Charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records
Former President Trump on trial for falsifying business records
Jury deliberations to begin soon
Relates to hush money payments during 2016 campaign
In a historic trial, former President Donald Trump faces charges for falsifying business records related to hush money payments made during his 2016 presidential campaign. The jury, consisting of twelve New Yorkers, will soon begin deliberations to determine Trump's guilt or innocence in this high-stakes case.
The trial has been ongoing for over 20 days with both prosecutors and defense lawyers presenting their arguments. Prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney's office have called 20 witnesses, while defense attorneys argue that Trump maintained a degree of separation from his allies involved in the unlawful schemes to launch him to the nation's highest office.
The case centers around payments made to Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, as well as David Pecker and The National Enquirer. Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. If convicted, this could potentially impact his current status as the presumptive GOP nominee for the 2024 presidential election.
The jury will hear closing arguments from both sides on Tuesday before beginning deliberations. The outcome of their decision remains uncertain, but it is clear that this trial has significant implications for American politics.
Twelve New Yorkers will soon be charged with a task unique to history: determining whether to convict Donald Trump, a former president and current presumptive GOP nominee.
The case against Trump centers on his 2016 campaign and charges him with falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to a porn star in the weeks before voters decided whether to elect him.
Defense attorneys contend Trump maintained a degree of separation from his allies working to launch him to the nation’s highest office, unaware of any unlawful schemes they engaged in to get him there.
Accuracy
Trump is accused of covering up reimbursement of hush money payments made before the 2016 election to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains some inflammatory rhetoric and appeals to authority. The author quotes various witnesses and experts making strong claims about the case, such as Mitchell Epner's statement that anyone claiming to know what the jury will do is either lying or overly confident in their abilities. Additionally, there are appeals to authority with references to the credentials of these witnesses and experts. However, no formal fallacies were found in the article.
Anybody who claims they know they’ll do or how long it’ll take is either lying to you, lying to themselves or much smarter than anybody I’ve ever met.
Mitchell Epner, a former New York federal prosecutor now at Kudman Trachten Aloe Posner LLP.
