Techdirt [Unofficial]340 Local News Outlets Now Blocking The Internet Archive
WPS NewsDonald Trump’s Felony Conviction:
A Jury Trial, Preserved for the Record
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Hiawatha, Iowa, USA
Published: May 29, 2026
Why This Record Exists
American political history has a recurring problem: events that are inconvenient to power are slowly blurred, minimized, or re-framed until the public no longer remembers what actually happened. This is rarely done through outright denial. Instead, it happens through confusion, omission, and repetition of false impressions until the truth feels uncertain.
This article exists to prevent that outcome.
On May 30, 2024, entity[“politician”,”Donald Trump”,”45th U.S. president”] became the first former president of the United States to be convicted of felony crimes in a criminal court of law. That conviction was not the result of a bench trial. It was not the ruling of a single judge. It was the outcome of a jury trial, decided unanimously by twelve citizens.
Because public discussion since then has frequently confused this criminal case with Trump’s civil proceedings, it is necessary to document — carefully and clearly — what actually occurred.
Case Overview
Jurisdiction: New York Supreme Court, Criminal Term (Manhattan)
Prosecutor: Manhattan District Attorney’s Office
District Attorney: entity[“politician”,”Alvin Bragg”,”manhattan district attorney”]
Judge: entity[“people”,”Juan Merchan”,”new york state judge”]
Trial Type: Jury trial
Verdict Date: May 30, 2024
Trump was charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree under New York law. The charges stemmed from efforts to conceal reimbursements for a hush-money payment made during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The Charges and the Underlying Conduct
At the center of the case was a $130,000 payment made to adult-film actress entity[“people”,”Stormy Daniels”,”adult film actress”] in October 2016. The payment was intended to prevent her from publicly disclosing an alleged sexual encounter with Trump during the final weeks of the presidential election.
The payment itself was not charged as a crime. The criminal conduct involved how the reimbursement for that payment was recorded.
Trump reimbursed his former lawyer, entity[“people”,”Michael Cohen”,”former trump lawyer”], through a series of checks in 2017. These reimbursements were falsely logged as legal expenses. Prosecutors argued — and the jury ultimately agreed — that these false business records were created to conceal an election-related scheme, elevating the offenses from misdemeanors to felonies.
Pre-Trial Proceedings
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges.
His legal team filed multiple motions to dismiss, arguing among other things that the charges were time-barred, legally defective, or politically motivated. Judge Merchan denied these motions, ruling that the prosecution had sufficiently alleged criminal conduct and that the case was properly before the court.
Crucially, Trump did not waive his right to a jury trial. No such waiver was ever filed. Jury selection began in April 2024.
Jury Selection and Trial Structure
A panel of prospective jurors was questioned by both the prosecution and the defense in a standard voir dire process. Jurors were selected from Manhattan residents, with alternates designated. The jury was anonymized due to the high-profile nature of the case.
This point bears emphasis: this was a jury trial from start to finish. The jury heard testimony, reviewed documentary evidence, received legal instructions from the judge, deliberated privately, and returned a unanimous verdict.
The Prosecution’s Case
Prosecutors presented a documentary-heavy case supported by witness testimony. Evidence included:
- Business records detailing the reimbursements to Cohen
- Checks personally signed by Trump
- Emails and internal documents describing the payment arrangement
- Testimony from Cohen explaining the purpose of the payment and reimbursement
The prosecution’s theory was straightforward: Trump knowingly caused false business records to be created in order to conceal an election-related expenditure, with the intent to influence the 2016 election.
The Defense Strategy
Trump’s defense focused on attacking Cohen’s credibility, emphasizing his criminal history and prior false statements. Defense attorneys argued that the reimbursements were legitimate legal expenses and that Trump lacked criminal intent.
Trump himself did not testify.
The defense did not successfully rebut the documentary evidence showing how the reimbursements were recorded, nor did it provide an alternative explanation that persuaded the jury.
Trump’s Conduct During the Trial
During the proceedings, Trump repeatedly criticized the case publicly, including comments that drew warnings from the court. Judge Merchan issued limited gag orders to prevent interference with witnesses and court personnel.
