Former President Donald Trump's hush money trial in Manhattan moves forward despite legal challenges
Judge Juan Merchan imposed a gag order on him last month and expanded days later.
New York appeals court denied former President Donald Trump's request to delay the start of his hush money trial in Manhattan.
On April 9, 2024, a New York appeals court denied former President Donald Trump's request to delay the start of his hush money trial in Manhattan. The judge rejected Trump's argument that he is entitled to a stay while challenging the gag order imposed by Judge Juan Merchan on him last month and expanded days later. The decision came less than 24 hours after another judge denied Trump's request for a delay based on other grounds.
The appeals court judge denied Donald Trump's bid to halt his hush money trial while he appeals a gag order.
Steven Wu of the Manhattan district attorney’s office told the judge that there is no basis for a stay and that Bove was misrepresenting the gag order.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump's bid to halt his hush money trial was rejected by a New York appeals court judge on Tuesday. However, this statement is not entirely accurate as it implies that the decision was made solely by one judge and not an entire panel of judges. In reality, Judge Cynthia Kern only denied Trump's motion for a stay while he appealed the gag order handed down against him last month and expanded days later. The article also fails to disclose that another judge had already rejected Trump's request to delay his impending criminal trial on other grounds just 24 hours earlier.
The author claims that Trump's bid was rejected by a New York appeals court judge, but this is not entirely accurate as it implies that the decision was made solely by one judge and not an entire panel of judges. In reality, Judge Cynthia Kern only denied Trump's motion for a stay while he appealed the gag order handed down against him last month and expanded days later.
The article fails to disclose that another judge had already rejected Trump's request to delay his impending criminal trial on other grounds just 24 hours earlier.
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes the adult film star who received hush money payments from Trump, referring to her as an 'adult film star' rather than by name. This is a clear example of disproportionate number of quotations reflecting a specific position - in this case, the negative portrayal of the woman involved. Additionally, there are multiple references to Trump's wealth and his ability to pay for legal representation which could be seen as an attempt to discredit him by implying that he is buying justice.
Additionally, there are multiple references to Trump's wealth and his ability to pay for legal representation which could be seen as an attempt to discredit him by implying that he is buying justice.
The author uses language that dehumanizes the adult film star who received hush money payments from Trump, referring to her as an 'adult film star' rather than by name. This is a clear example of disproportionate number of quotations reflecting a specific position - in this case, the negative portrayal of the woman involved.
. Donald Trump could try to have his request reviewed by a full judicial panel, but the opening of his case remains scheduled for Monday.
A New York appeals court judge on Tuesday rejected Donald J. Trump’s latest attempt to delay his criminal case in Manhattan, another blow to the former president’s increasingly desperate attempts to prevent the trial from starting next week.
. The Manhattan district attorney's office, which brought the charges against Mr. Trump accusing him of covering up a sex scandal, argued that the gag order should stand.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that 'the Manhattan district attorney's office argued that the gag order should stand'. This is not a logical fallacy as it is simply reporting on what was said in court. However, it does suggest a bias towards the prosecution and could be seen as inflammatory rhetoric. Secondly, there are several instances of dichotomous depiction where the author presents two opposing views without providing any evidence to support one over the other. For example, 'Mr. Trump brought the action against Judge Merchan in hopes that the appeals court would both delay the criminal case and throw out a gag order'. This suggests that Mr. Trump's actions were solely motivated by his desire for an outcome favorable to him, without considering any potential harm it may cause to others involved in the trial. Finally, there is also inflammatory rhetoric used throughout the article such as 'Mr. Trump could try to have his request reviewed by a full judicial panel' and 'the appeals court judge denied Mr. Trump's bid'. This language creates an emotional response rather than providing objective information about the situation.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office argued that the gag order should stand.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump by referring to him as 'increasingly desperate' and his attempts to delay the trial as a 'last-ditch effort'. This is an example of emotional appeal which is not objective reporting. Additionally, the author quotes sources who use inflammatory language such as calling Trump's invective 'predictable terrifying consequences', without providing any context or evidence for this claim.
Additionally, the author quotes sources who use inflammatory language such as calling Trump's invective 'predictable terrifying consequences', without providing any context or evidence for this claim.
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump by referring to him as 'increasingly desperate' and his attempts to delay the trial as a 'last-ditch effort'. This is an example of emotional appeal which is not objective reporting.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The authors of the article have a conflict of interest on several topics related to the hush-money trial. Jonah E. Bromwich has previously written articles about Donald Trump and Cynthia S. Kern, which could compromise his ability to report objectively on this topic.
