Justice Kavanaugh argues no serious constitutional question about applying criminal statute to president
No evidence prosecutors or officials have used criminal cases against Trump as political hits
One-third of adults believe Trump did something illegal related to hush money case
Several justices indicate need for immunity for official acts
Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump's immunity in criminal cases
The Supreme Court heard arguments regarding former President Donald Trump's claims of immunity in relation to federal charges accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. Several justices indicated a need for some level of immunity for official acts, while others expressed concern about past rulings and the specific acts and documents being discussed. Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that there is no serious constitutional question about applying any criminal statute to the president.
Meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham argued that Americans will not vote based on Trump's criminal cases during an interview on CNN's State of the Union. Approximately one-third of adults in the US believe Trump did something illegal related to a hush money case, for which he is facing charges for falsifying business records to hide a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels.
Despite these developments, there is no evidence that prosecutors or other officials have used criminal cases against Trump as political hits. The Supreme Court's handling of the case could further delay and potentially impede Trump's trial.
]The Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. United States, a challenge to special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Donald Trump for election subversion related to Jan. 6.[
Sen. Lindsey Graham argues Americans will not vote based on Donald Trump’s criminal cases.
Deception
(30%)
The authors make editorializing statements and use emotional manipulation by expressing their shock and disbelief at the actions of Justice Alito. They also engage in selective reporting by focusing on specific statements made by Alito without providing context or acknowledging opposing viewpoints.
This was when I went through the looking glass…it literally felt like ‘don’t make me hit you again’ democracy.
,This was another one of those moments when I thought, sorry: Did one of the justices of the United States Supreme Court just imply that everything that happens at the Justice Department is hackery and rigged prosecutions?
,Alito had Dreeben walk through the layers that protect a president from a frivolous or vindictive prosecution. Then he dismissed each one out of hand.
Fallacies
(75%)
The analysis contains several informal fallacies and a few formal ones. The authors commit the ad hominem fallacy by suggesting that Justice Alito has been brain-poisoned by Fox News and is living in MAGA world. They also use an appeal to motive when stating that Alito must have bought Trump's narrative of the case because he is implicitly saying that if Trump gets reelected, he will prosecute people vindictively. Additionally, there are several instances of inflammatory rhetoric such as describing the Supreme Court as having 'lost faith in the entire system' and suggesting that they may be engaging in a 'cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy'. The authors also use an example of a dichotomous depiction by stating that Alito is either attacking Trump's prosecution or he has lost faith in the entire system, without considering other possible explanations. Despite these fallacies, the analysis does provide valuable insight into the arguments presented during the Supreme Court hearing.
The authors suggest that Justice Alito has been brain-poisoned by Fox News.
The authors use an appeal to motive when stating that Alito must have bought Trump's narrative of the case because he is implicitly saying that if Trump gets reelected, he will prosecute people vindictively.
The authors describe the Supreme Court as having 'lost faith in the entire system'
The authors commit an ad hominem fallacy by suggesting that Justice Alito is living in MAGA world.
Bias
(5%)
The authors express a clear bias against the Supreme Court's conservative justices, specifically Justice Alito. They imply that he is living in 'MAGA world' and dismiss his concerns about vindictive prosecutions as unfounded. They also use language that depicts the conservative justices as being hostile to criminal defendants and partisan hacks.
And this was certainly not the Roberts court that I expected to show up at this argument. As a blinkered institutionalist, I truly believed that at least seven members of the court would take the potential failure of democracy as a proposition seriously enough that the partisan valence of this case went away.
He said ‘we all want a stable democratic society,’ and nothing could be worse for democracy than holding a president to account, because that will ‘lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy.’
Instead we got nothing about protecting democracy. Certainly nothing about letting the people decide, which is the way you prove crimes. You take them to a jury, and the jury decides whether somebody’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This was another one of those moments when I thought, sorry: Did one of the justices of the United States Supreme Court just imply that everything that happens at the Justice Department is hackery and rigged prosecutions?
