Former U.S. President Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to delay a lower court's ruling that found he does not have presidential immunity in his federal election interference criminal case.
The January 6 trial is just one of many cases currently being pursued against former President Donald Trump.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to delay a lower court's ruling that found he does not have presidential immunity in his federal election interference criminal case, which could influence whether he faces trial before the 2024 election.
In Monday's application, Trump requested relief from a procedure set by a three-judge panel. The Supreme Court is wasting no time making a determination over Donald Trumpޱs presidential immunity claim in his January 6 trial. Special counsel Jack Smith has until next week to respond to Trump➴s attempt to stay the lower court ruling that flatly rejected the immunity argument.
Legal experts commented that this could only mean one thing: The Supreme Court is expediting whatever decision they are going to make, which suggests a favorable outcome for Trump. However, it's important to note that this case has been ongoing since 2016 and there have been numerous legal challenges made against Trump in the past.
The January 6 trial is just one of many cases currently being pursued against former President Donald Trump. He also faces a civil fraud trial in New York, which could potentially lead to his disqualification from running for president again.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump sits in the courtroom during his civil fraud trial at New York Supreme Court on January 11, 2024 in New York City.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts told Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith to respond to a request by Donald Trump to delay implementing an appeals court ruling that found he does not have presidential immunity in his federal election interference criminal case.
Former officials from Richard Nixon's administration through Trump's filed with the Supreme Court saying Trump has failed to make two of the mandatory showings required for a delay of the appeals court ruling.
The former officials also said that rejection of absolute immunity in this case is essential to protecting the Constitution’s design of the Presidency itself.
Trump on Monday asked the high court to temporarily pause last week's decision by a three-judge federal appeals court panel in Washington, D.C., which rejected his argument that he could not be prosecuted in the case because he was president at the time he committed the acts that Smith charges were crimes.
If Trump's mandate takes effect, proceedings in the case would resume in district court, including pretrial motions being filed and argued, and a trial date before year-end.
Trump argues that implementing the mandate would radically disrupt his ability to campaign against Biden this year.
The Supreme Court could grant or deny Trump's delay request without hearing any oral arguments after Smith files his response.
If the court chooses to treat Trump's filing as a petition to overturn the appeals court ruling, it may make a decision on that question either based just on written filings or after hearing oral arguments.
The group of former Republican officials said in their brief that preservation of the Presidency designed by Article II requires rejection of immunity from prosecution for a President's engaging in violations of federal criminal statutes to alter declared presidential election results, whether that conduct consists of acts as a candidate or official acts.
Trump argues he was acting officially when he allegedly conspired to commit federal criminal conduct by using Department of Justice personnel to make false statements to state officials in an effort overturn declared state election results.
If Trump's argument for absolute immunity were accepted, it would improperly encourage a future President to violate federal criminal statutes by deploying the military and armed federal agents in efforts to alter presidential election results.
Accuracy
Trump argues that implementing the mandate would radically disrupt his ability to campaign against Biden this year.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that Trump has been accused of crimes related to his challenge of the 2020 election results and his efforts to block Congress from declaring President Joe Biden the victor in that contest.
The article states 'Trump is accused in a four-count indictment in D.C. federal district court of crimes related to his challenge of the 2020 election results, and his efforts to block Congress from declaring President Joe Biden the victor in that contest.'
The article uses sensationalism by stating 'Trump has been accused'.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Supreme Court's decision without providing any context or explanation of why it is relevant. Additionally, the author quotes a group of former officials who argue that Trump has failed to make two mandatory showings required for a delay in the appeals court ruling, but does not provide any evidence or reasoning for this claim.
The Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday told Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith to respond to a request by Donald Trump to delay implementing an appeals court ruling that found he does not have presidential immunity in his federal election interference criminal case.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump sits in the courtroom during his civil fraud trial at New York Supreme Court on January 11, 2024 in New York City.
The group of former officials said that rejection of absolute immunity in this case is essential to protecting the Constitution's design of the Presidency itself.
Bias
(0%)
The article is highly biased in favor of Trump and his claims. The author uses phrases such as 'crimes that Smith charges were', 'Trump challenged the 2024 election results', and 'front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination' to portray Trump as a victim of an unfair prosecution. The article also implies that granting immunity to presidents is essential for protecting the Constitution, without providing any evidence or context for this claim. The author ignores the perspectives and arguments of those who oppose Trump's request, such as the former officials in Republican administrations who filed a brief with the Supreme Court. The article also fails to mention that Trump was impeached twice by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, which are related to his alleged crimes in this case.
He has pleaded not guilty in the case
The article also implies that granting immunity to presidents is essential for protecting the Constitution, without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
Trump is accused in a four-count indictment in D.C. federal district court
Trump asked the Supreme Court for more time to appeal immunity ruling
The D.C. Circuit gave Trump until Monday to ask for intervention from the Supreme Court on a ruling that found him not immune from federal charges for actions taken while he was in office.
Former officials from Richard Nixon's administration through Trump's filed with the Supreme Court saying Trump has failed to make two of the mandatory showings required for a delay of the appeals court ruling.
Accuracy
If Trump's mandate takes effect, proceedings in the case would resume in district court
Trump argues that implementing the mandate would radically disrupt his ability to campaign against Biden this year.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that no president has ever been prosecuted for their official acts before and implying that it is wrong for Trump to be prosecuted. This statement is not true as there have been presidents who were impeached, such as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
In 234 years of American history, no President was ever prosecuted for his official acts. Nor should they be
This Court should stay the D.C. Circuit's mandate to forestall, once again, an unprecedented and unacceptable departure from ordinary appellate procedures
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Todd Ruger and he has a history of bias towards Donald Trump. The article discusses Trump's request for more time to appeal an immunity ruling in relation to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with Trump, such as calling them
The Supreme Court is wasting no time making a determination over Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claim in his January 6 trial.
Special counsel Jack Smith has until next week to respond to Trump’s attempt to stay a lower court’s ruling that flatly rejected the immunity argument.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court is wasting no time making a determination over Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim in his January 6 trial.
Former officials from Richard Nixon's administration through Trump's filed with the Supreme Court saying Trump has failed to make two of the mandatory showings required for a delay of the appeals court ruling.
Trump argues that implementing the mandate would radically disrupt his ability to campaign against Biden this year.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'promising sign' and 'nakedly about delay'. Secondly, the author quotes legal experts who make statements that are not supported by factual evidence or peer-reviewed studies. Thirdly, the article implies that Trump is trying to delay his trial for personal gain without providing any concrete evidence of this.
The Supreme Court appears to be wasting no time making a determination over Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim in his January 6 trial
What that says is actually good because that means the Supreme Court is expediting whatever decision they're going to make.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority when stating that legal experts believe the Supreme Court is expediting its decision. This statement is not supported by any evidence or citation of these experts.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is biased towards Trump and his legal team. The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump's opponents such as 'white supremacists online celebrated'. They also use quotes from far-right influencers to support their argument. Additionally, the author uses loaded words like 'promising sign' which implies a positive outcome for Trump when in reality it is not clear what the Supreme Court will decide.
The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump's opponents such as 'white supremacists online celebrated'
The author uses loaded words like 'promising sign'
They also use quotes from far-right influencers to support their argument
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Donald Trump as she is an employee at New Republic which has previously published articles critical of him.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Donald Trump as she is reporting for New Republic which has previously published articles critical of him. The article also mentions Jack Smith who is investigating Trump's businesses and personal life.
