23. Will Donald Trump get indicted on criminal charges in 2023?
389
872
2K
resolved Apr 7
Resolved
YES

This is question #23 in the Astral Codex Ten 2023 Prediction Contest. The contest rules and full list of questions are available here. Market will resolve according to Scott Alexander’s judgment, as given through future posts on Astral Codex Ten.

Get Ṁ200 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ31,210
2Ṁ5,110
3Ṁ1,962
4Ṁ1,847
5Ṁ1,662
Sort by:
predicted YES

Market will resolve according to Scott Alexander’s judgment, as given through future posts on Astral Codex Ten.

When are posts made on Astral Codex Ten? Once a year?

@ShitakiIntaki there's a substantial chance that the charges will be dropped and there will be no need to state an obvious NO resolution

predicted YES

@ShitakiIntaki 2-4 times a week, but most of them are not about the prediction contest.

predicted YES

@SovietStali This market seems to be set up a to only be able to resolve NO on January 1, 2024, but could resolve YES anytime before that based upon Scott Alexander's opinion. Seems like you may be barking up the wrong tree, to use a colloquialism, and your arguments would be best made to Mr. Alexander, the sole arbiter in this market.

Be Trump. Be subject to trumped up charges.

Simulation hypothesis

predicted YES

Nominative determinism more like

I want to note the current indictment isn't actually valid. Felony falsification requires a second crime, you can't just have 34 charges of it.

predicted NO

@SovietStali the question wasn't "will Donald Trump be indicted in a way @SovietStali deems valid?", it was "will Donald Trump be indicted on criminal charges?".

Prosecutors can (and frequently do!) over-charge, stretch the law to achieve indictments, etc. That's why we have due process - if the charges are indeed as unwise/invalid as many are saying, he'll beat them in court.

predicted YES

@ACXBot Please resolve this YES.

(It's been discussed a few times in these "resolves according to judgement of X" questions, if there's any unexpected surprises, the market can always be re-resolved. Resolving promptly is much preferable compared to locking up people's mana unnecessarily.)

predicted YES
predicted YES

@jack Is anyone even checking that account's notifications?

predicted YES

@IsaacKing @jack He has already resolved one of these markets so I would expect him to resolve it soon.

predicted YES

I think the account is run by Manifold, not Scott.

But yes, https://manifold.markets/ACXBot/39-will-openai-release-gpt4-in-2023 was already resolved and this one should too.

predicted YES

I wish this market wouldnt depend on Scott Alexander

(I wonder why there isn't a market asking the same, but whose resolution doesn't depend on Scott Alexander)

predicted YES

@AllanLacy There were many, what are you talking about?

predicted YES

@IsaacKing thanks. It seems someone didn't do the homework (me)

bought Ṁ200 of YES

Resolved a little quickly. I get it. A grand jury voted to indict him. But did you see the charges? Has the indictment been unsealed? Has any official announcement been made?

bought Ṁ100 of YES

@NicoDelon did you mean to comment this on the other market? This one's open

predicted YES

@firstuserhere Shoot, sorry.

predicted YES

@NicoDelon An official announcement has been made btw.

predicted YES

Woot!!

bought Ṁ1,000 of YES
bought Ṁ10,000 of YES

@pranav Wait, why is this illegal?

predicted YES

@IsaacKing "The payment was legal - but Trump allegedly recorded it as a business expense. Falsifying business records is illegal in New York." From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-64993429

predicted YES

@Isaac228c Ah, the Al Capone strategy, I see.

predicted NO

@IsaacKing It’s being reported as more than 30 counts, we’ll have to get more information on what all ends up being in scope. It sounds like a repeated crime of some kind.

It’s also very likely that multiple people are on the receiving end of payments, and possibly even others acting with him in the alleged crime.

sold Ṁ1 of NO

@Isaac228c Could plausibly be interpreted as a valid business expense for PR purposes, to pay someone to spike a story that would reflect badly on the business' figurehead.