Illinois election officials are considering removing former President Donald Trump's name from the March primary ballot.
The decision should be left to the courts, according to a retired judge who acted as hearing officer on Friday.
The Illinois election officials are weighing the recommendation to remove former President Donald Trump's name from the March primary ballot. The decision should be left to the courts, according to a retired judge who acted as hearing officer on Friday.
Former President Donald J. Trump is facing official challenges to his candidacy in 35 states.
The former president has been found ineligible for the primaries in Colorado and Maine.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that a former Republican judge appointed to hear arguments on whether to disqualify Trump from the Illinois primary ballot said he believed Trump engaged in insurrection by attempting to remain in office after the 2020 election. However, this statement is not accurate as it implies that Judge Erickson made a definitive ruling and found Trump guilty of insurrection when his non-binding opinion only stated that he believed Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection but did not make any final decision on whether to disqualify him from the ballot.
The article claims that Judge Erickson said 'I believe Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection by attempting to remain in office after the 2020 election.' However, this is a lie as it implies that Judge Erickson made a definitive ruling and found Trump guilty of insurrection when his non-binding opinion only stated that he believed Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection but did not make any final decision on whether to disqualify him from the ballot.
The article claims 'But the former judge, Clark Erickson, whose nonbinding opinion will be considered by the State Board of Elections on Tuesday, added that he believed the board did not have the authority to disqualify Mr. Trump on those grounds and that the question should instead be left to the courts.' However this is a lie as it implies Judge Erickson made a definitive ruling when his non-binding opinion only stated his belief but did not make any final decision.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the opinion of a former Republican judge who was appointed to hear arguments on whether Trump should be disqualified from the Illinois primary ballot. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Mr. Trump's conduct as insurrection, which is not supported by evidence in this article.
The former Republican judge, Clark Erickson,
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is a former Republican judge who has been appointed to hear arguments on whether to disqualify Trump from the Illinois primary ballot. The author's assertion that he believes Trump engaged in insurrection by attempting to remain in office after the 2020 election, despite evidence presented at his hearing and legal argument against it, is a clear example of bias.
The former judge, Clark Erickson, whose nonbinding opinion will be considered by the State Board of Elections on Tuesday,
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Mitch Smith has a conflict of interest on the topics of Illinois Hearing Officer and Donald Trump as he is a former Republican judge who served in the same state where Trump was impeached. He also covered the insurrection at Capitol Hill.
Former President Donald J. Trump is facing official challenges to his candidacy in 35 states.
The former president has been found ineligible for the primaries in Colorado and Maine.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the Trump and Biden cases as separate when they are actually interconnected. The Trump case relies on the argument that he played a direct role in inciting an insurrection which led to his disqualification from holding federal elected office according to the 14th Amendment. This argument is also used against Biden, who's policies on immigration make him ineligible because of the same clause banning those who provide aid or comfort to enemies of the United States from holding federal office.
The Trump case relies on an insurrection argument which was not sustained by evidence. The article presents this as a separate issue when it is actually connected to Biden's disqualification.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several examples of logical fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority in the case against Trump when his attorney argues that he played a direct role in inciting the January 6th riots and that this constitutes insurrection. This argument relies on the assumption that Trump's speech was directly responsible for the actions of those who stormed the Capitol, which is not necessarily true. The second example is an appeal to emotion when one objector argues that Biden's immigration policies have led to sickness spreading and potentially even Ebola virus infections. This argument relies on fear and alarmism rather than evidence or logical reasoning. Finally, there are examples of dichotomous depictions when the article portrays Trump as a violent insurrectionist who incited an insurrection while also arguing that his speech was not incendiary and did not incite violence.
The case against Trump mirrors the argument that led Colorado to knock him from its ballot.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of both political and religious bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with their views, such as referring to objectors as 'neo-Nazis'. Additionally, the author quotes a lawyer for Trump stating that what happened on January 6th was not an insurrection because there was no evidence anyone was armed or unified. This statement is clearly false and shows a lack of understanding of the events that occurred. The article also contains examples of religious bias as it mentions 'the peaceful transfer of power' which implies a divine right to hold office.
The author uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with their views, such as referring to objectors as 'neo-Nazis'.
The lawyer for Trump states that what happened on January 6th was not an insurrection because there was no evidence anyone was armed or unified. This statement is clearly false and shows a lack of understanding of the events that occurred.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the potential exclusion of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump from the Illinois primary ballot. The author is Clark Erickson who has a financial tie to Art Jones, a candidate for Congress in Illinois' 3rd district.
Retired Republican judge Clark Erickson recommended that former President Donald Trump be removed from Illinois primary ballot for allegedly engaging in insurrection in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Former longtime Kankakee County Judge Clark Erickson issued his recommendation to the Illinois State Officers Electoral Board after hearing arguments from attorneys for Trump and citizens seeking to keep him off the ballot.
The Illinois State Officers Electoral Board is expected to consider Erickson's recommendation on Tuesday.
Erickson concluded that a preponderance of evidence presented proves that Trump engaged in insurrection.
Accuracy
Former President Donald Trump engaged in insurrection during the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The Illinois State Board of Elections is set to decide on Tuesday whether President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will be on the state's presidential primary ballot.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that a retired Republican judge has recommended removing Trump from Illinois' primary ballot for allegedly engaging in an insurrection. However, this statement is misleading because the judge only concluded that there was evidence to suggest Trump engaged in insurrection but did not make a definitive recommendation to remove him from the ballot. Secondly, the article quotes Erickson as saying that even if he disagrees with his reasoning, Trump's name should be removed from the Illinois primary ballot. However, this statement contradicts what was stated earlier in the article and is therefore deceptive.
