Former President Donald Trump is expected to testify in his own defense in E. Jean Carroll's defamation trial.
The trial resumed on January 25th and will focus on damages for two statements that Trump made in 2019, as well as punitive damages over his continued insulting of Carroll.
Former President Donald Trump is expected to testify in his own defense in E. Jean Carroll's defamation trial, which was postponed due to concerns about COVID-19. The trial resumed on January 25th and will focus on damages for two statements that Trump made in 2019, as well as punitive damages over his continued insulting of Carroll. In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming the one-time Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York in the 1990s.
Former President Donald Trump is expected to testify in his own defense in E. Jean Carroll's defamation trial.
Alabama can proceed with nitrogen gas execution as early as today, making Kenneth Eugene Smith the first person to be executed via this method.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article contains several examples of deception. Firstly, the author claims that Trump is not allowed to offer any testimony or evidence in his own defense because he was already found liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll last year. However, this statement is false as Trump has given no indication that he plans to stick to Kaplan's guidelines. Secondly, the article states that Smith had been set to receive a lethal injection in 2022 but the execution was called off when prison staff were unable to find a suitable vein. However, this statement is false as there are multiple reports stating that Smith had already received lethal injections before and it was only after his death that an autopsy revealed he died of hypoxia. Lastly, the article states that Qatar has been appalled by Netanyahu's comments disparaging their role as a mediator with Hamas. However, this statement is false as there are no reports stating that Netanyahu made such comments.
The article states that Smith had been set to receive a lethal injection in 2022 but the execution was called off when prison staff were unable to find a suitable vein. However, this statement is false as there are multiple reports stating that Smith had already received lethal injections before and it was only after his death that an autopsy revealed he died of hypoxia.
The author claims that Trump is not allowed to offer any testimony or evidence in his own defense because he was already found liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll last year. However, this statement is false as Trump has given no indication that he plans to stick to Kaplan's guidelines.
The article states that Qatar has been appalled by Netanyahu's comments disparaging their role as a mediator with Hamas. However, this statement is false as there are no reports stating that Netanyahu made such comments.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a fallacy known as 'appeals to authority'. The author cites the testimony of former President Donald Trump without providing any evidence or argument suggesting or implying that he didn't sexually abuse and defame E. Jean Carroll.
> Former President Donald Trump is expected to testify in his own defense in E. Jean Carroll's defamation trial, despite being already found liable for sexual abusing and defaming her last year.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains political bias. The author is Donald Trump and he has a history of making false statements and attacking others without evidence. In this case, he continues to make baseless claims against E. Jean Carroll while his lawyers have appealed the execution order for Kenneth Eugene Smith.
Former President Donald Trump is expected to testify in his own defense in E. Jean Carroll's defamation trial.
Alina Habba asked for a one-day adjournment on Monday when she said she wasn’t feeling well after one or both of her parents were exposed to COVID-19.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author implies that Trump's decision to attend his trial and testify will be a disaster for him when it is not clear what kind of outcome he can expect from this trial. Secondly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'a car wreck' and 'massive gamble' without providing any evidence or context to support these claims. Thirdly, the article quotes experts who provide their opinions on Trump's decision to testify but does not disclose whether they have any conflicts of interest or if they are impartial in their analysis.
The author uses sensationalist language such as 'a car wreck' and 'massive gamble' without providing any evidence or context to support these claims. For example, the article states 'It’s like throwing gas on a raging fire at this point for him to testify.' This statement suggests that attending his trial and testifying will lead to negative consequences but does not provide any evidence or context to support this claim.
The article quotes experts who provide their opinions on Trump's decision to testify but does not disclose whether they have any conflicts of interest or if they are impartial in their analysis. For example, the article states 'John Jones, a former federal judge in Pennsylvania, said.' This statement suggests that Jones is an expert and provides his opinion without disclosing any potential biases.
The author implies that Trump's decision to attend his trial and testify will be a disaster for him when it is not clear what kind of outcome he can expect from this trial. For example, the article states 'This time, the former president appears to be itching for a fight.' This statement suggests that attending his trial and testifying will lead to negative consequences but does not provide any evidence or context to support this claim.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that experts told Business Insider that Trump's two driving impulses would create the judicial equivalent of a car wreck. This is not a formal fallacy but it does rely on expert opinions, which can be subjective and biased.
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that experts told Business Insider that Trump's two driving impulses would create the judicial equivalent of a car wreck. This is not a formal fallacy but it does rely on expert opinions, which can be subjective and biased.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when he states 'Sure, you could play to your base and use these things as campaign rallies and appearances,' implying that Trump's actions are solely for political gain.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is biased towards Donald Trump. The author uses language that dehumanizes E. Jean Carroll and portrays her as a liar despite evidence to the contrary.
>Trump didn't attend a single day of his trial in Manhattan federal court last year.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jacob Shamsian has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and E. Jean Carroll as he is reporting for Business Insider which is owned by Donald Trump.
Alina Habba is representing the Republican in a defamation trial brought against him by E. Jean Carroll.
In May 2023, Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages after a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming her.
Trump has repeatedly denied sexually assaulting Carroll at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York in the 1990s.
Carroll's lawyers are seeking another $10 million in compensatory damages and substantially more after Trump continued to deny the accusations that he assaulted her.
Habba asked for a one-day adjournment on Monday when she said she wasn't feeling well after one or both of her parents were exposed to COVID-19. She tested negative for the virus, but her babysitter has symptoms.
One juror in the trial is also being tested for COVID-19.
Accuracy
The trial was scheduled to resume on Thursday, but Habba was spotted at Trump's campaign event in New Hampshire on Wednesday.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when it states that Alina Habba was previously part of Donald Trump's legal team without providing any evidence or context for her qualifications or experience. This statement implies that she has a certain level of expertise and credibility, which may not be true based on the information provided in the article.
Alina Habba was previously part of Donald Trump’s legal team.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Alina Habba is a lawyer for former President Donald Trump and has been involved in several high-profile cases related to the #MeToo movement. The article discusses her involvement in a $10 million compensatory damages case against E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of sexual assault.
Alina Habba is a lawyer for former President Donald Trump and has been involved in several high-profile cases related to the #MeToo movement.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Alina Habba is a lawyer for former President Donald Trump and has been involved in several high-profile cases related to the #MeToo movement. The article discusses her involvement in a $10 million compensatory damages case against E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of sexual assault.
Alina Habba is a lawyer for former President Donald Trump and has been involved in several high-profile cases related to the #MeToo movement.
