Former President Donald Trump is facing a criminal trial in New York over hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
The case involves allegations that the payments were made during the 2016 presidential campaign and were intended to cover up an affair between Trump and Daniels.
Former President Donald Trump is facing a criminal trial in New York over hush money payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. The case involves allegations that the payments were made during the 2016 presidential campaign and were intended to cover up an affair between Trump and Daniels. The trial is set for March 25, but Trump has filed a motion asking for it to be delayed until after the Supreme Court rules on his claim of presidential immunity.
Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsification of business records tied to payments reimbursing his lawyer, Michael Cohen, in 2017.
The New York case involves a 'hush money' payment made by an attorney for Trump to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the days before the 2016 election.
Accuracy
Trump has once again sought to push back the start of his first criminal trial in New York.
The justices agreed and arguments are scheduled for April 25.
Trump argues he is shielded from some of the Manhattan district attorney's allegations because he was president at the time some of his actions took place.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'former president faces justice' and 'unprecedented fashion'. This creates a false sense of urgency and importance for the reader without providing any context or information about what exactly is at stake. Secondly, the article quotes Trump's attorneys stating that prosecutors planned to enter several pieces of evidence from 2018 when Trump was in office. However, this statement is not supported by any factual evidence presented in the article and could be seen as a lie by omission. Thirdly, the author uses selective reporting by only mentioning one aspect of Trump's case while ignoring other charges he faces.
unprecedented fashion
The former president faces justice
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author has a clear bias towards Trump and his legal team. The language used in the article is heavily slanted towards Trump's perspective and presents him as an innocent victim of political persecution.
> In a motion filed March 7 and made public Monday, Trump's attorneys asked Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan to delay the trial, which is currently set for March 25, until after the Supreme Court rules on whether Trump is shielded from criminal prosecution by "presidential immunity" in another one of his criminal cases.
<span>Reimbursing Cohen for advancing hush money to Stephanie Clifford cannot be considered the performance of a constitutional duty</span>
The justices agreed, and arguments are scheduled for April 25.
Trump has pleaded not guilty and denies all wrongdoing.
Trump previously sought to have the state case moved to federal court in 2013. A federal judge rejected that effort, writing that he didn't believe the reimbursements were tied to Trump's service as president.
Trump argues he is shielded from some of the Manhattan district attorney's allegations because he was president at the time some of his actions took place.
Trump has already argued he is immune from criminal prosecution in his two federal cases, on charges he tried to steal the 2020 election and for allegedly mishandling classified documents after leaving the White House.
Accuracy
Trump argues he is shielded from some of the Manhattan district attorney's allegations because he was president at the time some of his actions took place.
Trump contends because he has already argued that paying hush money to women was part of his official duties as president and should be immunity under consideration at the Supreme Court.
Deception
(50%)
Trump is claiming immunity from criminal charges in New York based on his presidential status. However, the legal experts doubt that he can argue paying hush money to women was part of his official duties as president to qualify for immunity. Trump has already argued he is immune from federal prosecution and mishandling classified documents after leaving the White House.
Trump argues he is shielded from some of the Manhattan district attorney's allegations because he was president at the time some of his actions took place.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several examples of an appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's immunity claim in his federal cases and uses it as evidence for his argument that he is immune from criminal charges in New York. However, this reasoning ignores the fact that each case must be evaluated independently and cannot rely solely on a previous decision.
Trump argues he is shielded from some of the Manhattan district attorney's allegations because he was president at the time some of his actions took place.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Donald Trump and he has a history of making false statements. The site that published the article is usatoday.com which has been known to have biased reporting in the past.
> President Trump argues he is shielded from some of Manhattan district attorney's allegations because he was president at the time some of his actions took place.
Former President Donald Trump has once again sought to push back the start of his first criminal trial in New York, which is currently set for March 25. The trial stems from a 'hush money' payment made by an attorney for Trump to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the days before the 2016 election.
