus is against me, so be it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings about it, one way or the other. I found numerous "requests" and "asked the court" in the sources and changed text and headings accordingly. Not sure that "Trump application to Supreme Court" is an improvement but couldn't think of anything other than the long version "asked the Supreme Court for intervention". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, this is precisely why--while I have feelings--I am not dead set on any particular terminology. "Appeal" is sort of the naturalistic way to say it, though inaccurate. I am perfectly satisfied by any other terminology that doesn't have a specific technical meaning. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

In the section "DOJ request to restore access to classified material", there's this paragraph: "On September 30, the DOJ asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for an expedited ruling on its separate request to overturn Cannon's order installing a special master and the "expansive powers" she had given him. Trump's lawyers opposed the request. On October 5, the court agreed to expedite the case." (emphasis mine) Question: If this is a "separate request," shouldn't the info be moved to a separate section, for example, the preceding section: "Appointment of special master"? - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Ideas, @Dumuzid ? @Space4Time3Continuum2x ? Tuckerlieberman (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Here I am to be annoying and nitpicky about terminology yet again! And please, I try to phrase things in as technically accurate a manner as I can, but that does not necessarily mean that it's the best phrasing for an encyclopedia aimed at a general audience. To that end, the "separate request" we are talking about from the DOJ is, in fact, an appeal. And in my opinion, we should call it such. It is not a stay, asking for injunctive relief, but rather seeking review of the entire basis of the District Court's ruling. As such, it might make sense to put it under the original ruling, or at least mention it there? I will say, I am also sympathetic to LumonRedacts' opinioin below. Perhaps if we were to head the entire section "Trump v. United States of America" or "Civil Action as a result of Mar a Lago Search" or some such? I do tend to think the inherent procedurally strange posture of the case, combined with the interlocutory goings-on calls for something of a straight narrative approach, but I would certainly like to hear others' opinions. Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Currently it says "...an expedited ruling on its appeal to overturn Cannon's order..." That wording makes it easier for me. I think my question was of a general sort, like: If something is separate from the things with which it's grouped, why is it grouped with them? ;) Tuckerlieberman (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
If I can butt in, I almost think the headings "Trump application to Supreme Court" and "Special master review" should be deleted and the last 7 or so paras before "Reactions" be put in chronological order in one (sub)section. This would avoid the need for separate sections for each filing/each venue and highlight instead how all this is happening at one time—It's all one mess? Nothing else is going to happen until special master is done in December at which point a new heading for his results? Anyway just a thought. Y'all r doing gr8 stuff tho. Really impressed how on top of this y'all are. — LumonRedacts 01:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, so mea culpa if and when I use technically inaccurate terminology. When I wrote the sentence about the "separate request", I was under the impression that the DOJ hadn't filed an appeal yet — maybe because the other court filings were online and that one isn't. I don't know at what point an appeal is considered to have been filed. The DOJ's initial brief is due today, per this court order. Trump's response is due on November 10 and any DOJ response to that on November 17. I just moved the heading of one section down one level but otherwise I'd suggest no further formatting changes and keeping the special master review separate from the other court motions for now. We can always update depending on the decision of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and any further appeals. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replies (yours & others'). I'm more of a "general reader." I can understand legal docs when I have several hours to read them, and did I read some docs at the beginning of the case, but I no longer have time to keep up in great technical detail, so I'm relying on others' more expert interpretations and the translations for general readers like myself. Yes, maybe we should wait to rewrite sentences when we know the outcome (Oct 14, Nov 10, Nov 17, etc.) Tuckerlieberman (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I think everyone is doing a great job on this article, especially given the fact that it concerns fast-breaking events and pretty obscure legal arcana (like pendent jurisdiction). If you want to stop reading there, that's fine, because I am going to be a bit didactic and get into the weeds for a moment. Usually, an appeal is considered to be filed when one party files a notice of appeal--but not always. Notices of appeal have to be filed pretty quickly after a final order (30 days is common) and are VERY simple documents. Essentially they just have to say, "we are appealing." The DOJ's relevant notice of appeal is here, dated September 8. After that, the party appealing (the "appellant") has a certain timeline in which to (in legalese) "perfect the appeal" (sometimes non-legal sources will refer to THIS as "filing"). That simply means filing an appellate brief providing their argument for overturning the order below. That triggers a timeline for a response brief from the other side (the "appellee"). Now, all of this is of course subject to local jurisdictional rules. After the DOJ here had filed their notice of appeal, they subsequently filed a motion to expedite--essentially, just to shorten all those timelines mentioned above in order to resolve things more quickly. I hope that helps someone somehow, but I already think you're all doing a better collective job than I could. Cheers and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
And, appeal perfected with the DOJ's brief, available here. Cheers again! Dumuzid (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps, the explanation as well as the links to the documents. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove nonsense

