Donald J. Trump is on trial for falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.
Former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks testified about her role in handling scandals involving then-President Donald Trump during his 2016 campaign.
Hicks revealed that Donald Trump had told her it was Michael Cohen's job to protect him.
Hicks' testimony links Trump to falsifying business records.
In the midst of a high-profile criminal trial, former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks testified about her role in handling various scandals involving then-President Donald Trump during his 2016 campaign. The testimonies from two major news sources, The Independent and The New York Times, provide unique insights into the events leading up to Election Day 2016 and the hush money trials.
According to Hope Hicks' testimony in The Independent article, she broke down while testifying about Michael Cohen at Trump's hush money trial. She revealed that Donald Trump had told her it was Cohen's job to protect him. This revelation came after weeks of damage control efforts by Hicks and the campaign team to salvage Trump's campaign amid allegations of affairs, vulgar comments, and other scandals.
The New York Times article reports that Donald J. Trump is on trial for falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Prosecutors have presented sensational testimony about the sordid stories behind these payments, but the heart of the matter lies in invoices and ledger entries that allegedly prove Trump's involvement.
Hicks' testimony has been a significant development in the trial, as she is one of the few witnesses directly linking Trump to falsifying business records. However, her credibility has been questioned due to her status as a former confidant and potential liar.
The testimonies from both sources highlight the emotional turmoil surrounding these events and the importance of accurate record-keeping in legal proceedings. It is crucial for readers to remain informed about this ongoing trial, as it sets a precedent for future cases involving high-profile public figures.
Hope Hicks testified that Donald Trump told her that Michael Cohen felt it was his job to protect him.
,
Accuracy
In October 2016, Michael Cohen wired Stormy Daniels $130,000 and Trump later reimbursed him for the payment.
Trump is charged with falsifying business records to cover up these payments as ‘legal expenses’ in an attempt to boost his chances of winning the election.
Hope Hicks testified that while president, Trump had admitted to her that he knew his then-fixer Michael Cohen had paid Stormy Daniels, and Trump attempted to blame Cohen.
Hicks also stated that Trump felt it was better to deal with the issue after the election than beforehand.
Accuracy
Hope Hicks testified that Trump had admitted to her that he knew his then-fixer Michael Cohen had paid Stormy Daniels, and Trump attempted to blame Cohen.
Trump is charged with falsifying business records to cover up these payments as ‘legal expenses’ in an attempt to boost his chances of winning the election.
Hope Hicks recalled Trump describing Cohen as a person who ‘felt like it was his job to protect him’.
Hope Hicks testified that she did not believe Trump’s description of Cohen was consistent with what she knew about him.
Deception
(0%)
This article is a opinion piece written by Norman Eisen for CNN. The author expresses his opinion about Hope Hicks' testimony during the trial of former President Donald Trump. He uses emotional language to describe the significance of Hicks' testimony and its impact on the trial. He also makes editorializing statements, such as calling Trump's behavior 'devastating', 'damaging', and a 'nightmare'. The author also uses selective reporting by focusing only on details that support his opinion of Trump.
Hicks provided a gripping account of the impact of the infamous 'Access Hollywood' tape on Trump’s campaign, which in turn sets up the so-called hush money payments to Stormy Daniels – who has alleged she had an affair with the former president – that is at the center of the charges in this case.
Another devastating blow came at the very end of Hicks’ direct testimony when she revealed a stunning trifecta: that, while president, Trump had admitted to her that he knew his then-fixer Michael Cohen had paid Daniels, that Trump attempted to blame Cohen and that Hicks did not believe him. She also stated that Trump felt it was better to be dealing with it after the election than beforehand.
The jury ate her words up, with even those who usually take close notes neglecting their pen and paper in favor of watching her.
It's a cliché to say that electricity surged through a courtroom – but it did when Hope Hicks took the stand Friday morning for her testimony in the election interference trial of former President Donald Trump.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by stating that he served as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for the first impeachment and trial of former President Donald Trump. He also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the impact of The Washington Post's revelation of Trump's tape as a 'devastating blow' and 'damaging sex scandal'. However, no formal fallacies or dichotomous depictions were found.