Trump has argued that his payments were 'official acts', an argument repeated in his latest filing. A spokesperson for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg declined to comment.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive because it does not provide any evidence or sources to support the claims made by Trump's attorneys. The author relies on quotations from the motion filed by Trump's lawyers without questioning their validity or verifying them with other sources. The author also fails to mention that Trump has already lost several appeals in this case and that his argument of presidential immunity is weak and unsupported by legal precedent. By not challenging the claims made by Trump's attorneys, the author creates a false impression that they are factual and legitimate.
The article does not inform the reader that Trump has already lost several appeals in this case and that his argument of presidential immunity is weak and unsupported by legal precedent: 'While the concept of presidential immunity is firmly established, the doctrine’s scope presents a ‘serious and unsettled question of law.’ Therefore, the Court should adjourn the trial until the Supreme Court resolves Trump v. United States for several reasons,'
The article does not provide any context or background information on why this case is important or relevant to the public: 'In what is set to be his first criminal indictment to go to trial, Trump faces 34 counts of falsified business records for reimbursements he made to his former personal attorney Michael Cohen, who issued‚ hush money‚ payments to Daniels before the 2016 election to stop her from going public about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier.'
The article does not provide any counter-evidence or sources to refute Trump's argument that his statements about Daniels and Cohen were made in his official capacity as president: 'Trump’s lawyers also requested that Merchan hold an evidentiary hearing after the US Supreme Court rules on the presidential immunity issue to then determine what evidence of Trump’s “official acts” should be precluded based on presidential immunity.',
The article quotes from Trump's motion without any critical analysis or questioning of its validity: 'President Trump respectfully submits that an adjournment of the trial is appropriate to await further guidance from the Supreme Court, which should facilitate the appropriate application of the presidential immunity doctrine in this case to the evidence the People intend to offer at trial,'
Fallacies
(75%)
The article by Lauren del Valle contains several logical fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority in the form of citing a legal doctrine without providing any evidence or reasoning as to why it should apply in this case (Trump v. United States). Secondly, there is inflammatory rhetoric used when describing Trump's upcoming trial as his 'first criminal indictment to go to trial'. Lastly, the article contains dichotomous depictions by implying that a delay in the trial would be detrimental to justice being served.
The justices are not scheduled to hear that case until April 25, and a ruling may not come until the end of the court’s term in late June or early July.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is biased towards Donald Trump. The author uses language that dehumanizes Stormy Daniels and portrays her as a liar who was trying to extort money from Trump. The author also quotes sources that are sympathetic to Trump's cause and presents them in an unbalanced manner.
The criminal trial related to hush money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign to adult film star Stormy Daniels is scheduled to begin with jury selection on March 25. But Trump wants to wait until after the Supreme Court rules on immunity.
, Trump's lawyers said prosecutors have suggested they will introduce at trial
Accuracy
, Trump argues he is shielded from some of the Manhattan district attorney's allegations because he was president at the time some of his actions took place.
Trump has already argued he is immune from criminal prosecution in his two federal cases, on charges he tried to steal the 2020 election and for allegedly mishandling classified documents after leaving the White House.
Trump contends because he has already argued that paying hush money to women was part of his official duties as president and should be immunity under consideration at the Supreme Court.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump has asserted presidential immunity for the first time in this case when he had previously done so unsuccessfully in his federal court case. Secondly, the author states that prosecutors have suggested they will introduce evidence at trial to implicate official acts for purposes of presidential immunity when there is no mention of such evidence in any court documents filed by either side. Thirdly, the article implies that Trump's lawyers are arguing that an adjournment of the trial is appropriate while stating that he has not argued for his hush money charges to be dismissed entirely based on presidential immunity. This contradicts what was stated earlier in the article and creates confusion about Trump's position on this matter.
The author claims that Trump has asserted presidential immunity for the first time in this case when he had previously done so unsuccessfully in his federal court case.
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author is asserting that Trump's hush money charges should be limited from certain evidence at the trial because it implicates official acts during his time in the White House. This statement implies a bias towards Trump and suggests that he believes himself to be above the law due to his former position as President.
Although he is not arguing presidential immunity requires his hush money charges be tossed, Trump is asserting that prosecutors should be limited from introducing certain evidence at the trial because they implicate official acts during his time in the White House.
