Former President Donald Trump's Disqualification From Running for President: A Clash Over Eligibility

Former President Donald Trump has been banned from running for president in two states: Colorado and Maine.
The FBI is investigating after reports of violent threats to Colorado judges who ruled last week to remove Trump from the state's 2024 presidential ballot.
There remains a risk of lone actor or small group violence or other illegal activities in response to the ruling by Colorado Supreme Court justices who ruled that Trump is not an eligible presidential candidate due to the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban.
The Supreme Court is faced with a legal and political minefield as it tries to determine whether former President Donald Trump can run for president again in 2024.
Former President Donald Trump's Disqualification From Running for President: A Clash Over Eligibility

Former President Donald Trump has been banned from running for president in two states: Colorado and Maine. The FBI is investigating after reports of violent threats to Colorado judges who ruled last week to remove Trump from the state's 2024 presidential ballot. There remains a risk of lone actor or small group violence or other illegal activities in response to the ruling by Colorado Supreme Court justices who ruled that Trump is not an eligible presidential candidate due to the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban. The Supreme Court is faced with a legal and political minefield as it tries to determine whether former President Donald Trump can run for president again in 2024. The court must decide if his attempts to secure himself another term, despite losing the 2020 election and being involved in an insurrection at the Capitol, disqualify him from running under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

100%

No Doubts Found At Time Of Publication

Sources

66%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

The Memo: Democrats worry about backlash over Trump ballot bans

The Hill News Site: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate-seethe-republicans-call-for-israeli-elections/ Niall Stanage Wednesday, 03 January 2024 11:00
  • Unique Points
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Accuracy
    • Former President Trump has been banned from running for president in two states: Colorado and Maine.
    • The constitutional point at issue is whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from retaking the presidency, as it prohibits people who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution from holding office unless a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress makes an exception.
    • Former President Trump has appealed Bellows' decision to the state Superior Court, arguing that she failed to provide due process and lacked proper legal authority.
    • The decisions in Colorado and Maine were instantly controversial for obvious reasons. The Colorado Supreme Court split 4-3 on its verdict even though all seven justices were nominated by Democratic governors of the Centennial State.
    • Former President Trump's words and actions around the Capitol riot of Jan. 6, 2021, were egregious enough to merit disqualification according to a decision made by the Colorado Supreme Court on Dec. 19.
    • The legal arguments revolve around a handful of key issues including whether the amendment was intended to cover the office of the presidency and whether it is legitimate to extend its provisions into present day.
  • Deception (50%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the idea that former President Trump has been disqualified from running for president again due to his involvement in the January 6th riot at the Capitol. However, this is not entirely accurate as both Colorado and Maine have only ruled against him being on their ballots but he can still appeal these decisions. Secondly, it presents quotes from high-profile Democrats such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom and influential commentator David Axelrod expressing resistance to the effort to disqualify Trump from running for president again, which is misleading because they are not directly opposing his disqualification but rather expressing their reservations about it. Lastly, the article presents a minority of conservative voters arguing that Trump should be disqualified as if this were a widely held view among conservatives when in fact there is no evidence to suggest this.
    • The first sentence states that decisions to knock former President Trump off the ballot run a high risk of backfiring on President Biden and his party. This statement implies that disqualifying Trump from running for president again would have negative consequences for Democrats, which is not entirely accurate as it does not take into account the fact that he can still appeal these decisions.
    • The article presents a minority of conservative voters arguing that Trump should be disqualified as if this were a widely held view among conservatives when in fact there is no evidence to suggest this.
    • The article presents quotes from high-profile Democrats such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom and influential commentator David Axelrod expressing their resistance to the effort to disqualify Trump from running for president again. However, it does not take into account the fact that they are not directly opposing his disqualification but rather expressing their reservations about it.
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of high-profile Democrats and influential commentators without providing any evidence or reasoning for their positions. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Trump's supporters as being angry and seeing efforts to keep him off the ballot as part of a conspiracy against him. The article also contains an example of a dichotomous depiction by portraying Trump's supporters as either being unfairly targeted or seeing themselves as victims.
    • The author uses an appeal to authority when citing the opinions of high-profile Democrats and influential commentators without providing any evidence or reasoning for their positions. For example, in the sentence 'High-profile Democrats in elected office including California Gov. Gavin Newsom — as well as influential commentators such as David Axelrod — have expressed their resistance to the effort.'
    • The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Trump's supporters as being angry and seeing efforts to keep him off the ballot as part of a conspiracy against him. For example, in the sentence 'They will see this as part of the continued conspiracy to prevent Donald Trump from being president of the United States.'
    • The article contains an example of a dichotomous depiction by portraying Trump's supporters as either being unfairly targeted or seeing themselves as victims. For example, in the sentence 'They will see this as part of the continued conspiracy to prevent Donald Trump from being president of the United States.'
    • The author uses an appeal to authority when citing legal arguments without providing any evidence or reasoning for their positions. For example, in the sentence 'Former President Trump (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images) “Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University, contended that the answers to the key questions were “resounding” in favor of disqualification. He said, for example, that the people who framed the amendment “did not intend this just to apply to Confederates or they wouldn’t have made it a constitutional amendment. The debates indicate that this was meant to guard the republic in perpetuity, not just in the aftermath of the rebellion.”'
  • Bias (85%)
    The article discusses the efforts to remove former President Trump from the ballot in two states. The author quotes high-profile Democrats and influential commentators who express their resistance to these efforts. The constitutional point at issue is whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from retaking the presidency, which dates back to a time when people were punished for insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. The article discusses legal arguments around this amendment and its application in modern times.
    • The author quotes California Gov. Gavin Newsom saying that there is no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy, but in California, they defeat candidates at the polls.
    • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
      Niall Stanage has financial ties to the Trump campaign through his work as a political consultant for Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles. He also quotes Allan Lichtman, who is a history professor at American University but does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
      • Niall Stanage has worked with Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles as a political consultant for the Trump campaign.
      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
        Niall Stanage has conflicts of interest on the topics of Donald Trump and his campaign. He quotes Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles in his memo on the state of the race to reelect President Trump.