I removed some "material" about a guy nicknamed the diet coke valet? Does anybody think this nonsense adds to our understanding of this article? Malerooster (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hartmann, Margaret (2022-10-14). "Trump Was Betrayed by His Diet Coke Valet". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2022-10-17. Andre🚐 01:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question. You just blindly reverted. You need to contribute to the discussion and have some common sense. Competency is required for this project. Do you understand?? --Malerooster (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
You removed the content stating it was nonsense, I gave you a source showing it is not nonsense but makes complete sense. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to remove something. Andre🚐 01:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
How does it add to the article? Do you just add any information if it appears in press? No need to answer these are retorical answers you are showing your ignorance. --Malerooster (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Please stop with the personal attacks. Andre🚐 01:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Malerooster, I tend to agree with Andrevan that it is useful to understand who this person was in Trump's orbit. The level of aggression you are displaying is unhelpful here. Dumuzid (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Dumuzid, explain how labeling this individual "diet coke valet" helps us understand who this person was in Trump's orbit? Its almost, but not really, a BLP violation against the man. Just because a tabloid calls this individual this name dosen't mean we need to add it. I will not revert but defer to others. --Malerooster (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Why is it a BLP violation to be one's Diet Coke valet? He was a valet and his job was to bring Diet Cokes to Trump. Do you dispute the factual accuracy of those statements? Andre🚐 01:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
How do I get that job, lol. Whatever, this is exactly why Wikipedia is considered a joke, by the elitist of all people, and the people who edit it completely clueless. --Malerooster (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Malerooster -- again, this is unhelpful. I am sympathetic to the idea that there may be a better way to refer to him, but simply saying a publication doesn't count and making things personal isn't terribly persuasive. Dumuzid (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Dumuzid, please stop with the strawman argument and point out where I said the publication doesn't count. What I said was just because it is in print does not mean we need to include it. We have brains, correct? We can think for ourselves, correct? Please do not answer that, thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Malerooster, you still haven't explained what the problem is with being a valet? Valet is a legitimate job at the White House, even though I guess it's usually referred to in common parlance as someone who parks cars, but also refers to someone like a coffee boy or errand boy who comes when Trump presses a button. I think you would probably be overqualified for the job, but I doubt it pays well. Andre🚐 02:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, I got to thank you, you got me laughing now. I wouldn't even noticed if this "material" read something like "...Trump's personal valet, Walt Nauta, began movoing boxes from ..." doesn't that seem more "reasonable" and less tabloidish, is that a word? Also, I certainly would NOT be over qualified, lol and would not care what it pays to be working in the WH. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 02:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Then a more appropriate response on your end would be to improve the text rather than remove it. It's easy enough to find good references, such as https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/13/walt-nauta-maralago-trump-documents/ It's quite relevant that a Trump employee reportedly moved material from the storage room at Trump's request after the DOJ had subpoenaed it, and also that Nauta has reportedly spoken with the FBI about it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
It looks much more reasonable now. I removed what I thought was an extraneous label and started a discussion here. I did not remove the gist of the material which I agree is relevant. I am sorry my editing abilities are not as good as yours. --Malerooster (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
It's okay, you can always apply for the Diet Coke delivery job at Mar-a-Lago if you don't wanna be a full-time editor anymore. I know these volunteer Wikipedia jobs pay really well though haha! ; ) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Woodward interviews