]The only person in the courtroom who was not consistently attentive was the one who had the most at stake: the defendant. Trump appeared to nod off repeatedly, including during Hicks’ testimony about how she first learned of the Daniels story.[/
Bias
(80%)
The author, Norman Eisen, expresses a clear bias against Donald Trump throughout the article. He describes Trump as having a criminal conviction and uses language like 'devastatingly clear' and 'utterly believable' to describe Hicks' testimony against him. The author also implies that the impact of the Access Hollywood tape was so significant that it pushed a category 5 hurricane out of the news, which is an exaggeration.
Hicks provided a gripping account of the impact of the infamous ‘Access Hollywood’ tape on Trump’s campaign, which in turn sets up the so-called hush money payments to Stormy Daniels – who has alleged she had an affair with the former president – that is at the center of the charges in this case.
It seemed to me that he was doing more than just, as he claimed, closing ‘my beautiful blue eyes’ to ‘take it ALL in!!!'
The jury ate her words up, with even those who usually take close notes neglecting their pen and paper in favor of watching her.
The only person in the courtroom who was not consistently attentive was the one who had the most at stake: the defendant.
Trump was concerned about how his wife would react after details about his alleged affairs with Daniels and McDougal appeared in the media.
Trump's team was concerned about how the Access Hollywood tape would damage his 2016 election chances.
Accuracy
Hope Hicks testified that Trump was concerned about how his wife would react after details about his alleged affairs with Daniels and McDougal appeared in the media.
Prosecutors have continued to suggest that the hush money payment was part of an unlawful attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential race.
The defense has noted that the only witness directly linking Trump to falsifying records is a convicted liar.
Deception
(30%)
The author, Natalie Venegas, makes no editorializing or pontification in this article. However, she does quote Gregg Jarrett making the statement that 'Bragg’s own witness, Hope Hicks, implodes case against Trump.' This is an opinion and a form of editorializing. Additionally, the title of the article 'Alvin Bragg’s Witness Against Trump “Backfired Spectacularly”-Legal Analyst' also implies a form of sensationalism as it suggests that there was some sort of failure on Alvin Bragg's part. The score is 30 because while there is some deception through the use of opinion and sensationalism, it does not reach the level required for a score below 30.
Bragg’s own witness, Hope Hicks, implodes case against Trump.
The moment cross-examination began, their misbegotten case against the former president began to collapse
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains an appeal to authority by citing Gregg Jarrett's analysis as a 'backfired spectacularly' moment for the prosecution. Additionally, there is a slight dichotomous depiction by presenting Hope Hicks' testimony as damaging to the prosecution's case while ignoring potential counterarguments from the prosecutors themselves. However, these fallacies are outweighed by the detailed account of events and legal analysis provided in the article.
Amid Donald Trump’s criminal hush money trial, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s witness against the former president "backfired spectacularly," according to Fox News legal analyst and commentator Gregg Jarrett.
In an epic miscalculation that backfired spectacularly, prosecutors in the Manhattan hush money trial of Donald Trump called Hope Hicks to the witness stand. The moment cross-examination began, their misbegotten case against the former president began to collapse.
While on the witness stand, Hicks explained that she doesn't have a current professional relationship with Trump. They have not communicated since the summer or fall of 2022...
Bias
(95%)
The author, Natalie Venegas, presents the testimony of Hope Hicks in a way that implies the Manhattan District Attorney's case against Trump is collapsing. She quotes Gregg Jarrett's opinion column that 'Hope Hicks implodes case against Trump.' This language depicts the prosecution as failing and undermines their argument. The author does not provide any counter-argument or evidence to support this interpretation, making it biased.
Hope Hicks' testimony demolishes District Attorney Alvin Bragg's primary claim against Trump that he paid Stormy Daniels for her silence with the intent to benefit his campaign and, thereby, influence the election by ‘unlawful means.’
The moment cross-examination began, the Manhattan hush money trial of Donald Trump's misbegotten case against the former president began to collapse.
Donald J. Trump is on trial for 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York.
The defense has noted that the only witness directly linking Trump to falsifying records is a convicted liar.
Accuracy
Donald Trump told Hope Hicks that Michael Cohen felt it was his job to protect him.
In October 2016, Michael Cohen wired Stormy Daniels $130,000 and Trump later reimbursed him for the payment.
