Trump's Legal Team Seeks Pause in Classified Documents Case, Citing Supreme Court Immunity Ruling

Washington D.C., District of Columbia United States of America
Former President Donald Trump has requested a pause in the ongoing classified documents case against him.
The push by Trump is the latest effort to wield the Supreme Court's decision as a weapon in his ongoing cases in Florida, Washington D.C., and Georgia.
The Supreme Court ruled that presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office but not for unofficial acts.
Trump argues that his decision to transmit classified documents to his Florida home as he prepared to leave the presidency should be treated as an official act and removed from special counsel Jack Smith's case against him.
Trump's legal team filed motions with a Florida court on July 5, asking for all proceedings to be halted except those dealing with Smith's gag order request until the judge can apply the Supreme Court's immunity ruling to the facts of the case.
Trump's Legal Team Seeks Pause in Classified Documents Case, Citing Supreme Court Immunity Ruling

Former President Donald Trump has requested a pause in the ongoing classified documents case against him, citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that granted presidents substantial immunity for official acts committed while they were in office.

Trump's legal team filed motions with a Florida court on July 5, asking for all proceedings to be halted except those dealing with Smith's gag order request until the judge can apply the Supreme Court's immunity ruling to the facts of the case.

The Supreme Court ruled that presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office but not for unofficial acts. Trump argues that his decision to transmit classified documents to his Florida home as he prepared to leave the presidency should be treated as an official act and removed from special counsel Jack Smith's case against him.

The push by Trump is the latest effort to wield the Supreme Court's decision as a weapon in his ongoing cases in Florida, Washington D.C., and Georgia, each of which implicate some of Trump's actions during his final months in the White House.

Trump also used his Friday filing to point to President Joe Biden's July 1 remarks criticizing the Supreme Court's immunity ruling. Trump's team urged Judge Aileen Cannon to focus on Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in the immunity ruling, which raised questions about whether Smith's appointment as special counsel was constitutional.

The case has already scrambled plans for New York state judge Juan Merchan to sentence Trump on his 34-count conviction for concealing evidence of his alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels. Though that case centered on Trump's private actions, some of the evidence prosecutors relied on overlapped with his first two years in the White House, which Trump contends should have been treated as off-limits.

The ruling has also raised questions about whether it could impact other ongoing investigations and cases against Trump. The Justice Department is reportedly considering appealing the decision to the full Supreme Court.


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

Confidence

80%

Doubts
  • Could Judge Aileen Cannon rule in favor of Trump's request for a pause in the case?
  • How will the Supreme Court's immunity ruling impact other ongoing investigations and cases against Trump?
  • Is Trump's argument that his decision to transmit classified documents should be treated as an official act strong enough to be removed from the case?

Sources

97%

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

Trump seeks new pause in classified documents case, citing Supreme Court’s immunity ruling

Politico News Site Name: POLITICO Full Legal Name of News Site: Politico LLC Location of News Site: Washington D.C., USA Friday, 05 July 2024 00:00
  • Unique Points
    • Donald Trump is seeking an indefinite delay of his Florida case, citing the Supreme Court’s recent immunity ruling.
    • Trump says the Supreme Court’s ruling that he has blanket immunity from prosecution for his official acts as president.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The article contains a few informal fallacies and an appeal to authority. It presents Trump's argument without directly endorsing it, but the presentation could give readers the impression that Trump's claims about immunity have merit.
    • . . . he is asking Cannon for a chance to argue the immunity issue before her between now and early September, effectively pausing all other proceedings in the case by two months.
    • Trump has argued that his decision to transmit classified documents to his Florida home as he prepared to leave the presidency should be treated as an “official act” and be removed from special counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump for allegedly hoarding national security secrets at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
    • Trump also used his Friday filing to point to President Joe Biden’s July 1 remarks panning the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. It was the most explicit commentary by Biden about the criminal charges Trump is facing brought by the special counsel.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

93%

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 | When the Supreme Court Gets Mixed Up With Trump Derangement Syndrome

The Name Of The NZ Prefix. I PWA NZI.P.Was Dropped. William Baude Friday, 05 July 2024 09:03
  • Unique Points
    • The Supreme Court issued major rulings that will reshape the law in areas like administrative law.
    • The court imposed important limitations on the administrative state, sharply limiting the ability of agencies to impose regulatory fines without a jury.
    • The court increased the power of cities to displace unhoused people from public spaces.
    • Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion upholding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s appropriations structure.
    • The court upheld a federal gun control statute dealing with domestic violence by an 8-to-1 vote.
    • The court rejected challenges brought by conservative activists because they lacked standing to bring those challenges into federal court.
  • Accuracy
    • ]The Supreme Court issued major rulings that will reshape the law in areas like administrative law.[
  • Deception (95%)
    The article by William Baude contains editorializing and selective reporting. The author expresses his opinion that the Supreme Court's decisions are 'principled and sound' for the most part but admits that there were 'two particularly salient blemishes on the court’s performance this year'. He then goes on to discuss these two cases, both of which involve Donald Trump. By focusing only on these two cases and implying that they are the only instances of questionable decisions by the Supreme Court, Baude is engaging in selective reporting. Additionally, he uses editorializing language when describing the decisions as 'blemishes' and 'salient'.
    • The same logic has led to some victories for the Biden administration, too.
    • In doing so, the court showed that the doctrine of standing, which has often been used to curb lawsuits by environmentalists and consumer protection groups, can also be used to block right-wing lawsuits and is not just a shield for one cause or ideology.
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

