Former President Donald Trump on trial in New York for falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels in 2016.
Handwritten notes by Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney were presented as evidence.
Michael Cohen testified he was reimbursed $420,000 for the hush money payment and confirmed receiving 11 checks totaling this amount.
Prosecution argued Trump intentionally concealed the payment and used an elaborate scheme to falsify business records.
Former President Donald Trump is currently on trial in New York for falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment made to Stormy Daniels in 2016. The trial reached its closing arguments on May 28, with both the prosecution and defense making their final pitches to the jury.
The prosecution argued that Trump intentionally concealed the payment and used an elaborate scheme to falsify business records. Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, testified that he was reimbursed $420,000 for the hush money payment and confirmed receiving 11 checks totaling this amount. Handwritten notes by Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney were also presented as
Former President Trump is on trial for falsifying business records in the first degree related to a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels in 2016.
Prosecutors presented ‘powerful evidence’ against Trump, arguing that he intentionally concealed the payment and used an elaborate scheme.
Michael Cohen testified that he was reimbursed $420,000 for the $130,00 payment to Daniels and confirmed receiving 11 checks totaling this amount.
Handwritten notes by Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney were presented as ‘smoking guns’, showing calculations related to the payments Cohen received in 2017.
Trump left the courtroom during prosecution’s closing argument and called it ‘boring‘ on Truth Social.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as the author only reports details that support the prosecution's position and implies that Trump is guilty based on the presentation of evidence without providing any context or counterarguments from Trump's defense. The author also uses emotional manipulation by stating 'all roads lead inescapably to the man who benefited the most: the defendant, former President Donald Trump.'
Is this timing all a coincidence?
The name of the game was concealment, and all roads lead inescapably to the man who benefited most, the defendant, former President Donald Trump.
Fallacies
(90%)
The author makes several assertions in the article, some of which contain informal fallacies. The author uses the phrase 'powerful evidence' to describe the prosecution's case against Trump without providing any specific examples or details about what constitutes this 'powerful evidence'. This is an example of an appeal to emotion and a vague claim. Additionally, the author states that 'New York prosecutors made their closing arguments in the case against former President Trump on Tuesday', but does not provide any information about what was actually said during those closing arguments or how they relate to the fallacies being discussed. This is an example of a lack of detail and context. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the prosecution's case as a 'conspiracy and a cover-up', but does not provide any evidence to support this claim. This is an example of an appeal to fear and hyperbole. However, the article does contain some examples of formal fallacies, specifically in the form of false dilemmas presented by the prosecutor during their closing arguments. The author quotes the prosecutor as saying 'The name of the game was concealment, and all roads lead inescapably to the man who benefited most: the defendant, former President Donald Trump.' This statement presents a false dilemma by implying that there are only two possible explanations for why Trump allegedly falsified business records - either he was involved in a conspiracy to conceal something or he is innocent but chose to engage in elaborate schemes and lies. In reality, there could be other possible explanations that have not been considered. The author also quotes the prosecutor as saying 'The defendant chose Michael Cohen to be his fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat on the defendant’s behalf.' This statement is an example of an appeal to authority, as it assumes that the prosecutor's assessment of Cohen's motivations is accurate without providing any evidence or reasoning. However, despite these fallacies, the article still contains a significant amount of detail and context about the trial proceedings and the arguments being made by both sides. Therefore, I am scoring this article a 90.
The name of the game was concealment, and all roads lead inescapably to the man who benefited most: the defendant, former President Donald Trump.
The defendant chose Michael Cohen to be his fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat on the defendant’s behalf.
Bias
(80%)
The author uses the term 'conspiracy and a cover-up' to describe the actions of former President Trump, which could be seen as implying that there is something sinister or hidden going on. The prosecutor's use of the phrase 'smoking guns' to describe certain documents also carries a suggestive tone.
Donald Trump can’t shoot someone on Fifth Avenue at rush hour and get away with it.
The name of the game was concealment, and all roads lead inescapably to the man who benefited the most: the defendant, former President Donald Trump.
The Manhattan criminal trial of former President Donald Trump has come to closing arguments after 20 days of trial, testimony from 22 witnesses and over 200 exhibits.
Trump is facing 34 felony document falsification charges in an allegedly illegal repayment scheme to conceal the history of a $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels via former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.
The case boils down to three questions: whether the 34 business records at the heart of the case contain false information, whether Trump possessed the requisite fraudulent intent, and whether the 34 allegedly falsified documents were created to cover up another crime.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains editorializing and pontification by the author as they express their opinion on the outcome of the trial and evaluate the arguments made by both sides. The author also uses emotional manipulation by describing Cohen's testimony as 'lies' and 'oft-heard themes from the defense.' Additionally, there is selective reporting as the author focuses on specific points that support their perspective while ignoring other aspects of the trial.
Steinglass argued that Cohen was credible and that there was plenty of time in a 96-second call to discuss both prank calls Cohen had been receiving from a teenager, which Cohen and Schiller text-messaged about before the call, and the Daniels deal.
The prosecution had the better of it.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump and contains direct quotations from the defense's closing statement as well as the prosecution's arguments. The author, Todd Blanche, argues that the prosecution has not met their burden of proof on key points such as false information in the records and intent to defraud. Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass counters with evidence supporting the claims made by the prosecution. There is a clear presentation of both sides of the case, but it appears that the author leans slightly more towards the prosecution's arguments, as they are described as having 'the better of it' on several points. However, no overtly biased language or examples are used.
Even if the documents were false, the prosecution must also prove that Trump had an intent to defraud under the statute — that is, to intentionally lie in his business books and records.
For example, Blanche pointed to Cohen’s testimony and documents referring to that he did legal work on a Trump Foundation matter, on a case involving Summer Zervos (a former contestant on Trump’s former TV show “The Apprentice”) and on an agreement to create former first lady Melania Trump’s figurine at Madame Tussaud’s. And Blanche said that when Cohen testified that the work he did on those issues was gratuitous or minimal, he was lying — an oft-heard theme from the defense on Tuesday.
Hear how jurors reacted to defense’s closing statement in Trump hush money hearing 02:05 - Source: CNN
Steinglass argued that Cohen was credible and that there was plenty of time in a 96-second call to discuss both prank calls Cohen had been receiving from a teenager, which Cohen and Schiller text-messaged about before the call, and the Daniels deal.
The first pivot point is whether the 34 business records at the heart of the case actually contain false information.
Donald J. Trump is on trial for falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush-money payment made to Stormy Daniels in 2016.
Accuracy
Donald J. Trump is charged with falsifying 34 business records related to a $130,000 hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels.
Trump is facing 34 felony document falsification charges in an allegedly illegal repayment scheme to conceal the history of a $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
