Defense attorney Emil Bove argued for more congressional oversight or a decision that the way the special counsel's office is funded is unlawful due to its reliance on an indefinite appropriation outside of the normal budget process.
DOJ prosecutor James Pearce argued that eight other special counsels had been funded in a similar manner and hinted at potential far-reaching implications if Cannon's ruling went against this practice.
Judge Aileen Cannon questioned legality of Special Counsel Jack Smith's funding in Trump classified documents case during two hearings on June 23 and 24, 2024.
Trump pleaded not guilty to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials following his departure from the White House.
Trump requested a gag order to limit his speech regarding the raid of his Mar-a-Lago estate during the second hearing.
Former President Donald Trump's classified documents case in Florida saw two significant hearings on June 23 and 24, with Judge Aileen Cannon questioning the funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigation and considering a potential gag order for Trump. The hearings came after Trump pleaded not guilty to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials following his departure from the White House.
On June 23, during the first hearing, Cannon questioned Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor James Pearce about the legality of Smith's funding. Pearce argued that eight other special counsels had been funded in a similar manner and hinted at potential far-reaching implications if her ruling went against this practice.
The second hearing on June 24 focused on Trump's request for a gag order to limit his speech regarding the raid of his Mar-a-Lago estate. Defense attorney Emil Bove argued that Cannon should insist on more congressional oversight or decide that the way the special counsel's office is funded is unlawful due to its reliance on an indefinite appropriation outside of the normal budget process.
Throughout both hearings, Trump's defense team and prosecutors presented their arguments regarding Smith's appointment as special counsel and its constitutionality. The hearings received extensive coverage from various news outlets, including CNN, ABC News, and Fox News.
Judge Aileen Cannon questioned prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith's team to show how former President Donald Trump's repeated comments about the FBI translated into a threat against law enforcement officers.
Trump attorney Emil Bove advocated at Monday’s hearing that Cannon should insist on more congressional oversight of the special counsel’s office’s work, or decide that the way the office is funded is unlawful because, he says, the money is being used in a way Congress hasn’t authorized.
Accuracy
Judge Aileen Cannon challenged prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith’s team to show how former President Donald Trump’s repeated comments about the FBI translated into a threat against law enforcement officers.
The special counsel’s office says that a gag order is needed because Trump has repeatedly, and misleadingly, alleged that the agents who searched his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022 were authorized to murder him.
Cannon did not seem inclined to approve the limitations on Trump’s speech but did not immediately issue a ruling.
Prosecutor David Harbach responded that other posts and comments by Trump ‘Ultimately result in all types of terrible things, including threats or harassment of law enforcement.'
Defense attorney Todd Blanche said there were no threats to FBI agents in Trump’s email or social media posts cited by the government.
Justice Department attorneys have responded in court that the special counsel operates in line with established policies, in place over several decades and administrations, and that the DOJ is committed to continuing to fund this prosecution of Trump under the attorney general’s authorization.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains editorializing and selective reporting. The authors use phrases like 'long-shot motion', 'misleadingly alleged', 'ultimately result in all types of terrible things' to manipulate the reader's emotions and perception of the situation. They also only report details that support their position, such as Trump's repeated comments and Harbach's irritation with Cannon, while omitting important context like Trump's defense attorney arguing there were no threats to FBI agents in his emails or social media posts. The authors also do not disclose any sources for the information they are reporting.
Cannon quickly stopped Harbach, telling him, ‘I don’t appreciate your tone.’ She added that she would ‘appreciate decorum at all times’ and said, ‘If you aren’t able to do that, I’m sure one of your colleagues can take up arguing this motion.’
Prosecutor David Harbach responded that other posts and comments by Trump ‘ultimately result in all types of terrible things,’ including threats or harassment of law enforcement.
The special counsel’s office says that a gag order is needed because Trump has repeatedly, and misleadingly, alleged that the agents who searched his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022 were authorized to murder him.