When Trump violated these orders, the judge imposed fines and issued formal warnings. These actions were taken on the record and were related directly to maintaining the integrity of the jury process.
Jury Instructions and Deliberations
After closing arguments, Judge Merchan instructed the jury on the elements of the charged offenses and the applicable law. Jurors were reminded that their verdict must be unanimous and based solely on the evidence presented in court.
The jury deliberated over the course of two days.
The Verdict
On May 30, 2024, the jury returned its verdict:
- Guilty on all 34 felony counts
- Unanimous decision
The verdict was read aloud in open court. Trump stood and listened as each count was announced.
This was — and remains — a jury conviction in a criminal case.
Why the Jury Trial Matters
There is a persistent public misconception that Trump’s conviction resulted from a bench trial. This is incorrect.
Unlike Trump’s civil fraud cases, which were decided by a judge, this criminal case was decided by a jury of citizens. That distinction matters historically and legally.
A unanimous jury verdict represents the highest standard of criminal adjudication in the American legal system. It cannot be dismissed as the opinion of a single official.
Conclusion
Donald Trump is a convicted felon as a matter of public record. That conviction was obtained through a lawful criminal process and decided by a jury.
This article exists to ensure that future discussions begin with those facts intact — not blurred, not minimized, and not rewritten.
For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com
References
New York Supreme Court trial transcripts and filings (2023–2024).
Manhattan District Attorney’s Office press statements.
Contemporaneous reporting from the Associated Press, Reuters, and major U.S. newspapers.
#donaldTrump #ElectionLaw #FelonyConviction #historicalRecord #JuryTrial #NewYorkCourts
How We Used to Do This—and Why It Matters
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Baybay City, Leyte, Philippines — April 22, 2026
A Recent Past We Seem Determined to Forget
The most damning fact about today’s civil detention regime is not that it is harsh. It is that it is unnecessary.
Within living memory, the United States handled civil immigration violations without incarceration, spectacle, or cruelty. The law has not fundamentally changed since then. What has changed is institutional behavior—and the incentives that shape it.
Understanding how civil enforcement once operated is essential, because it proves that today’s system is a choice, not an inevitability.
Civil Enforcement Before Carceral Expansion
In the early-to-mid 1990s, civil immigration violations such as visa overstays were treated as administrative problems requiring administrative solutions. Individuals detained at ports of entry were supervised, housed temporarily in non-carceral settings, and returned on the next available flight.
They were not jailed.
They were not criminalized.
They were not used as symbols.
Supervision was exactly that—supervision. Facilities resembled apartments or holding spaces, not detention centers. Food, rest, and basic dignity were provided. The objective was compliance and removal, not punishment.
This system was quiet, effective, and inexpensive.
“Tough on Crime” Without Abandoning Civil Law
Notably, this approach existed during an era often remembered as punitive. Political leadership at the time emphasized law and order, yet still respected the distinction between civil and criminal authority.
Civil violations were resolved administratively because that was what the law required. There was no perceived need to turn overstays into enemies of the state or to stage enforcement as theater.
The assumption was simple: if someone violated the terms of entry, they would be returned. There was no moral panic attached to the process.
What Changed Was Not the Law
The transition to mass civil detention did not follow a wave of statutory reform. It followed a shift in enforcement culture.
Detention infrastructure expanded. Contracts were signed. Metrics were introduced. Visibility became a priority. Once cages existed, they were used. Once numbers were tracked, they were maximized.
Civil enforcement adopted the posture of criminal punishment not because it was required, but because it was institutionally convenient.
The Myth of Necessity
Defenders of the current system often argue that scale made earlier methods impossible. The historical record does not support this claim.
The United States has always processed large numbers of visa holders. Administrative return, supervision, and rapid removal scaled because they were designed to. The modern detention model did not solve a problem of volume. It solved a problem of optics.
What changed was not feasibility. It was appetite.
Why This Will Come Back
History is unkind to systems that rely on technical legality to justify ethical collapse. The United States has already paid this price before.
Policies once defended as lawful have later been recognized as unjust, resulting in formal apologies, reparations, and lasting damage to institutional legitimacy. Civil detention is following the same trajectory.
