WRAL.com29%

Blanche's attorney general confirmation is in doubt as GOP Sen. Murkowski opposes his nomination 22%

By BILL BARROW58% ALANNA DURKIN RICHER — Associated Press0%

8/7/2026, 4:03:10 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.8% saturation with 141 hits. Analysis detected 653 faulty-reasoning hits from 619 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.5% and a BS Rank of 22% (23,903 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.20% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON (AP)  Republican Sen. 
Lisa Murkowski said Friday she will oppose Todd Blanche’s nomination as attorney general, narrowing the confirmation path for President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Justice Department. 
The Alaska senator, who joins GOP Sen. 
Susan Collins of Maine in opposing Blanche, cited the Justice Department's handling of files related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, a sweeping tax audit immunity deal for Trump and a proposed $1.8 billion fund meant to compensate the Republican president's allies. 
“The country needs an Attorney General who will check the worst impulses of this administration," Murkowski said in a statement. 
“I hope Mr. 
Blanche is able to achieve that, if confirmed, but I simply do not have confidence that will be the case.” 
Murkowski's opposition injects fresh uncertainty into Blanche's nomination, which has faced obstacles over a settlement of Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service regarding his leaked tax returns. 
With Sen. 
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky not attending Senate sessions, Blanche can only afford to lose two Republican votes if all Democrats oppose him. 
And another key Republican  Sen. 
Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who lost his primary after Trump backed his rival  has not said how he will vote. 
Blanche, who previously served as Trump’s criminal defense lawyer, entered the department last year as deputy attorney general and was elevated to the top post in an acting role after Pam Bondi's ouster in April. 
While he could still run the department either as acting attorney general or deputy attorney general, his nomination failing would be a major political blow for the Trump administration. 
Democrats and Republicans alike have expressed serious concerns about the settlement, which called for the creation of a $1.8 billion fund to compensate people who feel mistreated by the criminal justice system and provided Trump and family members with immunity from tax audits. 
Murkowski said she is worried the Trump administration could proceed with the proposed “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” despite the Trump administration's promises that it is dead, noting that the Senate has leverage over the fund only because Blanche’s nomination is pending. 
“Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds,” she said. 
The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Blanche's nomination only after a deal reached last weekend with two other Republican senators  John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina  who had been threatening to block his confirmation over aspects of the settlement. 
Under the deal, Blanche formally rescinded the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” writing in an order that “there is no Fund.” 
The Justice Department also clarified in writing that the tax audit immunity agreement applies only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings. 
It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit  Trump, two of his sons and the Trump Organization  are covered by the tax agreement. 
But Democrats say Blanche's order doesn't stop the Trump administration from reviving the fund after his confirmation and have called for legislation to permanently bar it. 
Trump has repeatedly defended the fund and has threatened to push forward with it if Republicans don't support Blanche's nomination. 
Lawmakers and legal experts have also questioned the lawfulness of the tax protections for Trump. 
A federal judge who oversaw the IRS case has described Trump's lawsuit as an improper exercise in self-dealing, and on Thursday the union representing IRS workers asked another judge to block the immunity agreement. 
Copyright 2026 by The Associated Press. 
All rights reserved. 
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.9%Bill Barrow: 1.7%WRAL: 1.8%Confirmation Bias14.9%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.8%WRAL: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Bill Barrow: 1.9%WRAL: 2.3%Availability Heuristic5.8%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.9%WRAL: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.3%WRAL: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 1.3%WRAL: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Bill Barrow: 9.8%WRAL: 4.4%Framing Effect3.2%This article: 3.6%Bill Barrow: 0.2%WRAL: 0.3%Loss Aversion3.6%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.6%WRAL: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 1.4%WRAL: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.2%Bill Barrow: 2.0%WRAL: 1.3%Pessimism Bias14.2%This article: 22.8%Bill Barrow: 9.1%WRAL: 6.2%Negativity Bias22.8%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.5%WRAL: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.6%WRAL: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.2%WRAL: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 1.0%WRAL: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.2%WRAL: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 1.7%WRAL: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%Bill Barrow: 1.3%WRAL: 1.2%Recency Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.3%WRAL: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.7%WRAL: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.3%WRAL: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.9%Bill Barrow: 3.9%WRAL: 1.7%Appeal to Authority7.9%This article: 3.6%Bill Barrow: 0.7%WRAL: 0.9%False Dilemma3.6%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 1.6%WRAL: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.3%WRAL: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.4%Bill Barrow: 2.4%WRAL: 2.0%Hasty Generalization3.4%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.1%WRAL: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.2%WRAL: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.2%Bill Barrow: 4.2%WRAL: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion3.2%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 1.2%WRAL: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.6%Bill Barrow: 3.1%WRAL: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.6%This article: 3.2%Bill Barrow: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Tu Quoque3.2%This article: 4.2%Bill Barrow: 0.4%WRAL: 0.3%Burden of Proof4.2%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.4%WRAL: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.3%WRAL: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.9%WRAL: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.0%WRAL: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.0%WRAL: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.5%Bill Barrow: 0.6%WRAL: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.5%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 1.1%WRAL: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 4.4%WRAL: 1.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.3%WRAL: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 2.2%WRAL: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.3%WRAL: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bill Barrow: 0.0%WRAL: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

619 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers27%attributed speech452writer words
Selected voice

Lisa Murkowski

79%flagged-word coverage
126 attributed words75% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Unattributed Quote+2.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lisa Murkowski: 2.4%2.4%

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.