Tuckerlieberman, I think it's a misinterpretation of the CNN source that Kim Jong-Un's letters were deemed classified. CNN says "the letters that helped spark the DOJ investigation into classified documents". NARA knew the letters existed. When they discovered that they weren't in the presidential records turned over to them they started an investigation into what else might be missing. Also, the interview took place in December 2019. He had legal access to the letters, so it doesn't have anything with NARA's retrieval attempts beginning in 2021. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The headline on CNN.com homepage right now is "Trump showed classified Kim Jong Un letter to journalist". The headline writer could have gotten it factually wrong, but that is what it says right now.
The article's narrative tries to connect these two things: "...Trump decided to share with Woodward the letters Kim wrote to him – the letters that helped spark the DOJ investigation into classified documents..." But if Woodward kept the Dec 2019 secret until now, then, yes, it couldn't have been Trump's sharing with Woodward that directly sparked the NARA negotiation or the DOJ investigation.
My intuition is that the claim that Trump was not respecting the classification status of this particular doc (if indeed the Kim letter was classified) will become relevant in court (if the judge allows this line of argument).
Do you think the paragraph about Woodward should just be deleted? Or should it be reorganized somewhere else in the article, somewhere other than the NARA section? You can go ahead and change whatever you think needs to be changed. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the CNN home page; it was probably a different person who wrote that line. IMO, a better place for this material would be Trump's handling of government records while in office if the letter was classified. You could just move it there for the time being. There will be other reporting on the audio tapes, and we'll see what conclusions other RS draw. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I moved the paragraph to the section you suggested. Thank you. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
P.S. I'm still unsure if the Kim letters were classified, since CNN published a transcript of two of them in 2020, but then again, that transcript existed only because Trump had shown Woodward the letters and Woodward had dictated them into his tape recorder. (I wrote to CNN via their feedback form pointing out this confusion.) I added this detail to the section on how Trump handled "government records". Tuckerlieberman (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
P.P.S. ...so NARA did know that Trump had the Kim letters, since it had been publicly reported that Woodward had seen them. I think it's relevant to this article. I'll let others rephrase/move as they see fit. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The Washington Post’s take is that Trump appeared to believe that the letters were classified, but Woodward told them in an interview that he was given both the original Korean letters and the translations and that he saw no classified markings on the letters. CNN had already published the two transcripts two years ago. IMO the WaPo article is a bit fuzzy on whether Woodward saw all 27 letters and transcripts. Page after page of pen-pal niceties — birthday tidings, "best wishes" for friends and family could refer to the pages that were published or to others that weren't. I’d suggest leaving the text where it is for now and changing the last sentence of the paragraph to s.th. like this: "Woodward told the Washington Post in an interview that he was given both the original Korean letters and the translations and that he saw no classified markings on the letters.[1]" That's fuzzy enough to work either way. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Parker, Ashley (October 18, 2022). "New Woodward audiobook shows Trump knew Kim letters were classified". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 19, 2022.

Daily Beast investigative journalism about selection of Judge Cannon

Potential content for article, about selection of Judge Cannon for Trump's case. Maybe can be a mention of concerns raised about it, and investigative journalists looking into how this happened? I dunno. Perhaps other more reliable sources will also look into this soon, now that The Daily Beast has covered it.

Trump legal team accused of 'judge shopping' in taking extraordinary steps to land favourite judge - The Independent (Oct. 18, 2022)

Independence article excerpt
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The former president's legal team is now facing accusations from outside legal experts of "judge shopping" as the special master process to determine whether any of the documents seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate and resort were actually protected by attorney-client privilege.

It's an accusation that, like most hurled at the former president, will not result in any consequences but illustrates the frustration with which Judge Aileen Cannon's orders and rulings are being received by independent legal minds.

The Daily Beast reported on Tuesday that a number of law professors and others who looked at the situation surrounding the filing of Mr Trump's lawsuit have suggested that the attorneys for Mr Trump were specifically aiming to have Ms Cannon selected to oversee the case; some even went as far to suggest that potential wrongdoing had occurred.


