Former President Trump held in contempt of court for violating gag order during Manhattan trial
Judge Juan Merchan imposed contempt charge on Trump for making statements that violated the gag order
The trial proceedings saw witnesses testifying about negotiating sale of their stories for silence
Trump falsely claimed he is not allowed to testify due to a hush money gag order
Trump mocked Michael Cohen and called him 'Donald Von ShitzInPantz'
Former President Donald Trump's trial in Manhattan over his alleged falsification of business records took a dramatic turn on May 2, 2024, when Judge Juan Merchan held him in contempt of court for making statements that violated the gag order. The gag order restricts Trump from speaking publicly about certain topics related to the case such as witnesses, prosecutors, jurors or prospective jurors. Despite this restriction, Trump continued to make public statements that were in violation of the order.
Trump's claim that he is not allowed to testify at the trial due to a gag order is false. He is indeed allowed to testify and the decision on whether or not he will do so is entirely up to him. The gag order only restricts his out-of-court speech.
On May 3, 2024, during the trial proceedings, Trump's legal team argued that Michael Cohen provoked his responses and attacked his credibility first. Witnesses such as Keith Davidson, ex-lawyer for Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, testified about negotiating the sale of their stories to guarantee their silence.
Despite the ongoing trial, Trump continued to make public statements that were in violation of the gag order. He falsely claimed that he is not allowed to testify due to a hush money gag order and mocked Michael Cohen by calling him 'Donald Von ShitzInPantz'. These statements could result in additional contempt charges for Trump.
Judge Merchan did not seem concerned about Trump's comment to be 'nice' to David Pecker, but he may yet find Trump in contempt for other unprovoked insults directed at Cohen. The trial is ongoing and the outcome remains uncertain.
Trump's legal team argues that Michael Cohen provoked his responses and attacked his credibility first.
Keith Davidson, ex-lawyer for Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, testified in court about negotiating the sale of their stories to guarantee their silence.
Accuracy
Donald Trump is on trial for violating a gag order in relation to hush money payments.
Trump responded ‘I hate the fact we did it’ during this conversation.
Trump was fined $9,000 for previous gag order violations and could face additional fines for the four new statements in question.
Trump implied that the jury in his trial is not fair due to its supposed Democratic majority.
Trump has been warned by the judge to stop attacking key witness Michael Cohen, but may face additional contempt charges for unprovoked insults towards him.
Deception
(50%)
The author makes editorializing statements by using phrases like 'hush money trial resumes', 'former president's legal team tries to dodge punishment', and 'potential star witness in the case'. The article also contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position, such as Trump's attempts to blame Cohen for violating the gag order. Additionally, there is emotional manipulation through phrases like 'incarceratory punishment' and 'public downfall and criminal conviction'.
For the first time in Donald Trump’s hush money trial, jurors heard the former president’s own voice discussing a deal with his former attorney to buy the silence of a former Playboy model who alleged an affair with Mr Trump.
The former president’s legal team tries to dodge punishment for his comments about the jury – remarks that appear likely to violate a gag order that blocks him from public attacks on witnesses and jurors.
Fallacies
(85%)
Oliver O'Connell's article contains several informal fallacies and an appeal to authority. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Trump's actions as 'bad-mouthing key participants', implying that such actions are negative without providing any evidence or reasoning to support this claim. Additionally, the author quotes Michael Avenatti as accusing Davidson of being a liar, which is an appeal to authority fallacy if taken at face value without considering the credibility of Avenatti's statement or any potential motivations he may have for making such an accusation. The article also contains several instances of loaded language, such as describing Cohen's testimony as 'bombshell audio' and Trump's actions as 'responding to attacks', which can influence the reader's perception without providing any objective evidence or reasoning.
][The author] describes Trump’s actions as “bad-mouthing key participants”, implying that such actions are negative without providing any evidence or reasoning to support this claim.[/]
[Michael Avenatti is quoted as] accusing Davidson of being a liar, which is an appeal to authority fallacy if taken at face value without considering the credibility of Avenatti’s statement or any potential motivations he may have for making such an accusation.[
Bias
(95%)
The author makes multiple references to Michael Cohen's attacks on Trump and his legal team, implying that Cohen is provoking Trump to respond and violate the gag order. This could be seen as an attempt to shift blame from Trump for potential gag order violations.
Michael Avenatti, disgraced former lawyer for Ms Daniels, tweeted from prison accusing Mr Davidson of being a liar.
The former president’s legal team tries to blame at least some of Mr Trump’s potential violations on Michael Cohen, arguing his former attorney and the potential star witness in the case has made ‘multiple and repeated attacks’ on his ‘credibility’ and campaign.
