Biden pledges to respect limits of presidential powers but questions Trump's fitness for public office
Decision likely to impact ongoing legal proceedings against Donald Trump and Joe Biden
Ruling raises questions about how it will impact other ongoing legal proceedings involving former presidents
Trump calls it a 'big win for our Constitution and for democracy'
US Supreme Court rules former presidents have substantial protection from prosecution during office
In a significant development, the US Supreme Court has declared that former presidents have substantial protection from prosecution for their official acts while in the White House. The ruling is likely to have major implications for ongoing legal proceedings against Donald Trump, who has called it a “big win for our Constitution and for democracy”. Joe Biden’s campaign, on the other hand, has used the ruling to emphasize concerns about Trump’s potential despotic actions if re-elected. The decision may allow Trump to claim law-breaking was part of his presidential duties, potentially shielding him from criminal charges in federal and state courts. As we approach the November election, this development is sure to spark intense debate among voters and could significantly impact the outcome of the race.
In response to the ruling, Biden has pledged to respect the limits of presidential powers despite his disagreement with the decision. He has accused Trump of assaulting democracy following January 6th events and questioned his fitness for public office. The ruling also raises questions about how it will impact other ongoing legal proceedings involving former presidents and could have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power in the US government.
The Supreme Court’s decision has set off a flurry of reactions from both sides of the political spectrum. Some argue that it sets a dangerous precedent that could fundamentally change the world’s most powerful office, while others maintain that it is necessary to protect the independence and effective functioning of the executive branch. As legal experts weigh in on the implications of this ruling, one thing is clear: this development will continue to shape the 2024 election season in unprecedented ways.
In light of these developments, voters must carefully consider their options and weigh the potential consequences of each candidate’s presidency. It is crucial to stay informed about ongoing legal proceedings and political events in order to make an informed decision at the ballot box.
President Biden issued a blistering attack on the US Supreme Court for its decision declaring that Donald Trump was immune from prosecution for official acts he took during his presidency.
Biden called the decision a dangerous precedent that could fundamentally change the world’s most powerful office.
Biden pledged to respect the limits of presidential powers despite his disagreement with the ruling.
Biden accused Trump of assaulting democracy following January 6th events and questioned his fitness for public office.
Biden has found himself at odds with some recent Supreme Court decisions, including the Dobbs decision that repealed Roe v. Wade and declared there is no constitutional right to an abortion.
Accuracy
The president noted it is highly unlikely Trump would be prosecuted before the election due to this decision.
The ruling may allow Trump to claim law-breaking was part of his presidential duties, potentially shielding him from criminal charges in federal and state courts.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(95%)
The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting Biden's words and attributing them to him. No formal or informal fallacies were found beyond this.
President Biden on Monday night issued a blistering attack on the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision earlier in the day declaring that Donald Trump was immune from prosecution for official acts he took during his presidency.
The president also noted that the decision means that it is ‘highly unlikely’ that Trump would be prosecuted before the election in November, which he called ‘a terrible disservice to the people of this nation.’
At a time when he is under scrutiny following a poor debate performance that has caused Democrats to question his stamina, Biden continued to focus on Trump and sought to crystallize the choice before the electorate.
The American people must decide if Trump’s embrace of violence to preserve his power is acceptable.
The American people must decide if they want to entrust the presidency once again to Donald Trump – now, knowing he’ll be more emboldened to do whatever he pleases, whenever he wants to do it.
The US Supreme Court expanded the notion of presidential immunity in a ruling on Monday.
Joe Biden’s campaign used the ruling to emphasize concerns about Donald Trump’s potential despotic actions if re-elected.
The ruling may allow Trump to claim law-breaking was part of his presidential duties, potentially shielding him from criminal charges in federal and state courts.
Accuracy
Biden called the Supreme Court’s decision a dangerous precedent that virtually removes limits on what a president can do.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains editorializing and emotional manipulation. The author makes statements implying that the Supreme Court ruling benefits President Biden by changing the conversation about his debate performance and allowing him to focus on Trump's potential despotism. The author also expresses their opinion that the ruling is a dangerous precedent, further demonstrating their editorializing.
It’s one thing for a former president to randomly declare he’ll be a dictator only on Day One if reelected. It’s another for the highest court in the land to say: Go on now, be the worst version of you.
President Joe Biden desperately needed something to change the conversation after his calamitous performance in last Thursday’s debate, which prompted a full three-day weekend of Democratic hand-wringing, with public and private debate about whether he should be swapped out for a more capable candidate.
Monday’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to vastly expand the notion of presidential immunity was an incredibly beneficent favor for one of the men hoping to win your vote in November. Just not the guy you’re thinking of.
