First former president to be convicted of a crime following jury finding that he falsified business records to cover up hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal
Former President Trump seeking dismissal of hush money conviction following Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity
Manhattan District Attorney's office yet to respond to Trump's request for dismissal, case ongoing
Supreme Court ruling grants presidents immunity for official acts but not private conduct
Trump's lawyers argue evidence related to official acts was introduced during trial and request guilty verdict be vacated
Former President Donald Trump is seeking to have his hush money conviction and indictment dismissed following the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity. The ruling, which was handed down in July 2024, grants presidents immunity for official acts but not private conduct.
Trump's lawyers argue that evidence related to official acts was introduced during his trial in New York and that the case should be dismissed as a result. They have also requested that his guilty verdict be vacated.
The Supreme Court ruling came after Trump became the first former president to be convicted of a crime, following a jury's finding that he falsified business records to cover up hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. The payments were allegedly made to silence women who claimed they had affairs with Trump before his election in 2016.
Trump's legal team has argued that the trial was 'tainted' by evidence related to official acts, including testimony from former White House aides and communications. They have also pointed to Trump's disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics as president as evidence that these actions should be considered official in nature.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office has not yet responded to Trump's request for dismissal, but Judge Juan Merchan has granted a delay in sentencing until September 18th. The case is ongoing.
Former President Donald Trump has asked a New York judge to dismiss his criminal hush money case and vacate his conviction on 34 felony counts.
Trump's lawyers argued that the trial was 'tainted' by evidence and testimony related to official acts, which are now off-limits due to the Supreme Court's immunity ruling.
The defense argued that the Manhattan district attorney's case theory required jurors to assess Trump's motive to actions while serving as president, which is prohibited in the Supreme Court's ruling.
Accuracy
,Trump has asked a New York judge to dismiss his criminal hush money case and vacate his conviction on 34 felony counts.
,Defense lawyers emphasized the importance of Hope Hicks’ testimony regarding interactions with Trump in 2018 about an alleged hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels, arguing it was ‘categorically inadmissible’ due to her role as a presidential advisor.
,Trump’s lawyers argued that tweets from Trump used as evidence were official communications protected by immunity because they fell within the core authority of the President.
,Trump’s lawyers have used the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling to attempt to delay and potentially throw out both the New York case and his federal case in Florida for allegedly retaining classified documents following his presidency.
Deception
(50%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support Trump's position and ignores the fact that the Supreme Court ruling does not apply to state criminal cases. The author also uses emotional manipulation by implying that the Manhattan district attorney's case is an affront to constitutional interests central to the functioning of the federal government.
The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was purely a personal item of the President -- a cover-up of an embarrassing event.
The Manhattan district attorney’s case theory required jurors to assess Trump’s motive to actions while serving as president -- an inquiry that the Supreme Court prohibited in their ruling.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by repeatedly referencing the Supreme Court's immunity ruling and arguing that it applies to the New York case. This is a fallacy because while the Supreme Court's ruling may be relevant, it does not automatically mean that all evidence related to official acts should be excluded from the case.
][The author] In a 52-page filing made public on the same day the former president was originally scheduled to be sentenced, Trump’s lawyers argued that prosecutors violated the Supreme Court’s immunity doctrine by using evidence related to official acts -- including testimony from former White House aides-- to fill ‘glaring holes in their case.’[[/],
Bias
(95%)
The author's use of the phrase 'former President Donald Trump' throughout the article and their emphasis on Trump's legal proceedings as a former president could be seen as an implicit bias against him. The author also uses language that depicts Trump as being engaged in a 'cover-up' and using hush money to suppress negative information, which could be perceived as demonizing him.
The Manhattan district attorney’s case theory required jurors to assess Trump’s motive to actions while serving as president
Trump’s alleged conduct was ‘purely a personal item of the President – a cover-up of an embarrassing event'
Trump's lawyers argued that the trial was 'tainted' by evidence and testimony related to official acts, which are now off-limits due to the Supreme Court's immunity ruling.
Trump faces charges in Washington and Georgia related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.
Trump is also accused of endangering national security by holding onto top secret documents after leaving the White House in Florida.
Accuracy
Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in May.