Trump is charged with falsifying business records to cover up these payments as ‘legal expenses’ in an attempt to boost his chances of winning the election.
Hope Hicks recalled Trump describing Cohen as a person who ‘felt like it was his job to protect him’.
Defense attorney Emil Bove asked Hope Hicks about her work history before she broke down in tears.
The release of the Access Hollywood tape, which contained Trump bragging about grabbing women’s genitals, threatened to derail his campaign before the presidential debate in October 2016.
Hope Hicks testified that she was ‘stunned’ by the release of the Access Hollywood tape and that it was a ‘damaging development’ for Trump’s campaign.
Manhattan prosecutors argue that the release of the Access Hollywood tape led to an urgent deal to buy the rights to allegations from Stormy Daniels who claimed to have had sex with Trump a decade earlier.
Hope Hicks received an email from a reporter at The Washington Post about the contents of the Access Hollywood tape and forwarded it to campaign officials.
The media reaction ‘was intense’ and ‘dominated coverage for 36 hours leading up to the debate'
Four days before Election Day, The Wall Street Journal published details of a scheme arranged with Cohen, Trump, and former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker to buy the rights to allegations from Karen McDougal who claimed to have had an affair with Trump.
Trump denied the affair in his conversations with Hope Hicks and she testified that he wanted her to make sure that newspapers weren’t delivered to his residence on the morning of publication.
Hope Hicks testified that Trump’s motive for suppressing salacious stories was to protect his wife and family.
Trump followed his lawyer’s advice in handling the Daniels transaction and it was not illegal.
Accuracy
Trump was aware that Cohen paid off Stormy Daniels to end her blackmail demands.
Hope Hicks testified that Trump described Cohen as a person who ‘felt like it was his job to protect him’.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains several instances of deceptive practices. The author makes editorializing statements and uses emotional manipulation to sway the reader's opinion against Michael Cohen and Alvin Bragg. He also engages in selective reporting by focusing on negative aspects of Cohen and Bragg while ignoring any potential positive or mitigating factors. Additionally, the article contains sensationalist language, such as 'big top spectacle' and 'grotesque abuse of the law', which is intended to elicit an emotional response from the reader. The author also makes a false claim that Bragg targeted Trump in a case of selective prosecution without providing any evidence to support this assertion.
The moment cross-examination began, their misbegotten case against the former president began to collapse.
It was foolhardy for Bragg’s legal team to call Hicks. A rank amateurish mistake.
This makes Hicks’ testimony superfluous, and it proves nothing.
Bragg must have skipped his law school class when the ‘doctrine of impossibility’ was taught.
Voters see this for precisely what it is: a pathetically weak case designed to damage Trump politically to the benefit of President Joe Biden’s reelection chances.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author commits several informal fallacies throughout the article. He uses inflammatory rhetoric towards Michael Cohen and Alvin Bragg, referring to them as 'insufferable' and a 'convicted liar who went to prison', respectively. He also makes an appeal to emotion by stating that Americans are offended by the trial and resent seeing Trump taken off the campaign trail. Additionally, he uses a false dilemma when stating that voters are either invested in policy ideas or personal issues, implying that there is no middle ground.
It was foolhardy for Bragg’s legal team to call Hicks.
He used to like to call himself Mr. Fix-It, but it was only because he first broke it.
The only crime here is Bragg’s grotesque abuse of the law.
This is a textbook case of selective prosecution.
Bias
(80%)
The author expresses a clear bias against the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Michael Cohen. The author uses derogatory language to describe Cohen as a 'convicted liar who went to prison' and calls Bragg's legal team's decision to call Hope Hicks 'foolhardy'. The author also expresses disdain for the trial itself, calling it a 'big top spectacle', a 'waste of money', and an affront to fairness and equal justice. These statements demonstrate a clear bias against the individuals involved in the trial.
But the D.A. wants to put Trump in prison for following his attorney’s legal advice.
He targeted Trump in a textbook case of selective prosecution.
It was foolhardy for Bragg’s legal team to call Hicks.
The moment cross-examination began, their misbegotten case against the former president began to collapse.
This makes Hicks’ testimony superfluous, and it proves nothing.
