Court could reject Trump's immunity claim outright or rule that former presidents retain some immunity but Trump's actions fall beyond it
Justice Department argues there is no bar against charging a former president
Outcome of case could have significant implications for future prosecutions of former presidents
Supreme Court hearing arguments on Trump's immunity from federal prosecution for alleged election interference
Trump's lawyers claim absolute immunity
The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments on a case that could determine whether former President Donald Trump is immune from federal prosecution for his alleged involvement in plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The Justice Department argues that there is no bar against charging a former president, while Trump's lawyers claim that they are entitled to absolute immunity. The court has multiple paths to decide the case, including rejecting Trump's immunity claim outright or ruling that former presidents do retain some immunity but Trump's actions fall beyond it.
The trial is likely to take months if the case returns to Chutkan and could threaten running up against the November presidential election if it doesn't begin by August. The court has heard arguments from both sides, with Justice Department lawyer Michael Dreeben arguing that Trump's actions were not official acts protected by immunity, and Trump attorney John Sauer arguing that a president who ordered a coup would need to be impeached and convicted beforehand.
The case comes as Trump faces multiple criminal investigations related to his business dealings and efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future prosecutions of former presidents.
It is important to note that all information provided should be taken with a critical eye, as there may be biases present in any given source. It is essential to consider multiple sources and perspectives when forming an informed opinion on the matter.
The Supreme Court appeared ready to reject Donald Trump’s claims of sweeping immunity in his federal election subversion case.
Trump had claimed he had a right to put forward Republican electors in states that he lost in 2020, commonly called ‘fake electors’
Arizona prosecutors announced an indictment targeting Trump’s inner circle, including Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani, for their involvement in the plot.
Michigan investigators revealed that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in their case.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting and editorializing. The authors focus on the potential implications of the case for future presidents and Trump's strategy of delay, while downplaying the significance of Trump's actions in attempting to overturn the election results. They also use loaded language such as 'scathing ruling' and 'politically motivated prosecutions'.
Several members of the court’s conservative majority – including Barrett – appeared concerned about the scope of Trump’s claim that he is entitled to ‘absolute’ immunity.
, The upshot is that the Supreme Court appeared likely to leave much of that work to lower courts, proceedings that could take months and further delay a trial that had originally been set for March 4. That outcome would play into Trump’s strategy of delay and jeopardize a trial before the election.
The court appeared ready to reject former President Donald Trump’s claims of sweeping immunity and the broad protections he has sought to shut down his federal election subversion case, but also reluctant to give special counsel Jack Smith carte blanche to pursue those charges.
Fallacies
(85%)
The authors make several appeals to authority by citing historical precedent and the opinions of legal experts. They also use inflammatory rhetoric by describing Trump's actions as a 'corrupt scheme to overturn the will of the voters' and 'a fraudulent slate of electors'. However, they do not make any explicit fallacious arguments based on false premises or logical errors.
]The Justice Department charged Trump with federal crimes in connection with the fake electors scheme.[/
Arizona prosecutors announced their sweeping indictment Wednesday night, which targeted the electors themselves and members of Trump's inner circle, including Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani.
Michigan investigators also revealed Wednesday that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in their case.
Bias
(80%)
The authors express a reluctance to give special counsel Jack Smith carte blanche to pursue charges against Trump, and criticize the lower court's ruling that virtually all of Trump's actions were subject to prosecution. They also question the distinction between official and private acts alleged in the charges, with Trump's attorney conceding that some of the alleged conduct was private. The authors do not explicitly express bias towards or against Trump, but their language suggests a reluctance to see him face prosecution.
As I read it, it says simply a former president can be prosecuted because he’s being prosecuted. Why shouldn’t we either send it back to the court of appeals or issue an opinion making clear that that’s not the law?
In response, Sauer said there was historical precedent for presidents to get involved with these matters, pointing to the contested presidential election of 1876, where there were well-founded claims of fraud, and multiple slates of electors in several key states. (Sauer used the term ‘so-called fraudulent electors.’)
Several members of the court’s conservative majority appeared concerned about the scope of Trump’s claim that he is entitled to ‘absolute’ immunity.
The court appeared ready to reject former President Donald Trump’s claims of sweeping immunity and the broad protections he has sought to shut down his federal election subversion case, but also reluctant to give special counsel Jack Smith carte blanche to pursue those charges.
The special counsel has expressed some concern for speed. She asked DOJ attorney Michael Dreeben if the trial court can sort out what’s official or private acts of the presidency or whether there 'Canother option for the special counsel just to proceed on the private conduct?'
Trump is debating his claim of immunity from prosecution for allegedly conspiring to undo the results of the 2020 election.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court is debating former president Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution for allegedly conspiring to undo the results of the 2020 election.
Several justices seemed willing to embrace a result that could jeopardize the ability to hold a trial before the November election.
Trump had claimed he had a right to put forward Republican electors in states that he lost in 2020, commonly called ‘fake electors’
Federal and state prosecutors disagree with Trump’s position on the fake electors scheme, considering it a criminal scheme. The Justice Department charged Trump with federal crimes in connection with the fake electors scheme.