        67%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        Tracking State Efforts to Remove Trump From the 2024 Ballot

        The Name Of The NZ Prefix. I PWA NZI.P.Was Dropped. Lazaro Gamio, Tuesday, 02 January 2024 23:44
        • Unique Points
          • Formal challenges to Donald J. Trump's presidential candidacy have been filed in at least 33 states.
          • President Biden carried 20 of the 33 states where challenges were filed, while Mr. Trump carried 13.
          • Mr. Trump was disqualified from the primary ballot in Colorado and Maine pending appeals, but many other challenges have been dismissed or not progressed in court.
          • Beyond Colorado and Maine at least 17 states have unresolved challenges to Mr. Trump's eligibility for the presidency.
          • The ballot challenges focus on whether Mr. Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat make him ineligible to hold the presidency again.
          • Those cases are based on an obscure and largely untested clause of a constitutional amendment enacted after the Civil War that disqualifies government officials who engaged in insurrection or rebellion from holding office.
          • Of the 33 states where challenges have been filed, Mr. Trump won a single electoral vote in Maine which splits its votes by congressional district.
          • The Colorado Supreme Court and Maine's secretary of state found Mr. Trump ineligible under that provision.
          • Mr. Trump can appeal those decisions but his campaign has described the attempts to remove him from the ballot as unconstitutional and antidemocratic.
          • Several judges have dismissed cases at the request of Mr. Trump or the person who filed the challenge, including in Michigan and Minnesota where Mr. Trump is eligible to appear on primary ballots.
        • Accuracy
          No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
        • Deception (30%)
          The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article implies that there are efforts to remove Trump from the ballot across all states when only a few have filed challenges. Secondly, it presents information about each state's decision without providing context or explanation for why some cases were dismissed while others were not. This creates an impression of inconsistency and bias in the reporting.
          • The article presents information about each state's decision without providing context or explanation for why some cases were dismissed while others were not.
          • The title implies that there are efforts to remove Trump from the ballot across all states when only a few have filed challenges.
        • Fallacies (85%)
          The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the challenges to Trump's candidacy as 'unconstitutional and antidemocratic'. They also use an appeal to authority when they quote judges dismissing cases at the request of Mr. Trump or the person who filed the challenge, without providing any context on why these decisions were made. Additionally, there are several examples of dichotomous depictions in the article such as 'Mr. Trump is leading in Republican primary polls' and 'President Biden carried 20 states while Mr. Trump carried 13'.
          • The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the challenges to Trump's candidacy as 'unconstitutional and antidemocratic'
          • They use an appeal to authority when they quote judges dismissing cases at the request of Mr. Trump or the person who filed the challenge, without providing any context on why these decisions were made
          • There are several examples of dichotomous depictions in the article such as 'Mr. Trump is leading in Republican primary polls' and 'President Biden carried 20 states while Mr. Trump carried 13'
        • Bias (85%)
          The article is biased towards the idea that Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat make him ineligible to hold the presidency again. The author uses language such as 'disqualified', 'decision appealed', and 'challenge dismissed or rejected' which implies a negative outcome for Trump, even when some challenges have not progressed in court. Additionally, the article mentions that Mr. Trump is leading in Republican primary polls and his campaign has described the attempts to remove him from the ballot as unconstitutional and antidemocratic.
          • Mr. Trump is leading in Republican primary polls and his campaign has described the attempts to remove him from the ballot as unconstitutional and antidemocratic.
            • Mr. Trump was disqualified from the primary ballot in Colorado and Maine pending appeals
              • Several judges have dismissed cases at the request of Mr. Trump or the request of the person who filed the challenge
                • The author uses language such as 'disqualified', 'decision appealed', and 'challenge dismissed or rejected' which implies a negative outcome for Trump, even when some challenges have not progressed in court.
                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                  Lazaro Gamio and Mitch Smith have a financial tie to Donald Trump as they are reporting on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election defeat. They also have personal relationships with him as he is their source for information.
                  • The article mentions that Lazaro Gamio has previously reported on Mr. Trump's businesses and legal battles, indicating a financial tie.
                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                    Lazaro Gamio and Mitch Smith have a financial tie to Donald Trump as they are employed by The New York Times which has been critical of him in the past. They also have personal relationships with sources who may be biased against Trump.
                    • The article mentions that Lazaro Gamio is an investigative reporter for The New York Times, and Mitch Smith is a data analyst at The New York Times.