The Supreme Court ruled that presidents have immunity for official acts.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites the recent Supreme Court ruling as a reason for Trump's conviction to be thrown out, without providing any analysis or argument beyond the mere reference to this ruling.
. . .citing the landmark Supreme Court ruling from earlier this month that a president enjoys "absolute immunity" for official acts.
Donald Trump's legal team has formally asked a judge to toss out the former president’s hush money conviction and the indictment that led to his trial, citing last week’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.
Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in May.
The Supreme Court ruled that presidents have immunity for official acts but not private conduct.
Accuracy
Trump's lawyers argued that the trial was 'tainted' by evidence and testimony related to official acts, which are now off-limits due to the Supreme Court's immunity ruling.
The high court decision came from a case involving Trump's federal indictment in D.C., which accuses him of illegally trying to block Joe Biden's 2020 election victory. But it had immediate repercussions in Manhattan, where Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment.
Trump's lawyers argued that the Manhattan district attorney's case theory required jurors to assess Trump's motive to actions while serving as president, which is prohibited in the Supreme Court's ruling.
Deception
(50%)
The article discusses Trump's legal team's attempt to use the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity to dismiss his hush money conviction. The author, Shayna Jacobs, does not disclose any sources. While the information provided is factual and based on court documents and legal proceedings, there are instances of selective reporting and editorializing that create a deceptive narrative.
If Merchan tosses out the verdict and dismisses the indictment, it would mean Trump cannot be retried on the original charges.
The justices labeled some presidential conduct . . . as clearly official, but did not define others, leaving those decisions up to trial judges. Whatever they decide will likely be appealed, however, potentially bringing the question back to the Supreme Court.
. . . both, they argued, should have been considered official presidential acts, and therefore excluded from the grand jury process and the trial.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and stating that it means some of the evidence used in Trump's trial should not have been allowed. However, the author does not explicitly state that this is a fallacy or provide any examples from the article.
]The justices labeled some presidential conduct – such as communications with the Justice Department – as clearly official, but did not define others, leaving those decisions up to trial judges.[/
Former President Trump requested Judge Merchan to overturn his guilty verdict in New York v. Trump after the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have immunity for official acts.
Trump's attorneys pointed to his disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics as president, arguing that these should not have been used as evidence in the trial.
Judge Juan Merchan granted Trump's request to delay sentencing, moving it from its original date just before the Republican National Convention to September 18.
Trump's lawyers argued that the trial was 'tainted' by evidence and testimony related to official acts, which are now off-limits due to the Supreme Court's immunity ruling.
Accuracy
,Trump was found guilty last month on all counts of falsifying business records in the first degree following an investigation by Bragg.
,The formal motion for overturning the verdict was filed on Thursday evening, and it argues that certain evidence of ‘official acts’ should not have been admitted during the trial.
,Trump’s attorneys pointed to his disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics as president, arguing that these should not have been used as evidence in the trial.
,Judge Juan Merchan granted Trump’s request to delay sentencing, moving it from its original date just before the Republican National Convention to September 18.
,The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity came from a question stemming from charges brought against Trump in a separate case related to the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol breach and any alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Deception
(50%)
The article by Brooke Singman contains selective reporting and editorializing. The author only reports details that support Trump's position and fails to provide context or mention any contradictory evidence. For example, the article states that 'Trump was found guilty in an unprecedented criminal trial last month on all counts of falsifying business records in the first degree,' but it does not mention that Trump was also charged with other crimes, such as tax fraud and conspiracy. The author also quotes Trump's defense attorney making arguments about presidential immunity without providing any counterarguments or context. Additionally, the article uses emotional manipulation by describing the Manhattan District Attorney's investigation as 'politically motivated.'
The formal motion was filed Thursday evening.
Blanche argued that Bragg violated the Presidential immunity doctrine by using similar official-acts evidence in the grand jury proceedings that gave rise to the politically motivated charges in this case.
Trump signaled last week that he would move to overturn his criminal conviction in the Manhattan case after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a former president has substantial immunity for official acts committed while in office.
Donald Trump's lawyers are imploring a New York judge to overturn his hush money conviction and dismiss the case, arguing that the trial was tainted by evidence that shouldn't have been allowed due to the Supreme Court's recent presidential immunity ruling.
