Trump’s Fury at Reflecting Pool Mess Darkens as Damning New Leaks Hit 47%

By The Daily Blast60% Greg Sargent62%

8/5/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 36.6% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 557 faulty-reasoning hits from 186 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.6% and a BS Rank of 47% (16,468 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.80% of the article peer group.

Donald Trump has been raging at Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. 
Attorney for Washington, DC, because she dropped those high-profile prosecutions for alleged vandalism of his Reflecting Pool renovation. 
That pressure is corrupt on its own. 
But new leaks are making it look even worse. 
CBS News reports that Pirro actually carried a box of evidence to the White House showing that the facts simply didn’t support those prosecutions. 
The meeting got “heated,” per CBS, seemingly meaning Trump wanted prosecutions in spite of what the facts and the law dictated. 
Meanwhile, we just learned this fiasco triggered private “tirades” from Trump, further underscoring his quest for lawless prosecutions. 
We talked to former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade, author of The Fix: Saving America from the Corruption of a Mob-Style Government. 
She walks us through just how deeply irregular this presidential conduct truly is, discusses what has been lost at DOJ, and reflects on how a Democratic House and/or Senate can rein in all this madness next year. 
Listen to this episode here. 
A transcript is here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 34.9%The Daily Blast: 6.1%newrepublic.com: 5.0%Confirmation Bias34.9%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%The Daily Blast: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Availability Heuristic9.7%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 19.9%The Daily Blast: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias19.9%This article: 23.1%The Daily Blast: 3.3%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Framing Effect23.1%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%The Daily Blast: 2.7%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Pessimism Bias13.4%This article: 28.0%The Daily Blast: 6.4%newrepublic.com: 10.1%Negativity Bias28.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 1.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.5%The Daily Blast: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Recency Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 3.0%newrepublic.com: 2.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 32.8%The Daily Blast: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Appeal to Authority32.8%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.3%The Daily Blast: 5.6%newrepublic.com: 6.2%Hasty Generalization11.3%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.8%The Daily Blast: 2.5%newrepublic.com: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion11.8%This article: 3.8%The Daily Blast: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.3%Begging the Question3.8%This article: 9.7%The Daily Blast: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.7%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.7%The Daily Blast: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Burden of Proof9.7%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.7%The Daily Blast: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 1.7%Anecdotal9.7%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.1%The Daily Blast: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.1%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.7%The Daily Blast: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Unattributed Quote9.7%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 36.6%The Daily Blast: 5.9%newrepublic.com: 11.5%Biased Writer Voice36.6%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 2.7%newrepublic.com: 5.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Daily Blast: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%The Daily Blast: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.8%

186 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker13%attributed speech162writer words
Selected voice

CBS News

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words100% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-42.0 ptsWriter: 42.0%CBS News: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-11.1 ptsWriter: 11.1%CBS News: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%CBS News: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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