President Joe Biden made a bizarre cameo appearance during the trial when Blanche quoted his joke about Stormy Daniels and Donald ‘Von ShitzInPantz’.
Michael Cohen mocked Trump as ‘Donald Von ShitzInPantz’, a favorite insult on his podcast and social media site X.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports statements that support the authors' position and omits Trump's defense arguments. For example, the authors quote Blanche complaining about Cohen making potshots at Trump but do not mention that Blanche was also quoting Biden mocking Trump. The article also does not provide any context or counterarguments to these quotes, leading to an imbalanced representation of the situation.
Another week, another contempt-of-court hearing for former President Donald Trump …
But Trump must remain silent, Blanche added, even when Cohen mocks him as Donald ‘Von ShitzInPants’, a favorite insult on Cohen’s podcast and his account on the social-media site X.
That’s when President Joe Biden and Donald ‘Von ShitzInPants’ made their bizarre cameo appearances on the official trial record.
Fallacies
(85%)
The authors of the article quote President Joe Biden making a joke about Donald Trump using the name 'Von ShitzInPants'. This is an example of an appeal to authority fallacy as Biden's statement does not provide any logical or factual evidence to support any claims made in the article. Additionally, Michael Cohen's insulting comments towards Trump are quoted and entered into the court record by Trump's defense attorney. These quotes are examples of inflammatory rhetoric and name-calling, which do not contribute to a logical or factual argument.
President Joe Biden quipped in a very apparent reference to Stormy Daniels, the porn star at the center of the hush-money trial, 'Donald has had a few tough days lately. You might call it stormy weather,'
Blanche proceeded to read that colorfully worded, offending post into the court record as Trump sat listening at the defense table. 'This one says, oh my, ShitzInPantz,' Blanche recited as he entered a screenshot of the post into the court record as Exhibit 64 – without any objection from prosecutors.
But Trump must remain silent, Blanche added, even when Cohen mocks him as Donald 'Von ShitzInPantz,' a favorite insult on Cohen’s podcast and his account on the social-media site X.
Bias
(80%)
The authors quote President Biden making a joke about Trump's legal situation and Stormy Daniels. They also quote Michael Cohen using the derogatory nickname 'Von ShitzInPantz'. The authors do not express any bias themselves in the article, but they do present statements from individuals who demonstrate clear bias against Trump.
Judge Merchan did not seem concerned about Trump’s comment to be ‘nice’ to David Pecker.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The author makes editorializing statements and uses emotional manipulation by implying that Trump's behavior is 'deviant' and 'criminal', even though contempt of court citations are not uncommon. The author also selectively reports information by focusing on Trump's actions while ignoring the fact that other defendants have also been cited for contempt. Lastly, the author uses sensationalism by implying that Trump's conduct is 'verboten in a criminal trial'
The author selectively reports information by focusing on Trump's actions while ignoring other defendants who have also been cited for contempt.
The author implies that Trump's conduct is not fair because of the jury composition.
The author calls Trump's behavior 'deviant' and 'criminal'.
Fallacies
(80%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by referencing the Chicago 7 trial and Judge Julius Hoffman's actions. He also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Trump's behavior as 'deviant' and 'criminal'.
> The judge made it clear that Trump’s conduct is verboten in a criminal trial.
, The rest of what the former president of the United States has done to disrupt this trial is apparently deviant enough.
Bias
(80%)
The author expresses his opinion that Trump's behavior in contempt of court is 'deviant' and 'rare', implying that it is something to be shocked about. He also implies that if any other president had behaved this way, it would have been a bigger story. This shows a bias towards viewing Trump's actions as more extreme or unusual than they may be.
But Merchan is so concerned about Trump attacking any witness during a trial that he may yet find Trump in contempt for other unprovoked insults directed at Cohen, as he did on Tuesday.
But the judge made it clear that Trump’s conduct is verboten in a criminal trial. In this case, the contempt citation wasn’t even the biggest story of the day from the courtroom.
I found the line – ‘This is a message to Pecker: Be nice’ – to be threatening, but the judge may not agree.
The judge made it clear that Trump’s conduct is verboten in a criminal trial.
Former President Donald Trump is allowed to testify in his own defense at the criminal trial in Manhattan over his alleged falsification of business records.
Judge Juan Merchan's gag order does not prevent Trump from testifying, it only restricts him from speaking publicly about certain topics related to the case such as witnesses, prosecutors, jurors or prospective jurors.
Accuracy
Donald Trump is on trial for violating a gag order in relation to hush money payments.
Trump is facing contempt-of-court charges for violating a gag order during his hush-money trial.
Judge Juan Merchan held Donald Trump in contempt of court on nine counts.