Fallacies
(75%)
The author makes an appeal to fear by stating that Trump will rule as a dictator if re-elected and uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the Supreme Court's decision as 'dangerous' and 'a finer point on the fact that if Donald Trump gets anywhere near the Oval Office again, he will rule as a dictator'.
It's one thing for a former president to randomly declare he'll be a dictator only on Day One if reelected.
The fear that SCOTUS clears the way for dictator Trump
And he has another federal case in Florida, where he is accused of refusing to return classified government documents he took home after his election loss to Biden. His many lawyers will now rush to court to argue – again – that all of it was official president-style stuff and not the frantic malfeasance of a sore loser.
We've seen Trump set his own rules. Things go horribly wrong that way.
The next step for Biden's campaign It was smart for Biden to get out there and embrace the attention to something other than the debate. And he's still losing the fight. Time to change up the tactics.
Follow USA TODAY elections columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan
Bias
(0%)
The author expresses a clear bias against former President Trump and implies that the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity is a favor to Biden. The author also uses language that depicts Trump as a 'petulant narcissist who can't stomach being a loser' and 'despotic'.
And honestly, because of this opinion from the Supreme Court today, it just puts up a finer point on the fact that if Donald Trump gets anywhere near the Oval Office again, he will rule as a dictator.
Monday’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to vastly expand the notion of presidential immunity was an incredibly beneficent favor for one of the men hoping to win your vote in November. Just not the guy you’re thinking of.
President Joe Biden desperately needed something to change the conversation after his calamitous performance in last Thursday’s debate, which prompted a full three-day weekend of Democratic hand-wringing, with public and private debate about whether he should be swapped out for a more capable candidate.
The fear that SCOTUS clears the way for dictator Trump
What better way to interrupt that clamor than to have the court’s conservative justices – the kind of folks who came of age thinking Richard Nixon got a raw deal – declare that former President Donald Trump might not have really broken the laws that we all saw him break, if he was acting as president at the time and not as a petulant narcissist who can’t stomach being a loser.
The Supreme Court made a radical decision on July 2, 2024, granting the president broad immunity from criminal prosecution.
The court’s decision increases presidential power and reduces accountability.
Donald Trump is shielded from meaningful accountability for his actions before and on Jan. 6, 2021, due to the court’s decision.
Accuracy
,
Deception
(30%)
The author makes editorializing statements and uses emotional manipulation by implying danger to democracy with the current situation. She also engages in selective reporting by only focusing on the negative implications of the Supreme Court's decision.
It has removed a major check on the office of the presidency at the very moment when Mr. Trump is running for office on a promise to weaponize the apparatus of government against those he views as his enemies.
>It will rightly be understood as enormously increasing the power and enormously reducing the accountability of the president.
The court had already given Mr. Trump a decisive win in the form of its monthslong delay in deciding this case, but the opinion itself grants Mr. Trump a more enduring win, and democracy an even more enduring loss.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(75%)
The author expresses a clear political bias against the Supreme Court's decision and the current president, Donald Trump. She criticizes the court for increasing presidential power and reducing accountability, implying that this is a dangerous development for democracy.
It has removed a major check on the office of the presidency at the very moment when Mr. Trump is running for office on a promise to weaponize the apparatus of government against those he views as his enemies.
It reveals that it will rule – and rule us all – based on its own free-floating and distorted vision of an optimal constitutional order.
The Supreme Court’s radical decision handing the president broad immunity from criminal prosecution on Monday will rightly be understood as enormously increasing the power and enormously reducing the accountability of the president.
The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents have substantial protection from prosecution for their official acts while in the White House.
Trump called it a ‘big win for our Constitution and for democracy’ during an interview with Fox News.
Accuracy
President Biden issued a blistering attack on the US Supreme Court for its decision declaring that Donald Trump was immune from prosecution for official acts he took during his presidency.
The court’s decision increases presidential power and reduces accountability.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains editorializing and pontification by the author in the form of quoting Trump's statements about the Supreme Court ruling and characterizing Biden's response as 'hammering home the point'. The author also makes an argument that 'voters will remember this in November', which is a clear example of sensationalism.
Voters need to understand that presidents matter when it comes to the make up of the court. Today’s dangerous decision that came out of the Trump-molded MAGA court is proof of that.
The move on Monday by the conservative-dominated court - including three justices nominated by Trump - means that the trial judge in the lower court case against Trump will now have to hold hearings on whether the charges against Trump were based on official acts by the then-president or unofficial ones.
But Biden hammered home the point in an address Monday night.
