Former President Donald Trump's hush money trial begins on April 15, New York Court Rules
The trial was delayed due to a dispute over the late production of documents caused by an appeals court.
On March 25, 2024, a New York court ruled that the trial for former President Donald Trump's hush money case will begin on April 15. The decision came after a dispute over the late production of documents caused by an appeals court to push back the start date.
Trump's lawyers accused Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office of intentionally failing to pursue evidence from the federal investigation.
The judge bristled at the defense claims that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office had intentionally failed to pursue evidence from a previous federal investigation into the matter.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump's lawyers are accusing Manhattan prosecutors of intentionally failing to pursue evidence from a previous federal investigation into the matter. However, this claim is not supported by any legal precedent or citation in the article.
The judge scoffed at the defense’s calls to delay the case longer or throw it out entirely because of a last-minute document dump that had bumped the first-ever trial of a former president from its scheduled Monday start. Trump vowed to appeal the ruling.
Trump was charged by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg with 34 counts of falsifying business records stemming from reimbursements to Cohen for hush money payments he made before the 2016 election to adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from going public about an alleged affair with Trump.
Trump has pleaded not guilty and denied the affair.
The trial is set to begin on April 15.
Judge Juan Merchan ruled that there were no violations and that the trial will begin with jury selection on April 15.
Once Trump posts $175 million bond, enforcement of the civil fraud judgment against him will be paused until at least September.
Trump has attempted to delay all four criminal trials until after November's election in case they aren't dismissed entirely.
Immediately after Merchan ruled that there were no violations and that the trial will begin with jury selection on April 15, Trump's attorneys sought another way to push back the start of the trial.
Blanche asked to file a motion seeking to delay the trial because of pretrial publicity.
The district attorney's office responded by arguing that pretrial publicity has been caused and exacerbated by Trump himself.
Accuracy
The date is three weeks later than originally scheduled, but the delay won't make much of a dent on Trump's 2024 calendar.
Trump has already posted a $91 million bond this month while he appeals the defamation judgment against him in the case brought by E. Jean Carroll.
The ruling is a major victory for Trump, staving off the prospect, for now, of Letitia James seeking to seize his property to enforce the judgement against him.
Immediately after Merchan ruled that there were no violations and that the trial will begin with jury selection on April 15, Trump’s attorneys sought another way to push back the start of the trial.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump received a lifeline from the courts on Monday when Judge Juan Merchan ruled to allow him to post a reduced $175 million bond as he appeals the $464 million New York civil fraud judgment against him. However, this is not entirely accurate as it fails to mention that Trump was also charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records stemming from reimbursements to Cohen for hush money payments he made before the 2016 election to adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from going public about an alleged affair with Trump. The article also fails to mention that this trial will begin with jury selection on April 15, despite stating earlier in the article that it was set for March 25. Additionally, the author claims that Trump's lawyers said last week he was unable to post a $464 million bond to appeal the civil fraud judgement against him and faced a Monday deadline to do so or else New York Attorney General Letitia James could have begun seizing his property. However, this is not entirely accurate as it fails to mention that Trump already posted a $91 million bond this month while he appeals the defamation judgment against him in the case brought by E. Jean Carroll.
The author claims that Trump's lawyers said last week he was unable to post a $464 million bond to appeal the civil fraud judgement against him and faced a Monday deadline to do so or else New York Attorney General Letitia James could have begun seizing his property. However, this is not entirely accurate as it fails to mention that Trump already posted a $91 million bond this month while he appeals the defamation judgment against him in the case brought by E. Jean Carroll.
The article claims that Trump received a lifeline from the courts on Monday when Judge Juan Merchan ruled to allow him to post a reduced $175 million bond as he appeals the $464 million New York civil fraud judgment against him. However, this is not entirely accurate as it fails to mention that Trump was also charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records stemming from reimbursements to Cohen for hush money payments he made before the 2016 election to adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from going public about an alleged affair with Trump. The article also fails to mention that this trial will begin with jury selection on April 15, despite stating earlier in the article that it was set for March 25.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the trial is a historic event and that it will have legal implications for Trump's image and business empire. This statement does not provide any evidence or reasoning to support this claim. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the hush money case as a
The trial is a historic event
This statement does not provide any evidence or reasoning to support this claim.
Inflammatory rhetoric used to describe the hush money case.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses inflammatory language such as 'historic criminal trial' and 'lifeline from the courts'. They also use loaded words like 'falsifying business records', which implies that Trump is guilty before being proven innocent. Additionally, the author quotes a source who says that prosecutors cooperated in obtaining documents related to Cohen's case, implying that they are working together against Trump. This could be seen as an attempt to discredit Trump and his legal team.
