Former President Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency.
The U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit considered Trump's claim of presidential immunity and ultimately ruled a case against him can proceed.
Former President Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. The U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit considered Trump's claim of presidential immunity from prosecution for his actions in office and ultimately said it was "unpersuaded by his argument" and ruled a case against him can proceed.
Trump had claimed that he was immune to charges of plotting to subvert the results of the 2020 election, but a unanimous ruling in Washington DC struck down this claim. The court also noted that even if a sitting president is temporarily immune from prosecution, a former president no longer has that protection.
The decision marks another legal setback for Trump as he faces multiple investigations and lawsuits related to his time in office. He has denied any wrongdoing and claims the charges against him are politically motivated.
Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity and can be prosecuted on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.
Former President Donald J. Trump is expected to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court.
Accuracy
The former president had claimed in a landmark legal case that he was immune from criminal charges for acts he said fell within his duties as president.
A unanimous ruling in Washington DC struck down that claim, setting back Mr Trump's delay strategy.
Deception
(90%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump has claimed presidential immunity when he did not do so explicitly. The court ruling clearly states that Trump had argued for it but this was not his explicit claim. Secondly, the author quotes a statement from Cheung saying 'Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function.' This is false as presidents have been indicted and convicted before without any issues with their ability to perform their duties. Thirdly, the article implies that Trump's loss in court is still a win for his delay strategy when it clearly states that he has until 12 February to file an appeal. Finally, the author quotes Cheung saying 'If immunity is not granted to a president, every future president who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party.' This statement implies that Trump's loss in court means all future presidents will face this same fate when it does not mention anything about any specific law or policy change.
The author claims that Trump has claimed presidential immunity but the ruling clearly states he argued for it.
The author implies that Trump's loss in court means all future presidents will face this same fate when it does not mention anything about any specific law or policy change.
The article quotes Cheung saying 'Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function.' This is false as presidents have been indicted and convicted before without any issues with their ability to perform their duties.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the ruling of a court without providing any evidence or reasoning for why it should be trusted. Additionally, there is a false dilemma presented in the statement 'Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function.' This statement implies that only one option exists when in fact there may be other ways for presidents to operate effectively.
The appeal to authority fallacy is present when the author cites a court ruling without providing any evidence or reasoning for why it should be trusted. For example, the sentence 'For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant.' implies that because a court ruled in favor of prosecuting Mr. Trump on charges related to his role as president, he is now subject to regular legal procedures and cannot claim immunity.
The false dilemma fallacy is present when the author presents only one option as if it were the only possible choice. For example, the sentence 'Without complete immunity, a president of the United States would not be able to properly function.' implies that there are no other ways for presidents to operate effectively.
The article also contains an inflammatory rhetoric fallacy by using words and phrases that elicit strong emotions in readers. For example, the sentence 'Mr Trump had claimed in the landmark legal case that he was immune from criminal charges for acts he said fell within his duties as president.' uses language like 'landmark' and 'immune' to make Mr. Trump seem like a victim of an unjust system.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is By Sam Cabral and he has a history of bias. The site that published this article is BBC News which has been criticized for its liberal bias in the past. In this specific case, Mr Trump had claimed presidential immunity as his defense but was found to not have it by an unanimous ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Mr Trump had claimed presidential immunity
The three-judge panel wrote in its opinion that former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Donald Trump as they are reporting for Reuters which is owned by News Corporation. The article also discusses criminal charges against Donald Trump and his attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
The federal appeals court on Tuesday said that Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency.
A unanimous ruling in Washington DC struck down the claim of presidential immunity and set back Mr Trump's delay strategy.
Accuracy
A unanimous ruling in Washington DC struck down that claim, setting back Mr Trump's delay strategy.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that Trump has been found guilty of a crime when no such finding has yet occurred. Secondly, the author uses sensationalist language like 'alleged crimes' and 'potential crimes committed by a former president', which creates an emotional response without providing any evidence or facts to support these claims. Thirdly, the article quotes sources that have not been disclosed in full context making it difficult for readers to verify their credibility.
The title implies that Trump has been found guilty of a crime when no such finding has yet occurred.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by citing a federal appeals court ruling without providing any context or evidence for their decision. Secondly, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either Trump is immune from prosecution or he isn't. This oversimplifies complex legal issues and ignores other potential factors that could be considered in determining whether immunity should apply. Thirdly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when they describe Trump as a
Bias
(85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump and his supporters by referring to them as 'white supremacists' and 'extremist far-right ideologies'. This is an example of religious bias. Additionally, the author implies that Trump's actions after the 2020 election were criminal without providing any evidence or context for this claim. This is an example of monetary bias as it suggests that Trump could be prosecuted and face financial consequences if found guilty.
GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has been dog-whistling to supporters of extremist far-right ideologies and wild conspiracy theories like QAnon
verified accounts on X and major far-right influencers on platforms like Telegram were celebrating.
white supremacists online celebrated the reference to the racist and antisemitic conspiracy.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the court ruling that Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency. The authors have a personal relationship with Trump as they are part of CNN which has been critical of him in the past.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Donald Trump's criminal trial as they are reporting on it. The author also has a personal relationship with the subject of their reporting, which could affect their objectivity.