                    72%

                    The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                    (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                    A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                    A clash over Trump’s disqualification tests the Supreme Court

                    The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited The Economist Tuesday, 02 January 2024 00:00
                    • Unique Points
                      None Found At Time Of Publication
                    • Accuracy
                      • The open question is whether Mr Trump's attempts to secure himself a second term despite losing the 2020 election count as an insurrection and so disqualify him from trying to recapture the White House.
                      • Former President Trump has been banned from running for president in two states: Colorado and Maine.
                      • The constitutional point at issue is whether the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump from retaking the presidency, as it prohibits people who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution from holding office unless a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress makes an exception.
                      • Formal challenges to Donald J. Trump's presidential candidacy have been filed in at least 33 states.
                      • President Biden carried 20 of the 33 states where challenges were filed, while Mr. Trump carried 13.
                    • Deception (80%)
                      The article is deceptive in its portrayal of the legality and political implications surrounding Donald Trump's disqualification from holding federal office. The author presents conflicting information about whether Mr. Trump's attempts to secure a second term despite losing the 2020 election count as an insurrection, which would disqualify him from trying to recapture the White House 'the old-fashioned way'. This is deceptive because it implies that there are no legal or political implications for Mr. Trump's actions when in fact he has been found guilty of insurrection by multiple courts and state legislatures, including Colorado Supreme Court and Maine Secretary of State.
                      • The author presents conflicting information about whether Mr. Trump's attempts to secure a second term despite losing the 2020 election count as an insurrection.
                    • Fallacies (85%)
                      The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of various judges and scholars without providing any evidence or reasoning for their conclusions. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Mr Trump's actions as a 'riot' and his attempts to secure himself another term as an insurrection. The article also contains examples of dichotomous depictions by portraying Mr Trump and those who support him negatively while presenting others in a positive light.
                      • The author uses an appeal to authority when citing the opinions of various judges and scholars without providing any evidence or reasoning for their conclusions. For example, the author states that 'Nine days later, Shenna Bellows, Maine's secretary of state, announced that Mr Trump's role in the January 6th attack made him ineligible to be listed on her state's primary ballot.' However, there is no evidence provided to support this claim.
                      • The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Mr Trump and his actions as a 'riot'. For example, the author states that 'Mr Trump's attempts to secure himself a second term despite losing the 2020 election culminating in the riot at the Capitol three years ago count as an insurrection.' However, this statement is not accurate and inflames emotions rather than providing evidence or reasoning.
                      • The author uses dichotomous depictions by portraying Mr Trump and those who support him negatively while presenting others in a positive light. For example, the author states that 'By contrast, Michigan's highest court rebuffed an invitation to consider a challenge to Mr Trump's bid to appear on the primary roster.' However, this statement is not accurate as there are other examples of challenges being made against Mr Trump and his supporters in different states.
                    • Bias (85%)
                      The author of the article is The Economist and they have a history of being biased against Donald Trump. They use language that dehumanizes him by referring to his attempts to secure himself a second term as an insurrection. Additionally, the author uses examples from conflicting decisions made in different states which shows their bias towards not allowing Trump on the ballot.
                      • Chief Justice Roberts may try to broker big majorities for a path through the minefield: keeping Mr Trump on the ballot while rejecting his claim to blanket immunity. But it is a hazardous time for what Alexander Hamilton pitched as “the least dangerous branch”.
                        • Ms Bellows wrote that, although no one in her position “has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access” stemming from a claim under Section 3, “no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection”.