Fallacies
(85%)
The authors make an appeal to authority by referencing past court rulings and the established policies of the DOJ. They also use inflammatory rhetoric by describing Trump's comments as 'misleading' and 'ultimately result in all types of terrible things'. However, they do not directly attribute these descriptions to Trump himself, but rather to the potential consequences of his comments.
]The special counsel's office says that a gag order is needed because Trump has repeatedly, and misleadingly, alleged that the agents who searched his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022 were authorized to murder him.[
Prosecutor David Harbach responded that other posts and comments by Trump 'ultimately result in all types of terrible things, including threats or harassment of law enforcement.'
Bias
(95%)
The authors demonstrate a clear bias towards the special counsel's team and against former President Trump. They use language that depicts Trump as a threat and misleadingly characterize his comments as calls to violence. The authors also fail to provide any evidence of these alleged threats beyond the opinions of prosecutors, and instead rely on vague statements about 'terrible things' that may result from Trump's comments. Additionally, the authors use language that is critical of Trump's defense attorney and dismissive of his arguments.
Cannon repeatedly sparred with Harbach, who she said was being snippy during his arguments.
, Harbach responded that other posts and comments by Trump ‘Ultimately result in all types of terrible things,’ including threats or harassment of law enforcement.
The special counsel's office says that a gag order is needed because Trump has repeatedly, and misleadingly, alleged that the agents who searched his Mar-a-Lago estate in 2022 were authorized to murder him.
Trump's defense attorney, Emil Bove, argued that Smith was being 'unlawfully funded'
Cannon questioned Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutor James Pearce about his argument that there are indefinite appropriations legally made available to the special counsel.
Pearce noted that eight other special counsels were funded in the same manner, potentially hinting that her ruling could have far-reaching implications in other matters.
Accuracy
The second day of hearings on motions from both the defense and prosecution in former President Trump’s classified documents case in Florida ended on Monday.
Trump’s defense attorney, Emil Bove, argued that Smith was being ‘unlawfully funded’. He claimed the funding being used by Smith’s team isn’t authorized by statute, ultimately posing a separation of powers issue.
Assistant special counsel James Pearce claimed that the Department of Justice would commit to funding Smith’s case through the DOJ budget if needed, and that this change would have no effect on the case.
Bove argued that changing the funding source could result in a ‘very strong’ political response, including congressional action and additional motions from defense counsel.
Cannon held a hearing on whether Smith was legally appointed and entertained arguments from outside parties.
Accuracy
Judge Aileen Cannon oversees former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case.
Trump pleaded not guilty to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House.
Defense lawyer Emil Bove argued that the funding for the special counsel’s office is unconstitutional due to its reliance on a ‘permanent indefinite appropriation’ outside of the normal budget process.
Deception
(10%)
The article contains editorializing and pontification by the author. The author expresses their opinion that Judge Aileen Cannon is 'loyal to Trump' and a 'novice judge' who is 'skeptical of the efforts to hold him accountable.' These statements are not facts, but rather opinions. The author also implies that Cannon's actions are part of a larger conspiracy to co-opt the judiciary by the extreme right and MAGA crowd. This is an emotional manipulation and sensationalization of the situation.
The author implies that Cannon's actions are part of a larger conspiracy to co-opt the judiciary by the extreme right and MAGA crowd.
The reality right now is that, even if this long-shot and harebrained effort at derailing the Smith investigations fails, Cannon’s already delivered Trump a significant victory.
Her antics are eating up valuable time, making it less and less likely the documents cases will move to the trial phase before the November election.
The author expresses their opinion that Judge Aileen Cannon is 'loyal to Trump' and a 'novice judge' who is 'skeptical of the efforts to hold him accountable.'