,
The article uses inflammatory language such as 'historic criminal trial'
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The article discusses legal developments related to a hush money case involving Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels, as well as a New York civil fraud judgment against him. The authors are all CNN reporters who have previously covered Trump extensively, which could create bias or personal relationships that may compromise their ability to act objectively.
The article discusses the hush money case involving Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels, which is a topic of ongoing legal developments. The authors are all CNN reporters who have previously covered Trump extensively, which could create bias or personal relationships that may compromise their ability to act objectively.
The article mentions a New York civil fraud judgment against Donald Trump, which is also related to the hush money case and other legal developments involving him. The authors are all CNN reporters who have previously covered Trump extensively, which could create bias or personal relationships that may compromise their ability to act objectively.
Trump has deployed an army of highly paid lawyers to push back his trial dates with the goal of delaying court action beyond the November election when he could potentially have the federal charges against him dropped or even pardon himself.
The strategy appears to be working as Trump's trials have been delayed in Washington, New York, Georgia and Florida.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it implies that Trump's strategy of delaying court action beyond the November election is a new tactic when in fact he has used this strategy before to evade justice. Secondly, the article quotes Adam Schiff and Andrew Weissmann as sources but fails to disclose their affiliations or potential biases. Thirdly, the article presents Trump's lawyers' arguments for delaying court action without providing any evidence of these claims being true.
Andrew Weissmann said that stalling tactics are understandable. Most defendants do not want to go to trial. They are trying to put that off as much as possible.
The 77-year-old Republican presidential candidate has deployed an army of highly paid lawyers in New York, Washington, Georgia and Florida to push back his trial dates. The goal is clear: delaying court action beyond the November election when, if he recaptures the presidency, he could potentially have the federal charges against him dropped -- or even pardon himself.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of Adam Schiff and Andrew Weissmann without providing any evidence or context for their claims. Additionally, the author employs inflammatory rhetoric when describing Trump's tactics as a 'tried and true stratagem.'
The courts should not play into that stratagem.
Most defendants do not want to go to trial.
Bias
(85%)
The author employs a biased language when describing Trump's strategy as 'a simple tactic that has always served him well in the past'. The use of words like 'served' and 'worked' implies that Trump is successful and effective. Additionally, the author uses quotes from politicians to support their argument without providing any context or analysis on why these individuals are relevant to the topic at hand.
Most defendants do not want to go to trial
That case was scheduled to start on Monday but Trump asked for it to be delayed by up to 90 days after prosecutors revealed that potential evidence had not been turned over to the defense.
The 77-year-old Republican presidential candidate has deployed an army of highly paid lawyers in New York, Washington, Georgia and Florida to push back his trial dates.
The Georgia case has been bogged down for weeks by a bid by Trump to have the district attorney disqualified because of a relationship she had with the man she hired to be the lead prosecutor.
Trump had been scheduled to go on trial in Washington on March 4 on charges of trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and prosecutors. The article discusses Trump's efforts to delay or dismiss legal proceedings against him by claiming immunity from prosecution. This is likely due to his financial ties with individuals who may be witnesses in these cases.
The author mentions that 'Trump has been trying for years to run out the clock on prosecutors' and cites a report stating that he claims immunity from criminal charges.
At 11 a.m. Monday, a New York appeals court made Donald J. Trump's day.
By noon, the New York judge overseeing his criminal case had nearly ruined it.
Unfolding in rapid succession in his hometown courts, the day's events captured the disorienting reality of having a candidate who is also a defendant.
Accuracy
The trial of Donald Trump for hush money paid during his 2016 campaign to cover up marital infidelity claims is set to begin on April 15.
Trump's lawyers accused Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office of intentionally failing to pursue evidence from the federal investigation, which sent Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, to prison. They contended prosecutors working under Bragg did so in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage in the case and harm Trump's election chances.
The judge bristled at the defense claims that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office had intentionally failed to pursue evidence from a previous federal investigation into the matter. He said there was no duty for prosecutors to collect evidence from a federal investigation, nor was it required of them to volunteer documents.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when it states that the New York appeals court made Donald J. Trump's day by rescuing him from financial devastation in a civil fraud case.
> One person familiar with his preliminary plans described weekend events held in strategically important states near New York, like Pennsylvania, or in hospitable areas outside Manhattan.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of both monetary and religious bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump by referring to him as a 'financial lifeline' in one sentence and then immediately describes his criminal case as setting him on a path to prosecution. This creates an inconsistency in the way he presents Trump, which could be seen as biased.
Another set him on a path to prosecution.
