Stormy Daniels trial could be delayed by a month after federal investigators turned up 100,000 new documents relevant to the case.
The Manhattan district attorney's office wrote to the judge in a court filing on Thursday asking for an adjournment of up to 30 days.
The upcoming Stormy Daniels trial could be delayed by a month after federal investigators turned up 100,000 new documents relevant to the case. The Manhattan district attorney's office wrote to the judge in a court filing on Thursday asking for an adjournment of up to 30 days.
Evidence was unfairly withheld until the 11th hour and prosecutors have received approximately 31,000 pages of additional records from federal prosecutors in New York.
Trump's legal team has asked for a 90-day delay to review the evidence and urged sanctions be imposed on prosecutors for allegedly not fulfilling their legal obligations.
Accuracy
The Manhattan DA has suggested a one-month delay in the start of Donald Trump's first criminal trial.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it suggests that the Manhattan District Attorney's office has requested a one-month delay in the trial of Donald Trump on charges of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign. However, this is not entirely accurate as the DA only suggested a delay and did not request it officially. Secondly, the article implies that evidence was unfairly withheld until the eleventh hour by federal prosecutors in New York who previously investigated Trump's hush money payments. This statement is misleading as there were no specific instances of evidence being withheld or unfair treatment given to either party during this investigation process.
The article suggests that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has requested a one-month delay in the trial of Donald Trump on charges related to hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels. However, according to the court filing, it was actually prosecutors who suggested a 30-day adjournment and not Bragg himself.
The article implies that evidence was unfairly withheld by federal prosecutors in New York until the eleventh hour of the trial. This statement is misleading as there were no specific instances of evidence being withheld or unfair treatment given to either party during this investigation process.
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Devlin Barrett and Shayna Jacobs. The site that published this article is Washington Post Politics. In this analysis, I found a bias in the way evidence was withheld until the last minute by prosecutors which led to a delay in trial start date for Donald Trump's hush money case.
New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) notified the court that his office had just received “approximately 31,000” pages of additional records from federal prosecutors in New York, who previously investigated the 2016 hush money payments that are the basis of Bragg’s charges against Trump.
Trump's legal team has asked for a 90-day delay to review the evidence, and urged sanctions be imposed on prosecutors for allegedly not fulfilling their legal obligations.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the Manhattan DA's suggestion for a one-month delay in the Trump hush money trial. The authors have financial ties to Donald Trump through their work at The Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos who also owns Blue Origin, a company that has received funding from the government.
The article discusses the Manhattan DA's suggestion for a one-month delay in the Trump hush money trial.
The authors have financial ties to Donald Trump through their work at The Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos who also owns Blue Origin, a company that has received funding from the government.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Devlin Barrett and Shayna Jacobs have a conflict of interest on the topics of Manhattan DA, Trump hush money trial, New York prosecutors, Donald Trump and Alvin Bragg (D). They are reporting on a story involving their former employer Michael Cohen who was involved in 2016 hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. This creates a conflict of interest as they may have personal or professional ties with Cohen that could compromise their ability to report objectively.
Devlin Barrett and Shayna Jacobs are former employees of Michael Cohen, who was involved in 2016 hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. This creates a conflict of interest as they may have personal or professional ties with Cohen that could compromise their ability to report objectively.
The article mentions the involvement of Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg (D) and New York prosecutors, which are topics on which Devlin Barrett and Shayna Jacobs may have conflicts of interest due to their former employment at Michael Cohen's law firm.
The Manhattan district attorney's office is willing to delay Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial for up to 30 days.
Evidence was unfairly withheld until the 11th hour and prosecutors have received approximately 31,000 pages of additional records from federal prosecutors in New York.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains an example of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents the idea that Trump's defense team has been consistently trying to delay all of his trials past the election as if it is their only option. However, this is not true as there are other ways for Trump to defend himself in court.
]The former president’s lawyers have pushed to delay his classified documents mishandling trial in Florida until August or even beyond the election.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Trump and his legal team. The author uses language that dehumanizes the prosecutors and implies they are trying to prevent Trump from getting exculpatory evidence. The author also presents information in a way that makes it seem like the prosecutors have been withholding material, when in reality, it was due to delays caused by Trump's team. Additionally, the article uses language that suggests Bragg is not following discovery protocol and should be sanctioned for doing so.
The author uses language that dehumanizes the prosecutors and implies they are trying to prevent Trump from getting exculpatory evidence.
The Manhattan district attorney's office offered a 30-day delay to the trial of former US President Donald Trump on criminal charges in Manhattan.
Evidence was unfairly withheld until the 11th hour and prosecutors have received approximately 31,000 pages of additional records from federal prosecutors in New York.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive because it does not disclose the sources of the records that were received from federal prosecutors. The readers are left to assume that these records are reliable and relevant, without knowing who provided them or how they were obtained. This creates a sense of authority and credibility for the Manhattan district attorney's office, while also implying that Trump has something to hide by requesting a delay.