Former President Trump is seeking to derail the start of his first criminal trial just two weeks out from when it is scheduled to begin, asserting a presidential immunity defense in the case for the first time.
Trump has asserted presidential immunity requires charges in his other criminal cases be tossed entirely, and the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on April 25 with a decision likely to follow by the end of June.
Trump is trying to push back his upcoming trial in the Stormy Daniels hush money case in an eleventh-hour delay bid, arguing that it shouldn't go forward until the Supreme Court rules on his presidential immunity claim.
`In Manhattan Supreme Court filings, Trump's lawyers said evidence prosecutors intend to present at the criminal trial ... is related to his outstanding immunity claim before the nation's high court.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the idea that Trump's lawyers are arguing for a delay in the trial based on his presidential immunity claim when they are actually arguing against evidence related to his outstanding immunity claim before SCOTUS. Secondly, it implies that Trump has invoked the presidential immunity defense in all of his criminal matters when he has only done so once and failed to do so in this case. Lastly, it presents quotes from Trump's lawyers as if they were official statements from him without any context or clarification.
In Manhattan Supreme Court filings, Trump’s lawyers said evidence prosecutors intend to present at the criminal trial — set to be Trump’s first of four and potentially the only one he attends before the election — is related to his outstanding immunity claim before SCOTUS.
Trump has sought to invoke the presidential immunity defense in all his criminal matters. Last year, he failed to get Bragg’s case moved to federal court by arguing the conduct was carried out under his official presidential responsibilities.
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on April 25 before deciding whether Trump’s actions as president were immune from criminal charges brought by special prosecutor Jack Smith in his federal election subversion case.
Former President Donald Trump at a campaign event in Rome, Ga., on March 9, 2024. (Photo by ELIJAH NOUVELAGE/AFP via Getty Images)
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Trump's lawyers cited public statements made as president and posts to his official presidential account on X in their filings. However, this does not necessarily mean that these statements are true or reliable. Secondly, the author presents a false dilemma by suggesting that either Trump is immune from criminal prosecution based on his actions as president or he will be subjected to de facto extortion and blackmail by his political opponents. This oversimplifies complex legal issues and ignores other possible outcomes. Finally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the potential consequences of a ruling against Trump's immunity claim, stating that it could hang like a millstone around every future president's neck and cloud their ability to make decisions impartially.
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Trump's lawyers cited public statements made as president and posts to his official presidential account on X in their filings. However, this does not necessarily mean that these statements are true or reliable.
The author presents a false dilemma by suggesting that either Trump is immune from criminal prosecution based on his actions as president or he will be subjected to de facto extortion and blackmail by his political opponents. This oversimplifies complex legal issues and ignores other possible outcomes.
Bias
(85%)
The author has a clear political bias and is attempting to delay the trial of Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels hush money case. The author cites evidence that was obtained during his presidency as part of an ongoing immunity claim before the Supreme Court. This suggests that the author believes that Presidential immunity should be used to shield Trump from criminal prosecution, even if it is not supported by law or fact.
Former President Donald Trump at a campaign event in Rome, Ga., on March 9, 2024. (Photo by ELIJAH NOUVELAGE/AFP via Getty Images)
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on April 25 before deciding whether Trump’s actions as president were immune from criminal charges brought by special prosecutor Jack Smith in his federal election subversion case.
Trump has sought to invoke the presidential immunity defense in all his criminal matters. Last year, he failed to get Bragg’s case moved to federal court by arguing the conduct was carried out under his official presidential responsibilities.
Trump's lawyers said evidence prosecutors intend to present at the criminal trial — set to be Trump’s first of four and potentially the only one he attends before the election — is related to his outstanding immunity claim before the nation’s high court.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
There are multiple conflicts of interest found in this article. The author has a personal relationship with the subject of the article, Stormy Daniels. Additionally, there is financial ties between Michael Cohen and Donald Trump which could influence their coverage of the topic.
The author's name is Molly Crane-Newman who was previously married to Stormy Daniels.