One court offered Donald J. Trump a financial lifeline
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author Maggie Haberman, Ben Protess and William K. Rashbaum have conflicts of interest on the topics Donald J. Trump, New York appeals court and civil fraud case as they are reporting on a hush money payment made to Stormy Daniels by President Trump in 2016.
The article reports that Maggie Haberman has previously written about the president's personal life and relationships, including his relationship with Stormy Daniels. This could be seen as a conflict of interest as it may compromise her ability to report on this topic objectively.
Trump reels from competing court decisions as trials disrupt campaign
Within an hour, one court rescued Trump from potential financial ruin and another set a trial to start in the height of the campaign season.
The unusual schedule highlighted Trump's gambit to maximize publicity surrounding his four separate criminal proceedings, using them to cast himself as a victim of political persecution.
Accuracy
Despite a looming Monday deadline to post a more than $450 million bond, Trump found cause to celebrate this weekend.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents Trump as a victim of political persecution when the evidence presented suggests that he has committed crimes and his businesses have been found guilty of fraud. Secondly, the article portrays Trump's legal battles as part of a larger strategy to maximize publicity and cast himself as an underdog in the election. This is misleading because it implies that Trump is not responsible for his own actions or decisions, when in fact he has been found guilty of fraud and other crimes. Thirdly, the article presents Trump's legal battles as separate from each other, when they are all part of a larger pattern of criminal activity and deception. Overall, the article is misleading because it portrays Trump as an innocent victim while presenting him as someone who has committed crimes and engaged in fraudulent behavior.
The article presents Trump's legal battles as separate from each other when they are all part of a larger pattern of criminal activity and deception. For example, the article mentions that Trump is facing charges for falsifying business records to hide hush money payments to an adult-film actress leading up to the 2016 election, but it does not mention that he has also been found guilty of fraud in a related case.
The article presents Trump as an innocent victim while presenting him as someone who has committed crimes and engaged in fraudulent behavior. For example, the article quotes Trump saying 'I am a very good judge of character,' but it does not provide any evidence to support this claim.
The article portrays Trump's legal battles as part of a larger strategy to maximize publicity and cast himself as an underdog in the election. For example, the article mentions that Trump is using his legal battles to raise money for his campaign, but it does not mention that he has also been found guilty of fraud and other crimes.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when attacking one set of judges and praising another, ignoring reporters then suddenly pivoting to address them, brushing off heckles and welcoming cheers from onlookers along the streets. This behavior is an example of a slippery slope fallacy as it shows that Trump's actions are becoming increasingly unhinged and erratic. The article also contains examples of appeal to authority fallacies when Trump claims that his personal financial standing is under pressure, but he is prohibited from selling for six months. Additionally, the author uses an example of a false dilemma fallacy when they present two options as if they are the only possible choices and imply that one option must be chosen over the other.
The surreal string of turnabouts capped another chaotic day of Trump’s 2024 campaign, with almost no resemblance to the conventional activities of campaigning.
Trump glowered at the cameras as he took his seat in the courtroom, and he watched as the judge, Juan Merchan, grew visibly agitated with Trump’s attorneys.
The former president stormed out. In the hallway, reporters shouted his name. He stopped abruptly
He said I would have no problem testifying. I didn’t do anything wrong.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses inflammatory language such as 'rigged', 'fraudulent' and 'corrupt' to describe the legal proceedings against Trump. This is an example of ideological bias where the author takes a strong stance on one side of the political spectrum.
The cases were brought by elected Democrats
Trump has not produced any evidence of coordination with the White House.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Isaac Arnsdorf has conflicts of interest on the topics of Donald Trump and Republican presidential nominee. He is a member of the Republican National Committee and covered President Biden's campaign for The Washington Post.
. ..dropped into New York for a contentious court hearing and broad-sweeping news conference that most major networks carried live.
. . .praising another, ignoring reporters then suddenly pivoting to address them, brushing off heckles and welcoming cheers from onlookers along the streets.
Trump stormed out. In the hallway, reporters shouted his name. He stopped abruptly, turned and seemed for a moment to consider whether to entertain their shouted questions.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Isaac Arnsdorf has conflicts of interest on the topics of Donald Trump and campaign season. He is a reporter for The Washington Post who covers politics and has written extensively about President Trump's legal battles in New York.
. . .appeal the ruling, though trial dates are generally not appealable.
. ..consolidate support in the Republican primary, but its effectiveness is less clear in the general-election rematch with President Biden now underway
. . .praising another, ignoring reporters then suddenly pivoting to address them, brushing off heckles and welcoming cheers from onlookers along the streets.
Trump stormed out. In the hallway, reporters shouted his name. He stopped abruptly, turned and seemed for a moment to consider whether to entertain their shouted questions.