The Incredible Mystery of How Trump Got Judge Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago Case - The Daily Beast (Oct. 18, 2022)

Daily Beast article excerpt
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Questions continue to swirl over how exactly Trump managed to get Cannon, who has shocked legal scholars by issuing mind-boggling orders that always favor Trump. She has temporarily halted the FBI investigation, appointed a "special master" to slow down the probe, and kept the case far from its natural home in Washington, D.C.

"It was basically a home run to get her," said Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "They clearly made the correct calculation, because Judge Cannon’s rulings legally don't make sense. They only make sense if you're trying to help the former president." Levinson said Trump's team was clearly "judge shopping."

"They did not want the magistrate judge to make this decision," she said. "There was already a captain of this ship. They just didn't like the direction this was taking." Trump's lawyers filed in one division, Fort Lauderdale, selected the venue in a second division, West Palm Beach, and got a judge in a third division, Fort Pierce ...

When South Florida lawyers who regularly practice in this district were told about Trump's in-person filing—and the excuse that the system wasn't working—they all responded with disbelief. "I don’t know anybody who files in person. I didn't even know you could do that anymore. It looks like this person was trying to select a particular judge," one said, suggesting that a Trump lawyer may have had sway with a court employee. "I find it bizarre. The only people who file in person are 'pro se,'" said another, referring to people who sue on their own without the help of a lawyer. "People don’t do this anymore. It’s extremely odd. I guess you could do this if you wanted to get a particular judge—or avoid getting a particular judge," speculated a third.

For weeks on social media, legal scholars and paid news commentators have been wondering the same thing—and openly suggesting that Trump's legal team figured out how to game the system.

"Could the 4th estate PLEASE get to the bottom of this," tweeted former DOJ prosecutor Andrew Weissmann. "If there wasn't at least the potential to judge shop why on g_d's green earth would Trump have gone all the way to her district to file and do so physically, when he could have electronically filed at the court in his backyard?"

The article goes on, with more in-depth details surrounding these events, etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hah! Finally someone is looking into this. (Does the computer doing the random assignments take the judges' current case loads and vacations/time off for other reasons into consideration?) We shouldn't mention it in the article, 'though, unless there is an official investigation and/or something fishy turns up. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I dunno how the "assignment wheel" works. The end of The Daily Beast article says that they should have statistically had a 1-in-9 chance of getting assigned Judge Cannon, but that based on recent case assignments, the probability increased to a 1-in-3 chance but still appeared to be random. So who knows, maybe they got lucky? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
So, I have some experience with random assignments, though, notably, neither in Florida nor anywhere in the 11th Circuit. Generally speaking, it is entirely possible to assign a matter to a particular judge, which is often done when cases are related or a particular judge already has some knowledge of the underlying facts. With the places I am familiar, there would be a small but identifiable paper trail if that had happened, though whether it would be accessible is quite another story. All that said, I do think our best posture here is "wait and see"; the press is essentially saying "this looks fishy" (and it does), but I think we should have more before putting it in the article. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
If there is more press coverage or journalistic investigation into the matter, perhaps it could eventually be mentioned somewhere in the "Reactions" section. Obviously if some definitive proof is found, regarding "judge shopping" or rigging the outcome of judge selection in their favor, then that could go in the main article body. Until then, agree that a "wait and see" approach is probably best. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

New section to discuss the court case more generally?