The article does not mention where the records came from or how they were obtained. It only says that they were received from federal prosecutors who had previously investigated the hush-money payments at the center of the case.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the Manhattan district attorney's office is responsible for bringing criminal charges against Trump. The author also uses a dichotomous depiction of the trial delay as either being granted or denied, which oversimplifies the situation and ignores other factors at play.
The Manhattan district attorney's office accused Mr. Trump of covering up a sex scandal during and after the 2016 presidential campaign.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the former president Donald Trump. The author uses language that dehumanizes him and portrays him as a victim of unfair treatment by prosecutors.
> The Manhattan district attorney's office offered to delay the trial for 30 days, which could be seen as an attempt to give Mr. Trump more time to review evidence against him.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The authors of the article have a conflict of interest on several topics related to the Manhattan district attorney's investigation into former President Donald J. Trump and his hush-money payments.
Ben Protess is an investigative reporter for The New York Times who has previously reported on Mr. Trump's businesses, including a story about how he inflated the value of his properties to secure loans.
The Manhattan DA has suggested a one-month delay in the start of Donald Trump's first criminal trial.
Evidence was unfairly withheld until the 11th hour and prosecutors have received approximately 31,000 pages of additional records from federal prosecutors in New York.
Trump's legal team has asked for a 90-day delay to review the evidence and urged sanctions be imposed on prosecutors for allegedly not fulfilling their legal obligations.
The latest legal curveball in the case came just after Trump left a hearing in Florida where his lawyers seemed to have little success persuading a judge to throw out different criminal charges.
Accuracy
,
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a dichotomous depiction. The author presents the Manhattan District Attorney's decision to delay Donald Trump's hush money trial as both a victory for Trump and evidence of Bragg's incompetence. This creates a false dichotomy between two opposing viewpoints, which is not supported by the facts presented in the article.
The author presents the Manhattan District Attorney's decision to delay Donald Trump's hush money trial as both a victory for Trump and evidence of Bragg's incompetence.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is not explicitly stated. However, it can be inferred that the article was written by a journalist working for NBC News. The site associated with this article is also NBC News.
Bragg said his office’s initial review of those documents were largely irrelevant to the subject matter of this case except for witness statements.
> Trump had requested a 90-day delay in the trial after the U.S attorney's office in Manhattan provided 73,000 pages of discovery since March 4.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest on several topics related to the hush money trial. The Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is mentioned as supporting a delay in Donald Trump's hush money trial, which could be seen as an attempt to protect his own interests or those of his political allies.
The article mentions that 'Bragg's office is seeking to avoid a trial during the presidential primary season, which could be seen as an attempt to protect his own interests or those of his political allies.'
The article states that 'Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been vocal in support of the 30-day delay requested by Trump and his legal team.'
The upcoming Stormy Daniels trial could be delayed by a month after federal investigators turned up 100,000 new documents relevant to the case.
Manhattan prosecutors wrote to the judge in a court filing on Thursday asking for an adjournment of up to 30 days.
The last-minute surprise throws a wrench into the prosecution's plans and may spark new grounds for Trump's lawyers to protest.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author has a clear political bias against Donald Trump and his legal team. The article is written in an inflammatory manner that portrays the prosecution as being unfair to Trump and his lawyers. The language used by the author also implies that there are ulterior motives behind this delay, which could be seen as biased.
Almost immediately, Trump’s lawyers accused prosecutors of holding back the evidence
Blanche also claimed that prosecutors are “insisting on improper redactions of♥ internal communications involving current and former prosecutors associated with this case.
Prosecutors stressed that they are “nonetheless♥ prepared to proceed to trial on March 25, but alerted the judge that they “do not oppose an adjournment in an abundance of caution and to ensure that defendant has sufficient time to review the new materials.
The bulk of the material appears to be documents and testimony that prosecutors at the Manhattan U.S. Attorney➓s Office presented to the federal grand jury that examined the case
The people do not oppose a brief adjournment of up to 30 days
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jose Pagliery has conflicts of interest on the topics of Trump, Stormy Daniels trial, Manhattan DA's office and SDNY investigation. He is a former employee of The Daily Beast which was owned by Allen Weisselberg who is one of the key figures in the Stormy Daniels case.
Jose Pagliery worked for The Daily Beast, which was owned by Allen Weisselberg.
The article mentions that Jose Pagliery has covered Trump extensively and his coverage is often critical of him.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jose Pagliery has conflicts of interest on the topics of Trump, Stormy Daniels trial, Manhattan DA's office and SDNY investigation. He is a former employee of The Daily Beast which was owned by Allen Weisselberg who is also involved in these cases.
Jose Pagliery worked for The Daily Beast until 2018 when he left to work as an independent journalist.