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(90%)
The author, Paul Steinhauser, expresses a clear political bias towards former President Trump by quoting and praising his statements about the Supreme Court ruling. The author does not provide any counter-arguments or neutral analysis of the situation.
"BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN AND WISE,"
"But Biden supporters see a silver lining in the move by the Supreme Court. Longtime Democratic strategist and presidential campaign veteran Maria Carodona said the ruling is a shot in the arm to voters who care about our democracy, our Constitution, and the rule of law. It is a shot in the arm for them to work their butts off to elect President Biden because the Supreme Court ruling was a victory for one person, Donald Trump, and it was a huge loss for the country, and our democracy."
"That process will take time, and it's extremely unlikely Trump will go on trial for trying to overturn the 2020 election before voters cast ballots in the 2024 rematch between the former president and his Democratic successor."
"THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IS A MUCH MORE POWERFUL ONE THAN SOME HAD EXPECTED IT TO BE."
The Supreme Court’s decision on Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claims has created significant hurdles for special counsel Jack Smith in prosecuting the former president for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
The ruling leaves a lot for Trump, the prosecutor, and the judge to decide as another presidential election looms and as the defendant mounts a campaign to return to the Oval Office.
Tanya Chutkan, U.S. District Court Judge, has been given many critical decisions about what charges and evidence Smith can use against Trump.
It is unclear how quickly Chutkan will act once she again gets control of the case.
Smith has a few options, including slimming down his indictment or sending a new version to a grand jury in the coming weeks, excusing some of the material the Supreme Court deemed problematic.
A showdown with Trump’s lawyers seems guaranteed, triggering a full-blown evidentiary hearing before Chutkan where witnesses would be called and evidence displayed.
Prosecutors rarely favor giving defendants that sort of preview of trial evidence or testimony, but some Trump critics have embraced that idea as a ‘Plan B’ if a jury trial before the election appears impossible.
Normally, Supreme Court decisions don’t kick in for about 25 days after they are issued, but if Smith wants to get cracking before Chutkan immediately, he could ask the high court to release the case early.
Legal experts expect Trump to use Monday’s Supreme Court ruling to continue to try to drag out the election subversion case.
In addition, the majority said, every piece of evidence that could lead to a similar intrusion must be scrutinized, providing lots of avenues for delay.
Accuracy
The ruling leaves a lot for Trump, the prosecutor, and the judge to decide as another presidential election looms and as the defendant mounts a campaign to return to the Oval Office.
It is unclear how quickly Chutkan will act once she again gets control of the case.
Prosecutors rarely favor giving defendants that sort of preview of trial evidence or testimony, but some Trump critics have embraced that idea as a ‘Plan B’ if a jury trial before the election appears impossible.
Deception
(50%)
The article discusses the Supreme Court's decision on Donald Trump's presidential immunity claims, detailing the implications for special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The article provides information on potential next steps for all key players involved in the election subversion case, including Judge Tanya Chutkan, Jack Smith, and Donald Trump. However, it does not include any direct quotes that demonstrate deceptive practices by the author.
The Supreme Court’s long-awaited decision on Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claims threw huge hurdles in the way of special counsel Jack Smith’s drive to prosecute the former president for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains some informal fallacies in the form of overgeneralizations and appeals to authority. The author states that “Jack Smith” “simply[ies] for faster action by the courts”, implying that Smith is rushing to get a trial before the election, when in fact it is unclear what pace he would prefer. The author also states that “Prosecutors rarely favor giving defendants that sort of preview of trial evidence or testimony,” suggesting that this is a universal rule rather than an observation about typical prosecutorial strategy. Additionally, the author cites former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth and University of Chicago law professor Aziz Huq as authorities on the legal process, which may give their opinions undue weight.
“Jack Smith” “simply[ies] for faster action by the courts”
Bias
(95%)
The article does not contain any clear examples of political, religious, ideological, or monetary bias. However, the author uses language that implies a disproportionate number of quotes reflecting a negative position towards Trump and his actions. The title itself frames the article as being about what key players might do next in relation to Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which could be perceived as having an implicit bias against him.
In fact, delay has been a primary weapon for Trump in all four of his criminal cases.
It's unclear how quickly Chutkan will act once she again gets control of the case.
People demonstrate outside the Supreme Court as they await the court's immunity decision. | Francis Chung/POLITICO
The high court did declare flatly off-limits one slice of Smith’s case: his claim that Trump’s acts to ‘leverage’ the Justice Department broke the law.
The high court punted to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan many of the most critical decisions about what charges and evidence Smith can use against Trump, while leaving open the possibility of future appeals.