Arizona prosecutors announced an indictment targeting Trump’s inner circle, including Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani, for their involvement in the plot.
Michigan investigators revealed that Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in their case.
Deception
(70%)
The authors provide their opinions and interpretations of the Supreme Court argument, which is a form of editorializing. They also use phrases like 'big takeaways' and 'huge implications', which can be seen as sensationalist. Additionally, they quote Michael Dreeben stating that the current legal system 'works pretty well', but do not disclose that this statement was made in the context of arguing for Trump's prosecution. This could be seen as selective reporting.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. slammed the sweeping decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that denied Trump’s immunity claim.
The Supreme Court ruling is considered hugely important to Trump’s political and legal chances, but conservative justices kept insisting they were more worried about all future White House officeholders than the specific fate of the 45th president.
The ruling, which could come in June, could do far more than chart the course of Trump’s case; it may forever alter the boundaries of presidential power. ‘We’re writing a rule for the ages,’ Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
Fallacies
(75%)
The author does not make any fallacious assertions in the article. They report on the Supreme Court argument regarding Trump's immunity without injecting their own opinions or making appeals to authority. However, there are some instances of inflammatory rhetoric and a few examples of dichotomous depictions.
The ruling, which could come in June, could do far more than chart the course of Trump’s case; it may forever alter the boundaries of presidential power. ‚ÄúWe’re writing a rule for the ages,‚Äù Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
As they try to write such a rule, here are the big takeaways from the oral argument:
The current legal system ‚Äúworks pretty well.‚Äù It may need some fine tuning in the form of whatever ruling the court makes, he said, but not ‚Äúthe radical proposal‚Äù offered by Trump’s lawyer ¬– that Trump, and all presidents, operate with broad protection from criminal prosecution.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. slammed the sweeping decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that denied Trump’s immunity claim.
Former President Donald Trump's attorney, John Sauer, clashed with Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan over a hypothetical question regarding whether a president who ‘ordered’ a ‘coup’ could be prosecuted.
Sauer argued that if such an act were considered an ‘official act’, the president would need to be impeached and convicted beforehand.
Kagan questioned whether directing the military to stage a coup would constitute an official act, as Trump was no longer in office and had not been impeached or convicted.
Accuracy
Former President Donald Trump's attorney, John Sauer, clashed with Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan over a hypothetical question regarding whether a president who 'ordered' a 'coup' could be prosecuted.
Sauer argued that if such an act were considered an 'official act', the president would need to be impeached and convicted beforehand.
The Supreme Court is currently weighing whether Trump is immune from prosecution in Special Counsel Jack Smith's election interference case.
Deception
(50%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position. The author does not provide any context or information about the ongoing trial in New York City where Trump is accused of falsifying business records, which could potentially impact the immunity argument being discussed in this article. Additionally, there are emotional manipulation and sensationalism as the article uses phrases like 'staged a coup' and 'extreme hypothetical' to grab the reader's attention.
That answer sounds to me as though it’s like, ‘Yeah, under my test it’s an official act.’ But that sure sounds bad, doesn’t it?
Join Fox News for access to this content You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.
He was the president. He is the commander in chief. He talks to his generals all the time. And he told the generals, ‘I don’t feel like leaving office. I want to stage a coup.’ Is that immune [from prosecution]?
Trump's case stems from his efforts to delay or dismiss the Justice Department’s case against him over election interference and Jan. 6 riot
Sauer, Trump’s attorney, suggested that a president could be immune from prosecution if he orders someone to assassinate a rival
Sauer also claimed that a president could theoretically be immune from prosecution for selling nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary or carrying out or attempting to carry out a coup against the government
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(75%)
The author makes an appeal to authority fallacy by quoting attorney D. John Sauer's statement that 'it would depend on the hypothetical but we can see that could well be an official act' regarding a president ordering someone to assassinate a rival. This statement is not a logical argument and does not prove that such an action would be considered an official act subject to immunity.
'It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act.', Sauer told the court.
Bias
(5%)
The author, Nikki McCann Ramirez, suggests that a president could potentially be immune from prosecution for ordering an assassination of a political rival. This is an example of ideological bias as it implies that it is acceptable for a president to commit such an extreme act without facing consequences.
It would depend on the hypothetical but we can see that could well be an official act.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from federal prosecution for plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Justice Department policy prohibits indicting a sitting president, but there’s no bar against charging a former one.
Trump’s lawyers argue that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity. They warn of potential floodgate of prosecutions against former presidents if they’re not entitled to immunity.
A quick decision in the Justice Department’s favor could put the case on track for trial this fall. A delay until late June increases the likelihood that the November presidential election will happen without a jury deciding whether Trump is criminally responsible for efforts to undo an election he lost.
The court has multiple paths to decide the case, including rejecting Trump’s immunity claim outright, reversing lower courts by declaring former presidents may not be prosecuted for conduct related to official acts during their time in office, or ruling that former presidents do retain some immunity but Trump’s actions fall beyond it.
The trial is likely to take months if the case returns to Chutkan and could threaten running up against the election if it doesn’t begin by August.
Accuracy
Trump’s lawyers argue that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity.
Several justices seemed willing to embrace a result that could jeopardize the ability to hold a trial before the November election.