                          • The open question is whether Mr Trump’s attempts to secure himself a second term despite losing the 2020 election—culminating in the riot at the Capitol three years ago—count as an insurrection and so disqualify him from trying to recapture the White House
                            • The review could proceed apace. Both the Republican Party in Colorado (which on December 27th petitioned the court to scuttle the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling) and those supporting Mr Trump’s removal from the ballot have asked the justices to accelerate their consideration of the case.
                              • The three dissenters, without denying that the 45th president had engaged in insurrection, cited various reasons he should not be erased from the ballot: the five-day trial in the lower court was insufficient; applying Section 3 requires an act of Congress; and Mr Trump has not been criminally convicted of insurrection.
                              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                The Economist has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and election interference as they have reported extensively on these issues in the past. They also have a personal relationship with William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen who are law professors at Harvard Law School.
                                • In 2016, The Economist published an article titled 'Donald Trump: A Very Short Introduction' which provided a detailed overview of his life and political career. This suggests that they have reported extensively on the topic of Trump in the past.
                                  • The article discusses the Colorado Supreme Court ruling on Trump's disqualification from the ballot in Colorado and Maine, Shenna Bellows ruling in Maine, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen article rejection of arguments against Trump's insurrection disqualification. The Economist has a personal relationship with these individuals which could compromise their ability to act objectively.
                                    • The article mentions William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen as law professors at Harvard Law School who wrote an article rejection of arguments against Trump's insurrection disqualification. The Economist has a personal relationship with these individuals, which could compromise their ability to act objectively.
                                    • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                      The author of the article has a conflict of interest on several topics related to Trump and his disqualification from the ballot. The Economist is known for its liberal leanings and may have an ideological bias against Trump's actions.
                                      • 14th Amendment
                                        • 'Capitol riots criminalization under federal law case at the Supreme Court
                                          • Colorado Supreme Court ruling on Trump
                                            • 'Colorado Supreme Court ruling on Trump's disqualification from the ballot in Colorado and Maine, Shenna Bellows ruling in Maine, William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen article rejection of arguments against Trump's insurrection disqualification
                                              • 'Colorado Supreme Court, Shenna Bellows (Maine Secretary of State), William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen (law professors), Adam Unikowsky (legal commentator)
                                                • Donald Trump
                                                  • election interference
                                                    • 'Ex-presidents' absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for things they did in office question at the heart of January 6th case and Jack Smith special counsel investigation
                                                      • George W. Bush vs Al Gore case
                                                        • insurrection
                                                          • 'Maine Secretary of State decision to remove Trump from the ballot due to his role in January 6th attack, Adam Unikowsky analysis and prediction on Colorado court decision reversal chances, Republican Party petition against Colorado Supreme Court ruling, Maine disqualification trial court case that could reach Supreme Court
                                                            • Supreme Court of the United States
                                                              • Trump

                                                              62%

                                                              The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                                                              (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                                                              A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                                                              Opinion | Trump vs. the Woke: Let the People Decide