Sen. Lindsey Graham argues Americans will not vote based on Donald Trump’s criminal cases
Approximately one-third of adults in the US believe Trump did something illegal related to hush money case
Trump is facing charges for falsifying business records to hide a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels
Accuracy
]Sen. Lindsey Graham argues Americans will not vote based on Donald Trump’s criminal cases[
Deception
(30%)
Melissa Cruz makes editorializing statements and engages in selective reporting by focusing on Lindsey Graham's argument that Americans will not vote based on Trump's legal troubles, while ignoring the polling data showing that a majority of Americans view Trump unfavorably due to his criminal charges. She also implies that the New York District Attorney is conducting a political hit job without providing any evidence.
There is no evidence that prosecutors or other officials have used criminal cases against Trump to target his reelection bid.
You know, apparently a lot of people do this. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods. No, I think the whole thing is a crock… They created a crime just for Trump.
Most Americans are not going to decide how to vote based on Trump’s legal troubles, but the troubles they face... People are looking at their problems, not Trump’s legal problems.
Fallacies
(85%)
Melissa Cruz commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization when she attributes the supposed lack of concern about Trump's legal troubles among 'most Americans' based on a single poll. She also uses an Appeal to Ignorance when she claims that there is no evidence that prosecutors have targeted Trump with criminal cases for political reasons, despite acknowledging that there is no evidence to the contrary.
>Most Americans are not going to decide how to vote based on Trump’s legal troubles, but the troubles they face... People are looking at their problems, not Trump’s legal problems.<
>You know, apparently a lot of people do this. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods. No, I think the whole thing is a crock… They created a crime just for Trump.<
Bias
(95%)
Melissa Cruz demonstrates ideological bias towards Lindsey Graham and Donald Trump by downplaying the significance of Trump's criminal charges and dismissing them as a 'political hit job'. She also makes an unfounded claim that prosecutors are targeting Trump for political reasons.
Obviously Tiger Woods is not running for president.
You know, apparently a lot of people do this. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods. No, I think the whole thing is a crock... They created a crime just for Trump.
The Supreme Court appeared ready to reject Donald Trump’s claims of sweeping immunity.
Much of the hearing focused on whether there should be a distinction between Trump’s official acts and his private conduct.
It seemed increasingly unlikely the court would offer a clear answer on whether Trump may be prosecuted for his effort to overturn the 2020 election.
Chief Justice John Roberts criticized the unanimous and scathing ruling against Trump from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, suggesting it didn’t lay out an adequate reason for why virtually all of Trump’s actions were subject to prosecution.
Accuracy
Several justices seemed willing to embrace a central theme that future presidents would be subjected to politically motivated prosecutions if no immunity is granted.
Testimony in Trump’s trial hinged on ‘catch and kill’ practice where damaging stories were acquired and prevented from publication.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on April 25, 2024, about Donald J. Trump’s claim that federal charges accusing him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election must be thrown out due to presidential immunity.
Several justices indicated that some level of immunity for official acts is needed.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh compared the threat of prosecution for official acts to past investigations and criticized a ruling upholding independent counsel investigations as a mistake.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. expressed concern about an appeals court ruling rejecting immunity for Mr. Trump, stating it did not consider what acts or documents were being discussed.
Justice Kavanaugh argued that there is no serious constitutional question about applying any criminal statute to the president.
Accuracy
The Democrat-appointed justices indicated greater concern about opening the door for presidents to commit official crimes with impunity.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(90%)
The authors present a balanced analysis of the Supreme Court arguments regarding Trump's immunity claim. They do not make any fallacious statements or use inflammatory rhetoric. However, they do quote some justices making arguments that could be considered appeals to authority and dichotomous depictions. These quotes are presented as takeaways from the argument and should not be taken as an endorsement of the authors' views.
Several members of the Republican-appointed majority seemed to indicate that some immunity was needed.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh compared the threat of prosecution for official acts to how a series of presidents were ‘Hampered’ by independent counsel investigations, criticizing a 1984 ruling that upheld a now-defunct law creating such prosecutors as one of the Supreme Court’s biggest mistakes.
The Democrat-appointed justices asked questions indicating greater concern about opening the door for presidents to commit official crimes with impunity.
