DOJ investigating Trump sex abuse accuser E. Jean Carroll: reports 44%

By Colin Mixson68%

5/28/2026, 2:47:47 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Negativity Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 46.5% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 581 faulty-reasoning hits from 200 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.8% and a BS Rank of 44% (9,563 of 16,813 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.90% of the article peer group.

The U.S. 
Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation into E. 
Jean Carroll, a magazine advice columnist who accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s in a widely-publicized civil lawsuit, according to multiple reports. 
According to CNN, The New York Times and other outlets, federal investigators are probing whether Carroll committed perjury in her two civil suits against President Trump, whom she accused of sexually assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room. 
Manhattan juries found Trump liable for sex abuse and defamation, eventually ordering Trump to pay damages totaling $88.3 million. 
The president has denied the allegations against him. 
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch, who represented Trump as his personal attorney during one of Carroll’s appeals, has recused himself from the case, according to CNN. 
The DOJ has mounted cases against several of Trump’s political foes during his second term, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was accused of federal bank fraud. 
James described the charges as President Trump’s “vehicle of retribution.” 
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to messages left seeking comment. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
5%
Availability Heuristic
18%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
46.5%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
27%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
13%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
17.5%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
17.5%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
6.5%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
5%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
9.5%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
25.5%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
46.5%
Quote-first Misdirection
22%
Biased Writer Voice
8.5%
Indoctrination
5%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
17.5%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

200 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.