Future courts, historians, and oversight bodies will ask a simple question: why were people jailed for civil violations when proven alternatives already existed?
There will be no credible answer.
The National Cost of Forgetting
This is not merely a policy failure. It is a national one.
A government that treats liberty as an administrative inconvenience trains its institutions to value control over law. A public that accepts this logic becomes accustomed to injustice so long as it is directed at others.
That erosion does not stop at immigration enforcement. It spreads.
The record matters because it forecloses excuses. We know another way was possible because we used it. The choice to abandon it was deliberate—and it will not be forgotten.
From Alamo to Anarchy argues that saving U.S. democracy requires breaking Texas into five states. In a sharp Zoomer voice, Dorah Zurino traces Texas from slave republic to today’s “lab of extremes” (Rangers, Jim Crow, ERCOT, SB8) and maps a constitutional, step-by-step plan to un-monopolize power and let real communities govern.
https://books2read.com/u/mdBD9R
APA References
Legomsky, S. H. (2009). Immigration and refugee law and policy. Foundation Press.
Motomura, H. (2014). Immigration outside the law. Oxford University Press.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1996). Immigration enforcement and administrative detention practices. DOJ Archives.
#civilDetention #CivilLiberties #governmentPower #historicalRecord #immigrationEnforcement #institutionalAccountability #ruleOfLaw
Ecologia Digital"The #InternetArchive has preserved the web’s historical record for nearly thirty years. If major publishers begin blocking that mission, future researchers may find that huge portions of that #historicalrecord have simply vanished. There are real disputes over #AItraining that must be resolved in courts. But sacrificing the #publicrecord to fight those battles would be a profound, and possibly irreversible, mistake."
Blocking the Internet Archive Won’t Stop AI, But It Will Erase the Web’s Historical Record
Imagine a newspaper publisher announcing it will no longer allow libraries to keep copies of its paper. That’s effectively what’s begun happening online in the last few months. The Internet Archive—the world’s largest digital library—has preserved newspapers since it went online in the mid-1990s....
Betty C. JungPierre Atlas
A well-known quote from Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1945, in reference to the newly liberated Nazi death camps and his understanding that some people will deny truth, facts, and history:
#history #accountability #historicalrecord #evidence #Eisenhower
Nick EspinosaWe are losing trust in facts. Thanks, AI!
#News #TechNews #Technology #Trust #Facts #History #HistoricalRecord #AI
We are losing trust in facts
Daily podcast: We are losing trust in facts. Thanks, AI!
#News #TechNews #Technology #Trust #Facts #History #HistoricalRecord #AI #podcast
We are losing trust in facts
Thanks, AI!
Steve Dustcircle 🌹#Debunking the Dangerous “#ChristianAmerica” #Myth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAh6ykxtkXU
Many #Americans believe the #FoundingFathers were devout #Christians who built the #UnitedStates on #biblical principles — but the #historicalrecord tells a very different story. In this episode, I examine what the Founders actually believed about #religion, #morality, and #government using their own words.
Debunking the Dangerous “Christian America” Myth
Arkadiusz Sikorski*1775* Poland / Constitution entitled: "Tax on tea traders".
Central Archives of Historical Records
Unit type: Act documentation
Signature: 1/354/0/2.1/3094
Date/Period of creation: 1775
Dates: 1775 - 1775
Upload: Sikorski Arkadiusz htTPS://arQ.PL/
#Document #HistoricalDocument #OldManuscript #Archival #Archive #AncientText #HistoricalRecord #Manuscript #OldPaper #HistoricalArchive #AntiqueDocument #ArchivalResearch #HistoricalManuscript #OldRecord #DocumentaryEvidence #HistoricalText
WIST Quotations moves again!A quotation from Horace:
«
Oft before Agamemnon brave men warred;
But all unwept they lie in endless night,
Lacking, to deck their deeds with light,
Song of a heaven-taught bard.
[Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona
multi; sed omnes illacrimabiles
urgentur ignotique longa
nocte, carent quia vate sacro.]
»
Full quote, sourcing, notes:
https://wist.info/horace/1962/
#quote #quotes #quotation #antiquity #bard #fame #hidden #historicalrecord #history #obscurity #renown #reputation #storytelling #unknown