The former president's lawyers argue that Manhattan prosecutors hurried to try Trump while the high court was still considering his immunity claims.
Trump became the first ex-president convicted of a crime when a jury found him guilty of falsifying records to cover up a potential sex scandal.
Trump's lawyers urged Judge Juan M. Merchan to toss out not only the jury's verdict but the indictment, preventing prosecutors from retrying the case.
The Supreme Court's July 1 immunity decision gave broad protections to presidents and insulated them from prosecution for official acts. It also restricted prosecutors from citing any official acts as evidence in trying to prove a president's unofficial actions violated the law.
Hours after the opinion's release, Trump's lawyers wrote a letter asking Merchan to set aside the verdict and delay Trump's sentencing.
Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records arising from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election.
Prosecutors said the Daniels payment was part of a broader scheme to buy the silence of people who might have gone public during the campaign with embarrassing stories alleging Trump had extramarital sex. Trump denies these claims.
Trump's lawyers argue that jurors shouldn't have been allowed to hear about matters including his conversations with then-White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, nor testimony from another aide about his work practices.
Accuracy
Donald Trump's lawyers are imploring a New York judge to overturn his hush money conviction and dismiss the case, arguing that the trial was tainted by evidence that shouldn’t have been allowed due to the Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity ruling.
Trump became the first ex-president convicted of a crime when a jury found him guilty in May of falsifying records to cover up a potential sex scandal.
Trump's lawyers urged Judge Juan M. Merchan to toss out not only the jury’s verdict but the indictment, preventing prosecutors from retrying the case.
Hours after the opinion’s release, Trump’s lawyers wrote a letter asking Merchan to set aside the verdict and delay Trump’s sentencing.
Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels and was later reimbursed by Trump. Prosecutors said Cohen, with Trump’s knowledge, disguised the reimbursements by submitting monthly invoices for retainer payments as Trump’s personal lawyer. Trump’s company logged the payments to Cohen as legal expenses.
Trump’s lawyers argue that jurors shouldn’t have been allowed to hear about matters including his conversations with then-White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, nor testimony from another aide about his work practices.
The Supreme Court’s decision ‘forecloses inquiry into those motives’, according to Trump’s defense.
Jurors were shown multiple 2018 Trump tweets about Cohen, which prosecutors portrayed as efforts to pressure Cohen not to cooperate with authorities and then punish him when he did. Trump’s lawyers countered that the tweets were ‘communications with the American people regarding matters of public concern bearing on President Trump’s credibility as the commander-in-chief.’
Deception
(50%)
The article contains editorializing and selective reporting. The author uses phrases like 'scoffed with hubris,' 'rashly and wrongly hurried to try Trump,' and 'insisted on rushing to trial.' These phrases are editorial opinions of the author that go beyond just reporting the facts. Additionally, the article only reports details that support the argument of Trump's lawyers for overturning his conviction, such as their view that Manhattan prosecutors rushed to trial before waiting for the Supreme Court's guidance. It does not report any counterarguments or opposing viewpoints.
The prosecutors scoffed with hubris at President Trump’s immunity motions and insisted on rushing to trial.
Rather than wait for the Supreme Court’s guidance, the prosecutors scoffed with hubris at President Trump’s immunity motions and insisted on rushing to trial.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by referencing the Supreme Court's decision and its implications for the case at hand. They also use inflammatory rhetoric by describing Manhattan prosecutors as 'rashly and wrongly hurried' and 'scoffed with hubris'. However, no explicit fallacies were found in direct statements made by the author.
]The Supreme Court did not define what constitutes an official act, leaving that to lower courts.[
Bias
(95%)
The article does not contain any clear examples of bias towards a specific political ideology, religion, or monetary gain. However, the author does use language that could be perceived as depicting Trump's legal team in a negative light by describing their actions as 'scoffed with hubris' and 'rashly and wrongly hurried to try Trump.' This language is not extreme or unreasonable, but it does reflect a slight negative tone towards the lawyers. The author also quotes the Manhattan district attorney's office declining comment, which could be seen as an attempt to provide context but could also be perceived as an attempt to sway public opinion against them.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office declined comment Thursday.
The prosecutors scoffed with hubris at President Trump's immunity motions and insisted on rushing to trial.