Fallacies
(80%)
The New York Daily News Editorial Board makes several informal fallacies in their article. They make an appeal to authority by stating that the authority of the U.S. attorney general to name a special counsel has been upheld before and citing specific examples. However, they do not provide any legal reasoning or argument as to why this is relevant or how it establishes that Judge Aileen Cannon's actions are fallacious. They also make an inflammatory statement by calling Trump's appointment of Judge Cannon a 'racket' and stating that the judiciary has been 'openly co-opted by the extreme right and the MAGA crowd.' This is an emotional appeal that does not provide any evidence or logical reasoning to support their claim. They also make a dichotomous depiction by implying that Judge Cannon is either a 'novice judge' or 'loyal to Trump,' without providing any evidence or context as to why these two things are mutually exclusive.
]The reality right now is that, even if this long-shot and harebrained effort at derailing the Smith investigations fails, Cannon[s] already delivered Trump a significant victory. Her antics are eating up valuable time, making it less and less likely the documents cases will move to the trial phase before the November election.[
It[s] not just the Supreme Court that has been openly co-opted by the extreme right and the MAGA crowd, but judges at all levels of the judiciary.
Bias
(0%)
The New York Daily News Editorial Board demonstrates ideological bias towards Trump and his actions in this article. The author implies that Judge Aileen Cannon is a 'novice judge' and 'loyal to Trump' who is 'skeptical of the efforts to hold him accountable.' These statements are not based on facts or evidence, but rather the author's opinion of the judge. The author also accuses Trump of being involved in a 'racket' and having co-opted judges at all levels, which is a strong and unsupported assertion.
Her antics are eating up valuable time, making it less and less likely the documents cases will move to the trial phase before the November election.
She even let outside parties join the fray and make their points in court, an extraordinary display of judicial leniency.
That means that the American electorate will not get to see the case presented against Trump in these very serious matters. They also won’t have the chance to know a jury’s verdict.
Voters deserve clarity on the frankly much more serious question of whether Trump can be held responsible for willfully withholding sensitive classified documents. Thanks to Cannon, they probably won’t get that.
Judge Aileen Cannon appeared skeptical of Donald Trump’s arguments that Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel didn’t meet constitutional requirements.
Trump is arguing that Smith - who has brought charges against Trump in Florida and Washington, D.C. - was unlawfully appointed as special counsel.
Accuracy
Trump is arguing that Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel.
Cannon noted there is a regulatory system that Smith must still adhere to, to which Trump’s attorney Emil Bove retorted that Smith still wasn’t reporting to anyone.
Trump pleaded not guilty to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House.
Defense lawyer Emil Bove argued that the funding for the special counsel’s office is unconstitutional due to its reliance on a ‘permanent indefinite appropriation’ outside of the normal budget process.
Deception
(80%)
The authors use the term 'shadow government' to describe Jack Smith's position as special counsel, which is an emotional manipulation and sensationalist way of describing a legal role. They do not provide any evidence or facts to support this claim.
> The authors: 'That sounds very ominous, But what do you really mean?'
> The authors: 'But what do you really mean? Bove did not directly answer the question, but he repeated the argument that Smith was inappropriately appointed. He also said that there should be an additional hearing over the issue, which could include testimony about the relationship between Garland and Smith, arguing that the two have said Smith is acting independently and not under the direction of Garland.'
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(95%)
The authors use the term 'shadow government' to describe the special counsel's position, which could be perceived as implying that there is something sinister or unconstitutional about it. They also repeatedly question whether Garland has properly overseen Smith and whether he has approved of all of Smith's decisions, suggesting that they have concerns about the level of oversight.
Cannon noted there is a regulatory system that Smith must still adhere to – to which Bove retorted that Smith still wasn’t reporting to anyone.
In support of Trump’s motion to toss the case, attorneys for a former attorney general and the right-wing nonprofit Citizens United wrote that because of his appointment outside of the Senate’s review, Smith “is thus one of the most powerful officials in the entire United States Government.”
Prosecutor James Pearce, during his arguments in the morning, said that Garland “could, this very moment” fire Smith, but he added later that Garland did not review all of Smith’s decisions. “We are following all the rules,” Pearce argued. “Has there been any actual oversight?” Cannon pressed.
That sounds very ominous, District Judge Aileen Cannon said to Trump attorney Emil Bove. But what do you really mean?