The article quotes Erickson as saying that even if he disagrees with his reasoning, Trump's name should be removed from the Illinois primary ballot. However, this statement contradicts what was stated earlier in the article and is therefore deceptive.
The author claims that a retired Republican judge has recommended removing Trump from Illinois' primary ballot for allegedly engaging in an insurrection. However, this statement is misleading because the judge only concluded that there was evidence to suggest Trump engaged in insurrection but did not make a definitive recommendation to remove him from the ballot.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Bradford Betz and he has a clear political bias. He uses language that dehumanizes Trump supporters by calling them white supremacists online celebrating the reference to racist conspiracy theories. The author also quotes from an interview with former longtime Kankakee County Judge Clark Erickson, who acted as hearing officer on voters' challenge to Trump's eligibility and concluded that a preponderance of evidence presented proves that Trump engaged in insurrection.
GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has been dog-whistling to supporters of extremist far-right ideologies and wild conspiracy theories like QAnon
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republican-ex-judge-argued-trump engaged in insurrection,-should be removed>
Immediately, white supremacists online celebrated the reference to the racist and antisemitic conspiracy.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of former President Donald Trump and his involvement in the January 6th attack on the U.S Capitol.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Donald Trump's involvement in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol as they are reporting for Fox News which is known to be pro-Trump.
Former President Donald Trump engaged in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol
Retired state judge Clark Erickson recommended that Illinois State Board of Elections dismiss case against Trump because they don't have authority to vet candidates based on federal constitutional considerations.
If panel believes it has statutory authority to review Trump's eligibility under 14th Amendment, then they should remove him from the ballot
Trump led an elaborate plan to disrupt peaceful transfer of power and later tried to give himself cover by halfheartedly calling for peace
Erickson assessed Trump's public comments during attack, including tweets that told supporters to stay peaceful without directing them to leave US Capitol building at time they were ransacking it
Trump lashed out at Pence for not overturning 2020 election while presiding over joint session of Congress to certify results
Accuracy
Several Illinois voters filed challenge against Trump, arguing state should remove him from 2024 presidential ballots based on his role in January 6 insurrection
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump engaged in insurrection but then goes on to say that he should stay on the ballot. This contradicts itself and creates confusion for readers who may not understand what the author means by 'engaged'. Secondly, Erickson's recommendation is based solely on his interpretation of federal constitutional considerations which are irrelevant to Illinois state elections. Thirdly, Erickson claims that Trump led an elaborate plan to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power but fails to provide any evidence for this claim. Fourthly, Erickson states that Trump received reports about violence being a likely possibility on January 6th but does not mention anything about him taking action or trying to prevent it from happening. Lastly, Erickson's recommendation is based solely on his interpretation of public comments and tweets which are subjective and can be interpreted differently by different people.
The article claims that Trump engaged in insurrection but then goes on to say he should stay on the ballot. This contradicts itself.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the decision of a retired judge without providing any evidence or reasoning for why this judge's opinion should be trusted over others. Additionally, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either Trump is disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment or he stays on the ballot. This ignores other possible solutions and oversimplifies a complex issue. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric, such as describing Trump's actions as an
Bias
(80%)
Marshall Cohen's article contains several examples of bias. Firstly, the author uses loaded language such as 'insurrectionist ban', which is a highly charged term that implies moral judgment and dehumanization of those involved in the January 6th attack. Secondly, there are multiple instances where the author quotes Trump without providing any context or analysis beyond what was said. This allows for an uninformed reader to draw their own conclusions about Trump's actions without being given a balanced perspective on events. Thirdly, Erickson's recommendation is presented as objective and impartial when in fact it contains several biased statements such as 'the board doesn’t have the authority to vet candidates based on federal constitutional considerations'. This statement implies that there are no legitimate reasons for Trump to be disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment, which is not true. Finally, Erickson's conclusion that Trump engaged in and supported insurrection is presented as a fact without any evidence or context provided. The author does not provide any counterarguments or alternative perspectives on events.
Erickson's recommendation that the board doesn’t have authority to vet candidates based on federal constitutional considerations
Quoting Trump without providing context
The use of the term 'insurrectionist ban'
'Trump engaged in and supported insurrection'
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Marshall Cohen has a conflict of interest on the topic of Trump's involvement in the January 6 insurrection as he is reporting on an evidentiary hearing at which lawyers from both sides clashed over whether Trump is disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment's 'insurrectionist ban.'
Marshall Cohen reported on an evidentiary hearing at which lawyers from both sides clashed over whether Trump is disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment's 'insurrectionist ban.'
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Marshall Cohen has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and insurrection as he is reporting on an evidentiary hearing at which lawyers from both sides clashed over whether Trump is disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment's 'insurrectionist ban.'
Marshall Cohen reported that a retired state judge, Clark Erickson, told the Illinois State Board of Elections that Trump should stay on the ballot despite his role in the January 6 insurrection.
The article mentions an evidentiary hearing at which lawyers from both sides clashed over whether Trump is disqualified from holding office under the 14th Amendment's 'insurrectionist ban.'
. The upcoming primary election in Illinois should not include the name of former President Donald Trump on the ballot.
Former President Donald J. Trump is facing official challenges to his candidacy in 35 states.
The decision to remove Trump's name from the ballot should be left to the courts.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing a retired judge's recommendation without providing any evidence or reasoning for their conclusion. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the January 6th attack as an 'insurrection'.
]Oops! Something went wrong. Please try again later.