96%

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

Trump leans on presidential immunity ruling in new bid to toss Jack Smith

Axios News Site: https://www.axios.com/2024/01-30/prior-authorization-gap-insurer-drug-decisions April Rubin Friday, 05 July 2024 20:04
  • Unique Points
    • Former President Trump made a new bid to remove special counsel Jack Smith from the classified documents case in Florida, citing the Supreme Court’s recent opinion on presidential immunity.
    • Trump was indicted in June 2023 and charged with 37 felonies as part of a Justice Department probe into his handling of classified documents after leaving the White House.
    • Trump's lawyers leaned on Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence questioning whether Smith’s appointment was constitutional and appropriate.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (80%)
    The article contains editorializing and selective reporting. The author uses phrases like 'Former President Trump makes a new bid' and 'Why it matters' which are editorial opinions. The author also only reports details that support the author's position, such as Trump's legal team using presidential immunity as a defense in the classified documents case, but does not mention any potential counterarguments or opposing viewpoints. This selective reporting can give readers a biased understanding of the situation.
    • Why it matters: The Supreme Court ruling was a partial victory for Trump,
    • Former President Trump makes a new bid Friday to remove special counsel Jack Smith from the classified documents case in Florida,
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

99%

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

Trump asks Florida court to pause classified documents case after Supreme Court immunity decision

Fox News Media Brianna Herlihy Friday, 05 July 2024 21:36
  • Unique Points
    • Former President Donald Trump has requested a partial pause in the classified documents case brought against him after a U.S. Supreme Court decision this week found that presidents have substantial immunity for official acts that occurred while they were in office.
    • Lawyers for Trump asked a Florida court to pause all proceedings in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith, except those that deal with Smith’s gag order request, until the judge can apply the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling to the facts of the case.
    • The Supreme Court ruled that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office but not for unofficial acts.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

79%

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

Our democracy took a gut punch. Ball is in Biden’s court.

The Fixing Site: A Summary of the Article. Jennifer Rubin Friday, 05 July 2024 13:00
  • Unique Points
    • The upcoming quarterly refunding update from the US Treasury will provide information on how much bond supply there will be.
    • The most stunning Supreme Court decision of my lifetime has changed the structure of our Constitution.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (30%)
    The article contains editorializing and pontification by the author, as well as emotional manipulation through phrases like 'gut punch' and 'worst nightmare'. The author also engages in selective reporting by focusing on the Supreme Court decision that granted immunity to the president while ignoring other aspects of the decision. Additionally, there is a lack of disclosure of sources for some statements made in the article.
    • Our democracy took a gut punch.
    • The damage the court has wrought to the very fabric of our democracy is profound.
    • Many can sympathize with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent:
    • Biden needs to deliver vibrant appearances, conduct town halls and give tough interviews on this subject.
    • All of this comes after President Biden’s debate performance, which sent shock waves of panic through the Democratic Party.
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent and stating that it sends out a clear warning that our republic is imperiled. She argues against the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity, but this does not constitute a logical fallacy on the part of the author. However, she also makes inflammatory statements such as 'the court's power grab has shredded any pretense that the court is guided by originalism. It clears the way for an unscrupulous president to commit outrageous crimes with impunity.' and 'If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.' These statements are opinionated and emotional in nature, but they do not necessarily constitute logical fallacies. However, they do lower the overall score due to their inflammatory nature.
    • The court's power grab has shredded any pretense that the court is guided by originalism. It clears the way for an unscrupulous president to commit outrageous crimes with impunity.
    • If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
  • Bias (80%)
    The author expresses a clear political bias against the Supreme Court's decision and the former president Donald Trump. She also implies that Biden needs to take action to protect democracy, which could be seen as a call to action based on her political beliefs.
    • If Biden cannot appear in a free-flowing setting to erase doubts, he is obligated to make way for Harris to accept the nomination.
      • It clears the way for an unscrupulous president to commit outrageous crimes with impunity.
        • Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent for the ages.
          • Many can sympathize with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent: I simply cannot abide the majority’s senseless discarding of a model of accountability for criminal acts that treats every citizen of this country as being equally subject to the law – as the Rule of Law requires.
            • The most stunning Supreme Court decision of my lifetime, and arguably ever, has changed the structure of our Constitution.
            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication