New York judge denied former President Donald Trump's request to delay his upcoming criminal trial in the state.
The trial is related to hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
On April 3, 2024, a New York judge denied former President Donald Trump's request to delay his upcoming criminal trial in the state. The trial is related to hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Trump had failed to file his motion for a delay by a legal deadline and raised real questions about its sincerity and purpose.
Trump's lawyers have previously argued that he is immune from prosecution under the doctrine of presidential immunity, but this claim has been rejected in federal court. The trial is set to begin with jury selection on April 15.
Trump has been accused of covering up a sex scandal surrounding the 2016 presidential campaign.
Judge Juan Merchan denied the request to delay Trump's trial related to a 'hush money' payment made by an attorney for Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election until after the U.S. Supreme Court rules on whether he is shielded from criminal prosecution by 'presidential immunity'
Trump has been charged in Georgia in an election interference case
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'hush money trial' and 'Trump gag order expanded', which creates a false sense of urgency and importance for readers without providing any context or information about what exactly this means. Secondly, the author quotes Trump saying that he is shielded from criminal prosecution by presidential immunity in another one of his criminal cases, but does not provide any evidence to support this claim. This statement is misleading as it implies that Trump has already been found guilty of a crime and is now seeking immunity, when in fact the case has yet to be decided. Thirdly, the author uses selective reporting by only mentioning one aspect of Trump's criminal case (the hush money payment) while ignoring other cases such as his alleged mishandling of classified documents and election interference charges. This creates a biased view of Trump's legal situation and misrepresents the full scope of his criminal activity.
The article uses sensationalist language to create a false sense of urgency for readers without providing any context or information about what exactly this means.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Trump has been charged with 34 felony counts without providing any evidence or context for these charges. Secondly, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either Trump is shielded from criminal prosecution by presidential immunity or he is not. This oversimplifies a complex legal issue and ignores other possible outcomes. Thirdly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Trump's lawyers as accusing prosecutors of misconduct without providing any evidence to support this claim.
The article states that Trump has been charged with 34 felony counts without providing any evidence or context for these charges. This is an example of a false dilemma fallacy.
Bias
(85%)
The author has a clear bias towards President Trump. The article repeatedly mentions his name and portrays him as the main character in the story. The author also uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with Trump's views, such as calling them 'stormtroopers'. Additionally, the article presents information about other ongoing legal cases involving Trump in a way that makes it seem like they are all connected and part of an overall effort to bring him down. This creates a sense of urgency and importance around these cases that may not be warranted.
The article presents information about other ongoing legal cases involving Trump in a way that makes it seem like they are all connected and part of an overall effort to bring him down. For example: 'Trump has been busy defending himself in several criminal cases as he runs for the White House.'
The author repeatedly mentions President Trump's name throughout the article, such as in the first sentence: 'Judge refuses to delay Trump's "hush money" trial while Supreme Court weighs presidential immunity'
The author uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with Trump's views, such as calling them 'stormtroopers'. For example: 'Trump gag order expanded in hush money case'
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Trump's hush money trial as they are reporting for CBS News which is owned by ViacomCBS. The company also owns Cohen Media Group, which represents Michael Cohen and was involved in the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.
The article mentions that 'Cohen Media Group has been fighting to keep its client's communications with Trump confidential.'
The article states that 'Trump’s lawyers have argued that he cannot be held criminally liable for the hush money payments because of his status as president at the time.'
The former president had asked the judge to push back his Manhattan criminal trial
Mr. Trump was accused of covering up a sex scandal surrounding the 2016 presidential campaign.
Judge Juan M. Merchan ruled that Mr. Trump's request for delay was untimely and raised real questions about its sincerity and purpose.
Accuracy
The former president had asked the judge to push back his Manhattan criminal trial, slated to begin April 15, until after the Supreme Court decides whether he is immune from prosecution.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author implies that Trump's request for a delay was made because he believes he will be found not guilty by the Supreme Court. However, this is not stated explicitly and could be interpreted as speculation rather than factual reporting.
Mr. Trump had already secured a three-week delay in the Manhattan trial, pushing it from March to mid-April, after new investigative records emerged.
The judge overseeing Donald J. Trump’s criminal case in Manhattan rejected his last-ditch bid to delay a trial beyond April 15
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments this month and might not rule until June on whether Trump is immune from prosecution over official acts he took while president. This statement implies that the Supreme Court's decision will be final, which may not necessarily be true as there could be further appeals or legal challenges. Additionally, the author uses a dichotomous depiction by stating that Mr. Trump has asked for a delay in his trial until after the Supreme Court rules on whether he is immune from prosecution over official acts he took while president and then denying this request as untimely. This creates an either-or situation where there are only two options, when in reality, there may be other factors to consider. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that Mr. Trump's effort was his latest bid to delay his four criminal cases and if he can stall the cases until Election Day, then they would likely grind to a halt.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments this month and might not rule until June on whether Trump is immune from prosecution over official acts he took while president.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that suggests the author is biased towards Trump. The sentence says 'Mr. Trump had already secured a three-week delay in the Manhattan trial', which implies that he was trying to stall his cases and it also implies that he has some power or influence over the judicial process, which could be seen as an attempt at bias.