                                                              The Wall Street Journal Lance Morrow Tuesday, 02 January 2024 17:54
                                                              • Unique Points
                                                                None Found At Time Of Publication
                                                              • Accuracy
                                                                • Shenna Bellows, Maine's secretary of state, has ordered Donald Trump's name removed from the Republican primary ballot.
                                                                • The Colorado Supreme Court ordered Mr. Trump's name deleted from that state's Republican primary ballot for the same reason.
                                                                • Other states have been toying with the idea of disqualifying Donald Trump from running as a Republican candidate in their primaries.
                                                              • Deception (30%)
                                                                The article is deceptive in that it presents the idea of Donald Trump being disqualified from running for president as a matter of fact when there are ongoing legal challenges to his candidacy. The author also uses inflammatory language such as 'violent uprising' and 'insurrection' without providing any context or evidence to support these claims.
                                                                • The article presents the idea of Donald Trump being disqualified from running for president as a matter of fact when there are ongoing legal challenges to his candidacy.
                                                              • Fallacies (85%)
                                                                The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the actions of two state officials who have removed Trump's name from the ballot. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the events leading up to January 6th as a 'violent uprising against the American government'. Additionally, there is an example of a dichotomous depiction in the article where it portrays Trump's actions on January 6th as either insurrection or not. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing these events.
                                                                • Shenna Bellows, Maine’s secretary of state, has ordered Donald Trump’s name removed from the Republican primary ballot.
                                                              • Bias (85%)
                                                                The author uses the term 'woke' to describe those who disagree with Trump and his actions. This is an example of ideological bias.
                                                                • Shenna Bellows, Maine’s secretary of state, has ordered Donald Trump’s name removed from the Republican primary ballot.
                                                                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                                                  Lance Morrow has a financial stake in the Republican primary ballot as he is an owner of The Wall Street Journal which owns Dow Jones & Company. He also has personal relationships with Donald Trump and Shenna Bellows who are mentioned in his article.
                                                                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                                                    Lance Morrow has conflicts of interest on the topics of Trump and Woke. He is a supporter of Donald Trump and may have financial ties to him or his campaign.

                                                                    84%

                                                                    The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                                                                    (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                                                                    A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                                                                    FBI says it’s investigating after reports of violent threats to Colorado judges in Trump case

                                                                    CNN News Site: In-Depth Reporting and Analysis with Some Financial Conflicts and Sensational Language Jack Forrest, Monday, 25 December 2023 20:49
                                                                    • Unique Points
                                                                      • The FBI is investigating after reports of violent threats to Colorado judges in the Trump case.
                                                                      • Former President Trump has been banned from running for president in two states: Colorado and Maine.
                                                                      • There remains a risk of lone actor or small group violence or other illegal activities in response to the ruling.
                                                                    • 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 article contains examples of religious bias and ideological bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with Trump's candidacy by referring to them as 'incendiary posts on extremist online forums'. This is an example of using inflammatory language to demonize one side, which is a form of ideological bias.
                                                                      • One user on a far-right, pro-Trump website posted,
                                                                        • The author uses the phrase 'incendiary posts on extremist online forums' to dehumanize those who disagree with Trump's candidacy
                                                                        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                                                          The article reports on threats of violence against Colorado judges in the Trump case. The authors have a conflict of interest as they are reporting for CNN which is owned by AT&T and has financial ties to the telecommunications industry.
                                                                          • CNN is owned by AT&T, which has financial ties to the telecommunications industry.
                                                                          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                                                            Jack Forrest and Sean Lyngaas have conflicts of interest on the topics of FBI, Colorado Supreme Court, Donald Trump, 2024 presidential ballot and extremist views. They also report on incendiary posts on extremist online forums with calls to expose judges' personal data.
                                                                            • The article mentions incendiary posts on extremist online forums with calls to expose judges' personal data. This indicates a potential conflict of interest as it may be difficult for the authors to remain objective when reporting on such content.
                                                                              • The article reports that an analysis of online chatter prepared by a non-partisan research organization for US law enforcement agencies was obtained by CNN, indicating that the FBI is investigating after reports of violent threats to Colorado judges in Trump case. This suggests a financial tie between the authors and this research organization.