Right now, the article has a long section narrowly devoted to the delay tactics over the recovered documents (i.e., the special master's review), but I don't see other info related to the court case more generally. For example, Kash Patel appeared before the grand jury in Washington, DC on October 13 related to this case. Where could we add that? Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this thing is very quickly spiraling out of control (both in real life and as a Wikipedia article). I would respectfully suggest that "FBI search" framing is no longer appropriate. It's really more of a subset of things at this point, and I am not sure if we were to transplant it it would be worth its own article. To that end, I would think we should probably widen our aperture and rename the article "Mar a Lago Documents case" or some such (I am VERY open to name suggestions). Look forward to input from others. Cheers and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Would be good to review the Aug. 27 move discussion, above.
There is this related article as well: FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents
Maybe some content could be split off and merged into that one? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
As an aside, if we felt a need to split content off, it might make some sense in the future to create an article just about Trump v. United States and related topics, aka the Trump lawsuit section of the article, involving all the special master stuff. Perhaps once this whole ordeal is over with, a summary of that will suffice here, while an entire article about it can reside elsewhere? The legal details do seem very important to preserve, given the historical nature of all this. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, all. I decided to add some detail to a different article, FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents. It has sections currently called "Investigation" —> "Court proceedings", which seems a reasonable place to put detail for now. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah great! I was confused about where to place info about David Raskin joining the DOJ legal team. In this article, it's not obvious where that would go, just like the Kash Patel stuff. Thanks for building out the other article, and including these details. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
All it means is that the DOJ investigation continues. Unless Patel tells somebody what he was asked, we won't find out about it - see Rule 6(e)(2)(B). And even if he talked about, could we believe anything he says? If CNN has staked out the courthouse, there will be more reports of sightings. Trump's lawsuit is a sideshow and exactly the distraction he probably intended it to be. Without it, the DOJ/FBI investigation would have moved along without the public hearing much, if anything, about it. I don't see an urgent need for trimming or merging, 'though. Let's wait for the appellate court's decision on the DOJ's appeal. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I am the worst!

A lot of good work has gone in to the article today, and I am here to simply nitpick again. As usual, the upshot is correct, but we currently say the appeals court ruled to end the special master review. Again, in lay terms, sure--that's the effect. But more specifically, they ruled that the district court never should have exercised jurisdiction. Therefore, they didn't even technically reach the question of a special master review. Technically, we might say it was void ab initio. I would, therefore, like to take the specificity about the special master review out, and make the sentence about jurisdiction (with a subsidiary clause about the special master, possibly). As usual, if the consensus is that I am being hypertechnical or otherwise thick, no worries. Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Raid or search?

The article itself links to this: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mar-a-Lago_raid_affidavit 675930s (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that most reliable sources refer to this as a search and not a raid. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
The initial raid (a surprise) was carried out for the purpose of searching the property for documents. The terms supplement each other and are not contradictory. Both are backed by RS, and removing "raid" would deprive the article of the precision it needs to fully describe the nature of the events. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

There are several archived discussions, including a request to move, and the consensus is the current title (Title, Requested move, Page move). You'd have to ask the creator of the wikisource page why they used the word "raid" for a document entitled AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 41 FOR A WARRANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZE when the affidavit does not mention the word at all. It does use "search" and "seize" numerous times. 11:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk)

I have no idea. We use it because RS use it to more precisely and accurately describe the way that search and seizure was pulled off. It was a surprise (AKA a "raid"), not a pre-arranged agreement to meet at a certain time for an inspection of the joint. That would have defeated the whole purpose of the raid.
I don't understand why anyone in their right mind would object to the word raid as an accurate description of that first search and seizure. Accurate nuance is a good thing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Gee, thanks?? I've already mentioned the links to the previous discussions, so I'm just going to repeat that law enforcement personnel do not make appointments for executing warrants to search and seize as that would defeat their purpose. With how much and what kind of force they show up depends on their risk assessment of the suspect, in this case obviously low, as indicated by the low-key approach, no SWAT team, no battering ram, no guns in sight (the folks with the rifles were Secret Service guarding Mar-a-Lago). The neutral term is "search", not raid, and that's what reliable sources used, except when they were quoting Trump. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't intend to step on any toes. What is the reason for this thread? I don't know.
AFAIK, the article currently uses all the terms used by RS. That's as it should be. I see no need to change the title, if that's the purpose here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you on behalf of my toes. My initial response was to the red user who seemed to ask whether the title of this article ought to reflect the title of the wikisource page. Looks like the responders are all in agreement that we keep "search". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Yep, this was already discussed a couple of times previously:
Talk:FBI search of Mar-a-Lago/Archive 1#Requested move 9 August 2022
Talk:FBI search of Mar-a-Lago/Archive 2#Use of "Search" instead of "Raid" not consistent, should be changed to "raid" or raid should be mentioned in the introduction.
Let's please not go down that road again haha. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Using "raid" limits it to the very first search. Using "search" covers the first and all subsequent "visits" by the FBI. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago/Archive_2&oldid=1230994774"