Donald Trump is facing a criminal trial on March 25 in his New York case.
The case centers around whether he illegally falsified business records to cover up a hush money payment made by his former lawyer Michael Cohen ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Donald Trump is facing a criminal trial on March 25 in his New York case. The case centers around whether he illegally falsified business records to cover up a hush money payment made by his former lawyer Michael Cohen ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
A trial unlike any other is scheduled to begin: A criminal trial of a former U.S. president, Donald Trump.
Andrew Weissmann, who teaches criminal procedure at NYU, said,
Accuracy
Trump's first criminal trial set to begin March 25 as judge denies bid to dismiss 'hush money' case
The Supreme Court effectively delayed Donald Trump's federal election interference case on Wednesday by agreeing to hear his immunity appeal in late April.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that this trial will be unlike any other and a defining moment in American history. This statement is not supported by factual evidence and could be seen as an attempt to manipulate readers' emotions.
The Trump trials: A former president faces justice
This is a defining moment in terms of having a criminal case [of a former president].
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing legal experts who are not directly quoted in the article but whose opinions are attributed to them. This is a form of informal fallacy as it does not provide direct evidence or quotes from the experts themselves, only their opinions on the matter at hand.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump and his supporters by referring to them as 'white supremacists' and 'dog-whistling'. Additionally, the author quotes a source who describes the trial as a defining moment in American history, which is not an objective statement.
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump and his supporters by referring to them as 'white supremacists' and 'dog-whistling'. Additionally, the author quotes a source who describes the trial as a defining moment in American history, which is not an objective statement.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Erin Moriarty has a financial tie to the topic of Trump trials as she is employed by CBS News which was sued for $83.3 million in damages over its reporting on the Trump administration.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Erin Moriarty has conflicts of interest on the topics of Trump trials and criminal trial of a former U.S. president as she is an employee at CBS News which was sued by Donald Trump for $83 million in damages over its reporting on his businesses.
The Supreme Court effectively delayed Donald Trump's federal election interference case on Wednesday by agreeing to hear his immunity appeal in late April.
Trump is still poised to go on trial on March 25 in his New York criminal case, which centers around whether he illegally falsified business records to cover up a hush money payment made by his former lawyer Michael Cohen ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents the idea that Trump can either be tried in New York or not at all, when there are other options available to him such as appealing the case.
Trump's attorneys in Florida asked Judge Aileen Cannon to delay the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case until after the 2024 election.
In Georgia, Trump and his co-defendants made their final arguments to disqualify Fani Willis in a bid to disqualify her from prosecuting them over alleged racketeering.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump's attorneys sought to delay one of his criminal trials until after the November election and disqualify the district attorney prosecuting another case against him. However, this claim is not supported by any evidence presented in court on Friday.
The article states that 'Trump’s attorneys sought to delay one of his criminal trials until after the November election and disqualify the district attorney prosecuting another case against him.' However, this claim is not supported by any evidence presented in court on Friday.
The article claims that Trump's attorneys made their final arguments to Judge Scott McAfee in a bid to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. However, the judge did not make a decision on Friday and both hearings could have a significant impact on when or whether Trump will face trial in each of those two cases.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses a parade of defense attorneys to make their final arguments in the Georgia racketeering case over her relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. Craig Gillen, a defense attorney representing David Shafer, one of the defendants in the case, accused Willis and Wade of committing fraud on this court when they claimed Wade did not provide any financial benefit to Willis in their relationship. He argued that they could not come up with any records showing repayments. The author also mentions a parade of defense attorneys arguing that Fani Willis, the district attorney prosecuting the Georgia racketeering case over her relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, should be disqualified due to fraud on this court.
Craig Gillen accused Fani Willis and Nathan Wade of committing fraud on this court when they claimed that Wade did not provide any financial benefit to Willis in their relationship. He argued that they could not come up with any records showing repayments.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has conflicts of interest on the topics of Donald Trump's criminal cases in Florida and Georgia. The article also mentions Special Counsel Jack Smith's election subversion case in Washington which is related to Trump.
