Current events

Current events

By Jonathan Acker

Please read the following articles:

• Fox News — “Trump indicted on 37 federal counts…” (June 9, 2023). Headline coverage noting the willful-retention and obstruction counts and platforming defense voices. Fox News

• AP News — original/continuing coverage (2023→2025). Summaries of the documents case and later congressional fights over Smith and his report; useful for timeline and neutral tone. AP News+2

• The Nation — “The Criminal Delusions of Donald Trump” (June 9, 2023). Strongly supportive of the indictment; frames the evidence as “damning” and historically necessary. The Nation

Open Ended

You've now read three articles from three different perspectives related to the collection and storage of classified materials at a former president's personal residence. Based upon what you've read, do you think the indictment was fair, necessary, or an unjust politicization of the powers of the Justice Department? (please cite specific information from the readings)

Please read the following articles:

• Center/straight-news: FactCheck.org explainer. Takeaway: lays out the official (Rosenstein-based) rationale versus Trump’s later comments to Holt, without op-ed spin. FactCheck.org

• Left & liberal outlets: Often emphasize Trump’s own words linking the decision to the Russia investigation and see the 2016 letters as election-altering breaches of DOJ practice. (Example analysis above from The Atlantic.) The Atlantic

• Conservative & libertarian outlets: Tend to argue Comey’s 2016 steps broke norms and warranted removal, while noting the White House muddied its case with shifting explanations. (National Review example above; WSJ opinion reflects ongoing skepticism of Comey’s choices.) National Review+1

Open Ended

You've now read three articles from three different perspectives related to what happened under James Comey's leadership of the FBI. On May 9, 2017, President Donald Trump fired James Comey. Please cite the reasonings for why this was or was not a legal and justified action by the President. (please cite specific information from the readings)

Please read the following articles:

• Left / progressive framing

  • The Guardian and other left-leaning coverage cast the case as accountability for long-running financial deception. (See Wikipedia’s neutral case page for quick context and sources.) Wikipedia

  Center / straight-news

  • Reuters and AP focused on the ruling, amounts, and appeal posture—deliberately avoiding partisan language. Reuters+1

  Right / conservative

  • National Review and other right-leaning outlets criticized the case as abusive “lawfare” and later highlighted appellate cuts to the penalty. National Review+1

Please read the following articles:

• Left / progressive framing

  • The Guardian calls the case thin and likely political, quoting experts who say the dollar amounts and facts are atypical for federal fraud prosecutions. The Guardian

  Center / straight-news

  • AP pieces provide the charge language, venue, and reactions without taking sides; overview/background explainers profile James and note her earlier Trump civil case. AP News+1

  Right / conservative

  • Fox News and the New York Post stress “indicted” and highlight filings/ethics disclosures and a rental-use narrative; some conservative commentary argues the case is justified, while others (e.g., National Review) caution the facts are “more complicated.” Fox News+2New York Post+2

Open Ended

You've now read six articles from three different perspectives related to the civil fraud case against former President Trump and the DOJ criminal case against the New York attorney general Letitia James. When Trump was indicted and found guilty, the conservative media cast it as "lawfare" and a weaponization of the judicial system. Please compare the two cases and explain your understanding and judgment of the cases. Were they fair and proper? Why or why not? (please cite specific information from the readings)