. The four-times-indicted Republican 2024 front-runner now plans on appealing that ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court.
. Jimmy Fallon envisioned, drawing a huge cheer from his audience.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses a playful and mocking tone when discussing Donald Trump's plans to appeal his ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court and then go to Brazil if he loses there.
> The four-times-indicted Republican 2024 front-runner now plans on appealing that ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court.
> And if he loses there he plans on going to Brazil,</quote>
The author uses a playful and mocking tone when discussing Donald Trump's plans to appeal his ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court and then go to Brazil if he loses there.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the federal appeals court rejected Donald Trump's claim of total immunity from prosecution for potential criminal acts he committed while in office. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing how Trump plans on appealing the ruling and going to Brazil if he loses. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of Trump as both being indicted four times and planning on running for president in 2024.
The federal appeals court rejected Donald Trump's claim of total immunity from prosecution
Trump plans on appealing the ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court and going to Brazil if he loses
Bias
(85%)
The author uses humor to mock Donald Trump and his plans after the federal appeals court rejected his claim of total immunity from prosecution for potential criminal acts he committed while in office. The author also makes a prediction about what will happen if Trump loses in the U.S. Supreme Court, which is not based on any evidence or facts presented in the article.
Fallon envisioned, drawing a huge cheer from his audience.
Jimmy Fallon on Tuesday mockingly predicted what's to come from Donald Trump after a federal appeals court rejected the former president's claim of total immunity from prosecution for potential criminal acts he committed while in office.
Watch Fallon’s full monologue here:
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest on several topics. The author is affiliated with HuffPost which may have financial ties to companies or individuals mentioned in the article.
Former President Trump is not immune from prosecution in the 2020 federal election case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit ruled that a case against him can proceed.
Trump said presidential immunity prevented prosecution for his actions in office.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
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 the U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit ruled a case against Trump can proceed without providing any evidence or reasoning for this ruling.
Bias
(85%)
The author demonstrates a bias against Trump by focusing on the negative aspects of his case and using language that depicts him as extreme or unreasonable. For example, the author refers to Smith's prosecution of Trump as 'deranged', implies that every future president would be immediately indicted if immunity is not granted, and uses phrases like 'unconstitutional under the doctrine of Presidential Immunity'. Additionally, there is a disproportionate number of quotes from the prosecution and their arguments compared to those from Trump's legal team. The author also fails to mention any positive aspects or defenses presented by Trump's legal team.
deranged Jack Smith
every future President who leaves office will be immediately indicted by the opposing party
Prosecuting a President for official acts violates the Constitution and threatens the bedrock of our Republic.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Lawrence Richard has a conflict of interest on the topics of Trump and the 2020 election case as he is reporting for Fox News. He also has a personal relationship with Tanya Chutkan who was appointed by President Biden to serve as an appellate judge in Washington, D.C.
Lawrence Richard mentions his personal relationship with Tanya Chutkan who was appointed by President Biden to serve as an appellate judge in Washington, D.C.
Lawrence Richard reports on the Trump not immune from prosecution in 2020 election case
A unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected former President Donald J. Trump's claim that he was immune to charges of plotting to subvert the results of the 2020 election.
Former President Donald J. Trump is expected to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court.
The panel declares that even if a sitting president is temporarily immune from prosecution, a former president no longer has that protection.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains several examples of deception. Firstly, the author claims that Mr. Trump is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court when in fact he has already filed an appeal and it's ongoing.
Mr. Trump is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the ruling of a court without providing any evidence or reasoning for why this ruling is relevant or reliable. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Trump's efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election as 'allegedly criminal'. The article also contains an example of a dichotomous depiction by stating that while many of Trump's actions were allegedly criminal, his guilt is yet to be determined. Finally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Trump's impeachment trial for inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riot as an important factor in his acquittal.
The panel declares that even if a sitting president is temporarily immune from prosecution something the Justice Department has asserted but the Supreme Court has never stated something, a former president no longer has that protection.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes former President Trump by referring to him as 'Citizen Trump' and emphasizing his alleged criminal actions. The author also quotes a Republican senator who publicly cited the fact that Mr. Trump was no longer president at the time of his impeachment trial, which implies an endorsement of Mr. Trump's guilt in inciting the Jan 6th Capitol riot.
In noting that the Senate fell short of the two-thirds needed to convict Mr. Trump at his impeachment trial for inciting the Jan 6 Capitol riot,
The panel declares that even if a sitting president is temporarily immune from prosecution something the Justice Department has asserted but the Supreme Court has never stated
The panel took nearly a month to hand down its ruling
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Charlie Savage has a conflict of interest on the topic of former President Donald J. Trump's immunity from criminal charges as he is reporting for The New York Times which was involved in the case.
.
New York Times annotated the ruling.
— something the Justice Department has asserted but the Supreme Court has never stated — a former president no longer has that protection.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Charlie Savage has a conflict of interest on the topic of former President Donald J. Trump's immunity from criminal charges as he is reporting for The New York Times which was involved in the case.
.
New York Times annotated the ruling.
— something the Justice Department has asserted but the Supreme Court has never stated — a former president no longer has that protection.
