Craven and Inadequate Deal, Blanche Must Not Be Our New Attorney General ⁠90%

By Newswire Editor⁠98%

8/3/2026, 8:26:02 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Slippery Slope, and Horn Effect, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 31.8% saturation with 103 hits. Analysis detected 706 faulty-reasoning hits from 324 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠90% (2,714 of 26,833 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.90% of the article peer group.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on Todd Blanche’s nomination for Attorney General on Tuesday, after Blanche’s Department of Justice (DOJ) reached an agreement with Republican Senator John Cornyn with a stated goal of rescinding the corrupt $1.8 billion slush fund intended to pay Trump’s cronies and January 6th rioters and limiting his new tax immunity. 
In response to the news, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert issued the following statement: 
“The late-night deal reached between the DOJ and the Republican Senators who had been objecting to the Blanche nomination is clearly a face-saving exercise to try to get the Senators to ‘yes’ on that nomination, not real limitations on pro-Trump cronyism. 
President Trump gets to keep tax immunity for himself, his sons and the Trump Organization, potentially saving the President millions in taxes owed to the American people. 
“And on the slush fund itself, Trump has not waived his rights under the scheme that called on Blanche to establish the fund, and nothing prevents Blanche from simply reestablishing it if the Senate confirms him. 
“In addition, nothing in what Blanche sent out prevents the DOJ from settling lawsuits brought by the January 6th rioters and other Trump cronies, and paying them out of the general fund. 
We saw a staggering seven-figure deal in that vein just last week. 
“And if the inadequate deal on the slush fund and Trump tax immunity wasn’t enough to stop this unfit nominee, his horrifying lack of empathy and ineptitude when it comes to the Epstein files and the way he has engaged with the victims should disqualify him instantly. 
“Whatever happens at the committee vote on Tuesday, there is still time to keep Trump’s fixer from becoming AG, to keep the DOJ from becoming solely a Trump revenge agency, and Senators must do the right thing and block Blanche before it is too late.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 30.6%Newswire editor: 8.4%Common Dreams: 7.7%Confirmation Bias30.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.5%Common Dreams: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Newswire editor: 5.3%Common Dreams: 4.6%Availability Heuristic9.9%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.9%Common Dreams: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 31.8%Newswire editor: 18.7%Common Dreams: 16.6%Framing Effect31.8%This article: 8.3%Newswire editor: 1.9%Common Dreams: 1.4%Loss Aversion8.3%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.8%Common Dreams: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.4%Common Dreams: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 3.2%Common Dreams: 3.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.4%Newswire editor: 19.3%Common Dreams: 19.0%Negativity Bias16.4%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.8%Common Dreams: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.6%Common Dreams: 2.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 3.1%Common Dreams: 3.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.2%Common Dreams: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.7%Common Dreams: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 18.2%Newswire editor: 0.7%Common Dreams: 0.5%Horn Effect18.2%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Newswire editor: 1.4%Common Dreams: 1.4%Recency Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.4%Common Dreams: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%Newswire editor: 5.4%Common Dreams: 6.5%Ad Hominem14.5%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.9%Common Dreams: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 5.4%Common Dreams: 5.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 4.1%Common Dreams: 3.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 21.0%Newswire editor: 3.4%Common Dreams: 3.2%Slippery Slope21.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.3%Newswire editor: 9.1%Common Dreams: 8.0%Hasty Generalization8.3%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.2%Common Dreams: 2.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.9%Newswire editor: 19.3%Common Dreams: 17.9%Appeal to Emotion13.9%This article: 16.4%Newswire editor: 4.0%Common Dreams: 3.5%Begging the Question16.4%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 4.4%Common Dreams: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.6%Common Dreams: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.7%Newswire editor: 2.0%Common Dreams: 1.9%Anecdotal3.7%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.8%Common Dreams: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.4%Common Dreams: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.6%Common Dreams: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.4%Common Dreams: 2.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.7%Newswire editor: 15.2%Common Dreams: 16.4%Biased Writer Voice3.7%This article: 13.9%Newswire editor: 10.3%Common Dreams: 8.0%Indoctrination13.9%This article: 3.7%Newswire editor: 18.3%Common Dreams: 16.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.9%Common Dreams: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

324 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker74%attributed speech84writer words
Selected voice

Lisa Gilbert

100%flagged-word coverage
240 attributed words100% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Indoctrination+18.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lisa Gilbert: 18.8%18.8%Biased Writer Voice-14.3 ptsWriter: 14.3%Lisa Gilbert: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-14.3 ptsWriter: 14.3%Lisa Gilbert: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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