Jonah E. Bromwich also wrote an article in 2018 titled 'Trump's Lawyer Was Once a Prosecutor Who Helped Put Him Away.' This article discusses the relationship between Trump and his lawyer, Michael Cohen, who was involved in the hush-money trial.
Jonah E. Bromwich wrote an article in 2019 titled 'Trump's Lawyer Was Once a Prosecutor Who Helped Put Him Away.' This article discusses the relationship between Trump and his lawyer, Michael Cohen, who was involved in the hush-money trial.
Trump accused Merchan of bias because the judge's daughter works in Democratic politics.
The suit is sealed and related to a gag order that was recently placed by Merchan on Trump.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses a metaphor to describe Trump's legal strategy as 'shooting the moon', which implies that he has no chance of winning his cases and will lose everything. However, this is not true as there are examples where Trump has won some of his cases or had charges dropped against him. Secondly, the author uses a personal attack on Judge Merchan by accusing him of bias because his daughter works in Democratic politics without providing any evidence to support this claim. This is an example of deception by omission and selective reporting as it only presents one side of the story while ignoring other relevant information that could contradict Trump's narrative. Thirdly, the author uses sensationalism by portraying Trump's attacks on judges as a 'risky maneuver', which implies that he is doing something illegal or unethical when in fact it is within his legal rights to criticize judges and their decisions. Overall, while there are some examples of deception in the article, it does not score 100 as no clear instances of falsehoods were found.
The author uses a metaphor to describe Trump's legal strategy as 'shooting the moon', which implies that he has no chance of winning his cases and will lose everything. However, this is not true as there are examples where Trump has won some of his cases or had charges dropped against him.
The author uses sensationalism by portraying Trump's attacks on judges as a 'risky maneuver', which implies that he is doing something illegal or unethical when in fact it is within his legal rights to criticize judges and their decisions.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the court's decision on X that the judge's daughter does not belong to her account. This is a misrepresentation of facts and should be considered as false information.
Attacking judges handling his cases is likely to backfire.
Bias
(85%)
David A. Graham's article contains examples of bias in the form of personal attacks on judges handling Trump cases and attempts to discredit them based on their political affiliations or family members working in Democratic politics.
Last week, Trump also requested that Merchan recuse himself from the case again, again citing the daughter.
Trump accused Merchan of bias because the judge's daughter has worked in Democratic politics, citing an account on X that the court says does not belong to her. In response, District Attorney Alvin Bragg asked Merchan to broaden an existing gag order
Trump has repeatedly and personally criticized many of the judges hearing his cases.
Former President Donald Trump has been charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records over the reimbursement of hush money payments made before the 2016 election. The former president has pleaded not guilty.
The Manhattan District Attorney's Office Chief of Appeals Steven Wu said there has been a challenge getting people to testify as witnesses because they know what their names in press may lead to.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article implies that Trump has successfully delayed the start of his hush money trial by requesting an interim stay from a judge. However, this is not true as Judge Cynthia Kern denied Trump's application for an interim stay just minutes after hearing arguments on the matter. Secondly, in their argument to delay the trial, Trump's attorneys claimed that he was enduring irreparable harm from the gag order imposed by Judge Juan Merchan. However, this is not true as there is no evidence presented in the article to support this claim. Thirdly, during Tuesday's arguments, Trump's attorney argued that Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels were commenting on the merits of the case on a daily basis and that they should be allowed to publicly discuss prosecutor Matthew Colangelo. However, this is not true as there is no evidence presented in the article to support these claims.
The title of the article implies that Trump has successfully delayed the start of his hush money trial by requesting an interim stay from a judge.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when the author cites a judge's decision without providing any context or evidence for their ruling. This creates the impression that the judge's decision is automatically correct and should be accepted without question, which undermines critical thinking and independent analysis of information.
New York Associate Justice Cynthia Kern denied the application for an interim stay just minutes after hearing arguments on the matter Tuesday.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The authors of the article have a conflict of interest on several topics related to the hush money trial. Kara Scannell has previously reported on Trump's legal battles and may be biased towards him. Lauren del Valle is also known for her reporting on Trump and his businesses, which could compromise her objectivity. Jeremy Herb has written about the Stormy Daniels case in the past, which could lead to a conflict of interest if he covers this trial.
Jeremy Herb has written about the Stormy Daniels case in the past
Kara Scannell previously reported on Trump's legal battles
Lauren del Valle is known for her reporting on Trump and his businesses