The sentence says 'Mr. Trump had already secured a three-week delay in the Manhattan trial'
This statement suggests that Mr. Trump is trying to stall his cases and implies he has some power or influence over the judicial process.
Trump lost an attempt to claim presidential immunity in his upcoming criminal hush money trial in New York
Judge Juan Merchan rejected the immunity claim
The judge expanded Trump's gag order this week and seems determined to move the case forward
Accuracy
The judge rejected the immunity claim because it was untimely as he could have raised it earlier but only did so last month, just 17 days before the trial was previously set to go to court on March 25
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that suggests the author has an ideological bias against President Trump. The sentence reads: 'This latest failed effort was a presidential immunity claim, but Judge Juan Merchan rejected it out of hand.' This implies that the judge is rejecting Trump's claims because they are not valid or legitimate, rather than simply following legal procedures. Additionally, the article mentions that this is a separate immunity claim from one in Trump's federal election interference case and cites the Supreme Court's decision to review it as evidence for why Merchan rejected it. This suggests that the author may be trying to discredit Trump by implying that his claims are not supported by legal precedent or authority.
This latest failed effort was a presidential immunity claim, but Judge Juan Merchan rejected it out of hand.
Trump was charged with falsifying business records by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on April 4, 2023.
The trial is scheduled to begin on April 15 and the defendant raised a plea to delay it until after the Supreme Court rules on his broad claim of presidential immunity.
Trump then reimbursed Cohen through monthly checks that were disguised as payments for 2017 legal services and documented in the form of false business records at the Trump Organization, according to prosecutors. New York law hikes the falsification crime up to a felony when the purpose of the disguise was to commit or conceal another crime.
The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for April 25, and has discretion over when to issue a decision after that. But Merchan said Wednesday that Trump chose not to raise the presidential immunity defense until well past a 45-day period allotted under New York law for filing pre-trial motions after being arraigned.
Trump showed he was aware long ago that the presidential immunity defense was available to him, Merchan said. The judge noted Trump had fully briefed the issue in his separate federal election interference case by Oct. 5, and that he also discussed presidential immunity issues almost a year ago, when he tried to get the hush money case moved from state court to federal court on May 4.
Given the timeliness issue, Merchan wrote that he wouldn't consider the merits of Trump's argument.
Accuracy
The New York case centers around whether Trump criminally falsified business records in order to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment by Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. In exchange for the cash, Daniels agreed to stay quiet.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is biased towards President Trump. The language used in the article repeatedly refers to Trump as a 'former president' and uses phrases such as 'Trump raised the argument too late'. Additionally, there are multiple instances where quotes from legal documents are presented without context or explanation, which could be seen as an attempt to present information in a way that supports the author's bias. The article also presents only one side of the story and does not provide any counter-arguments or alternative perspectives.
Quotes from legal documents are presented without context or explanation
The language used repeatedly refers to Trump as a 'former president'
Trump raised the argument too late
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest on several topics related to the case. The author is affiliated with USA TODAY which has previously reported on Trump's hush money payment and Stormy Daniels. Additionally, Michael Cohen was sentenced by Alvin Bragg who will be presiding over this trial.
The article mentions that USA TODAY had previously reported on the hush money payment made to Stormy Daniels.
Trump had myriad opportunities to raise the claim of presidential immunity well before March 7,
The criminal trial related to hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign is scheduled to begin with jury selection on April 15.
Trump has been busy defending himself in several criminal cases as he runs for the White House.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that Trump's motion to delay the trial was denied. This statement implies that there was a significant chance of success and creates an emotional response in readers without providing any context or evidence for this claim.
The article states 'This story has been updated with additional information.'
The article states 'Judge Juan Merchan denied the motion Wednesday calling it untimely and noting Trump’s lawyers had months to file a motion over the issue.' This statement is deceptive because it implies that there was an opportunity for Trump's lawyers to file a motion, which is not supported by any evidence.
The article states 'CNN The judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s upcoming New York criminal trial denied his motion to delay its start until after the US Supreme Court rules on Trump’s presidential immunity claim.' This statement is deceptive because it implies that there was a significant chance of success for Trump's motion, which is not supported by any evidence.
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is biased towards Trump. The language used in describing his motion to delay the trial and his claim of presidential immunity are highly sensationalized and exaggerated.
> Judge Juan Merchan denied former President Donald Trump's motion to delay its start until after the US Supreme Court rules on Trump's presidential immunity claim. <br> > The judge presiding over former President Donald Trump's upcoming New York criminal trial denied his motion to delay its start until after the US Supreme Court rules on Trump's presidential immunity claim. <br> > Judge Juan Merchan denied the motion Wednesday calling it untimely and noting Trump's lawyers had months to file a motion over the issue. <br> > The judge presiding over former President Donald Trump's upcoming New York criminal trial denied his motion to delay its start until after the US Supreme Court rules on Trump's presidential immunity claim.
The author describes the judge's ruling in a way that makes it seem like he is against Trump, when in reality the judge simply denied the motion because it was untimely.
The author uses highly sensationalized language such as 'highly biased' to describe Trump and his lawyers.
The author uses highly sensationalized language such as 'myriad opportunities', 'credulity', and 'presidential acts'.