Trump was found liable for sexually abusing Caroll in the mid-1990s and for defaming her by denying it.
Former attorneys for Trump told The New York Times that his usual demeanor won't fly in a criminal trial and he needs to be aggressively muzzled by the lawyers if he is to avoid offending the jury.
Accuracy
In a deeply blue city, it seems they have already succeeded in doing the complete opposite during a February hearing to set a date for the hush money trial. Judge Juan Merchan insisted that attorneys stop mentioning Trump's schedule as a reason to delay the trial and Blanche did it anyway.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that Trump's bombastic personality defined his civil proceedings and could be his demise. This statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the article and is an attempt to manipulate readers emotionally.
The use of words 'bombastic', 'demise' are sensationalistic
Trump was found liable for sexually abusing Caroll, but no mention of his denial or wrongdoing.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses the phrase 'deeply blue city' to describe New York City which is a political bias. Also, the use of phrases such as 'witch hunt' and 'Democrat-led witch hunts' are inflammatory rhetoric.
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses the phrase 'deeply blue city' to describe New York City which is a political bias. Also, the use of phrases such as 'witch hunt' and 'Democrat-led witch hunts' are inflammatory rhetoric.
Bias
(85%)
The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump by referring to him as a 'fed-up' and 'angry' individual. The use of the word 'witch hunt' is also problematic as it implies that there was no evidence against Trump in his civil trials.
> In a case involving writer E. Jean Caroll, Trump was found liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the mid-1990s and for defaming her by denying it. <br> > He denied any wrongdoing.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Hannah Getahun has a financial tie to Donald Trump as she is an employee of The New York Times which was sued by the former president for defamation. Additionally, her article discusses several cases involving Trump and his associates including Stormy Daniels hush money case and the January 6 Capitol insurrection case.
Hannah Getahun is an employee of The New York Times which was sued by Donald Trump for defamation.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and E. Jean Carroll as she is reporting on their civil proceedings.
Donald J. Trump has ordered attorneys around from the defense table and insisted on testifying in civil cases.
, Donald J. Trump was minutes away from being grilled under oath by the New York attorney general when he was itching to talk, but his lawyer at the time directed him to keep quiet and invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a 2022 deposition with Letitia James.
Ty Cobb, a veteran lawyer who worked in the White House Counsel's Office during the Trump administration, said that Mr. Trump needs to be aggressively muzzled by his lawyers if he is to avoid offending the jury.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author implies that Trump's lawyers are responsible for his legal problems when it was actually Fischetti who advised him to keep quiet during the investigation and warned him of perjury charges. Secondly, the author states that Trump lost both civil trials he directed his lawyers to object at inopportune moments but fails to mention that these were not criminal cases. Lastly, the article implies that Trump's legal team is responsible for corralling him when it was actually Fischetti who advised him on how to act during the investigation.
The author states 'Mr. Fischetti instructed Mr. Trump to keep quiet.'
The author states 'In two of the recent civil trials, the former president directed his lawyers to object at inopportune moments,' but fails to mention that these were not criminal cases.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of Ty Cobb and other legal experts without providing any evidence or context for their claims. Additionally, there are multiple instances where the author presents a dichotomy between Trump's actions in court and his perceived innocence, which is not supported by any evidence presented in the article.
The single person who poses the greatest danger to Donald J. Trump may just be Donald J. Trump.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable.
<b>Mr. Fischetti instructed the former president to keep quiet.</b>
He lost both trials and was ordered to pay more than half a billion dollars combined.
> his first criminal case begins
<i>he was itching to talk</i>
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The authors of the article have financial ties to a company that may be affected by events related to Donald J. Trump's criminal trial.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The article discusses Donald J. Trump's criminal trial and potential cover up of a sex scandal, which could be seen as biased given that the author is reporting on a high-profile figure with controversial personal behavior.
