Wonkette93%

Judge Boxwine Slurs Way Through Excuses About Reflecting Pool Case, May Or May Not Get Sent To The Cornfield 84%

By Gary Legum92%

8/4/2026, 5:57:10 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 62.7% saturation with 668 hits. Analysis detected 2,408 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,066 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69% and a BS Rank of 84% (4,604 of 27,607 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.30% of the article peer group.

The fallout from the decision by US Attorney for Washington DC and your mom’s one friend who always drinks too much chardonnay at weddings Jeanine Pirro to drop felony vandalism charges against an Olympic canoeist accused of tearing the paint liner off the bottom of the Reflecting Pool has not yet finished settling. 
Yes, all this is happening and no, you are not having a stroke. 
Think all the way back to last Friday, when Tipple McDrinkypoo filed a motion to dismiss the vandalism charge against David Hearn. 
In her filing, McDrinkypoo admitted that further investigation had revealed evidence that the peeling liner had not been ripped with a machete by wilding communists after all. 
In fact, McDrinkypoo’s office had gotten a look at records and documents from the Department of the Interior, which oversees the pool and its maintenance. 
Those documents made it clear that the contractor who painted the Reflecting Pool in June was a) unqualified, b) had been in a rush thanks to White House pressure to get it done by Donald Trump’s birthday, and c) in that rush, had screwed it up six ways from Sunday. 
Hearn had done nothing wrong and should never have been indicted in the first place, as the US Attorney had to grudgingly admit. 
Pirro’s motion pointed her finger directly at Interior for not being forthcoming with her office. 
We will pause here to ask for the zillionth time if maybe Pirro’s office should have not taken another Trump department’s word for it, and rather should have investigated thoroughly before going to the grand jury. 
Yes, it is a rhetorical question. 
Then Interior Secretary Doug Burgum reacted to Pirro throwing his department to the wolves. 
And of course he did so by proclaiming his undying loyalty to Dear Leader Trump and whatever over-sugared hallucinations the old man got after drinking his tenth can of breakfast Coke that morning: 
That was Saturday. 
On Monday we learned that Pirro is now dropping misdemeanor vandalism charges against three other people who had also been accused of wrecking the pool by yanking up chunks of paint liner. 
There are, according to the Times, another seven people who have been accused of the same crime, but it is unclear if those people were even identified, much less charged with anything. 
If those seven people have been sitting at home for the last few weeks sweating at the image of a federal SWAT team kicking in their door  and we’re not really kidding, sending a federal SWAT team to nail someone on a minor vandalism charge that angered Dear Leader is exactly what we would expect from this dumb government  they can now rest easy. 
Sure, it made Donald Trump happy to see all these charges filed, or as happy as that miserable orange rage blob ever gets. 
But then Pirro had to crawl to the judge to admit that her big criminal case had run headlong into reality. 
Normal humans who have a sense of shame would know enough to know the game is up. 
There was no vandalism at the Reflecting Pool. 
There was only the usual Trumpian mishmash of rushing a job and cheapness and incompetence. 
Time to count your losses, hope the judge doesn’t sanction you for bringing this flimsy dog’s breakfast in front of him in the first place, and move on. 
Donald Trump is not a normal human. 
Over the weekend, he spoke to Pirro in a conversation that a source told CNN “wasn’t pretty.” 
Then he tweeted or truthed or whatever his belief that just because Pirro has investigated the case and read hundreds of documents related to it and gone to the Reflecting Pool to observe the damage herself, that doesn’t mean she knows better than he does what happened: 
Then during a press conference in the Oval Office on Monday, he expounded on his reasoning with his usual incoherence: 
Needless to say, if this video existed, Jeanine Pirro would not have asked a judge to dismiss the charges. 
She’d be in front of the cameras hollering about how she was going to have David Hearn and all the other traitors who don’t appreciate the Leader’s vision and patriotism hung by their balls from the top of the Washington Monument for daring to destroy his beautiful Reflecting Pool. 
In Donald Trump’s world, nothing is worse than a choker. 
Losers choke. 
Winners bang Twiggy in a men’s room stall at Studio 54. 
But note that Trump didn’t deny Pirro’s job might be in jeopardy. 
And if you believe fake news CNN, she should probably keep some moving boxes handy : 
The president is “furious” with Pirro, one of the sources said, telling CNN that he fumed about her all weekend . 
They added that based on his criticisms of her, they find it “highly likely she’s removed from her job.” 
The other source, a senior administration official, said Trump was “blindsided” by Pirro’s court filing: “The president did not know beforehand that she was going to do that.” 
This is how you know Donald Trump is really taking his job seriously: He’s pissed off that a US Attorney didn’t notify him she was dropping a low-level vandalism case. 
Apparently there is nothing more important going on in the world. 
Meanwhile, Pirro, in that same Saturday phone call, told Trump It wasn’t me, it was attorneys in my office: 
Pirro told Trump it was the career officials in her office that were responsible for the filing, another source said. 
A longtime prosecutor who oversees prosecutions in DC Superior Court signed the court filing asking to dismiss the case on Friday. 
It’s true that another prosecutor signed it, but Pirro’s name is on the filing , right above her lieutenant’s signature. 
And the idea that she didn’t know  come on, pull the other one. 
So what now? 
Will Lushy McLushlife even get to keep her job? 
Trump reportedly met with her after the press conference on Monday and told her he was not firing her. 
Which might be true. 
He might have Todd Blanche or Susie Wiles do it. 
There is nothing for the rest of us to do but hold on and see how this important episode in the history of our Republic plays out. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.4%Gary Legum: 8.2%Wonkette: 5.5%Confirmation Bias9.4%This article: 3.4%Gary Legum: 0.2%Wonkette: 0.2%Anchoring Bias3.4%This article: 7.5%Gary Legum: 2.2%Wonkette: 2.1%Availability Heuristic7.5%This article: 3.2%Gary Legum: 0.9%Wonkette: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic3.2%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 1.7%Wonkette: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.4%Gary Legum: 1.9%Wonkette: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.4%This article: 4.6%Gary Legum: 2.6%Wonkette: 4.0%Framing Effect4.6%This article: 2.6%Gary Legum: 0.6%Wonkette: 0.5%Loss Aversion2.6%This article: 2.5%Gary Legum: 0.2%Wonkette: 0.5%Status Quo Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.0%Wonkette: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.8%Wonkette: 0.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Gary Legum: 1.4%Wonkette: 1.5%Pessimism Bias7.2%This article: 19.6%Gary Legum: 14.6%Wonkette: 16.0%Negativity Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 1.0%Wonkette: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 2.1%Wonkette: 2.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.1%Wonkette: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Gary Legum: 0.6%Wonkette: 1.4%In-Group Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 1.2%Wonkette: 2.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.0%Wonkette: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.2%Wonkette: 1.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.5%Wonkette: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Gary Legum: 1.2%Wonkette: 0.9%Recency Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.1%Wonkette: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 1.3%Gary Legum: 0.1%Wonkette: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias1.3%This article: 7.8%Gary Legum: 11.1%Wonkette: 11.9%Ad Hominem7.8%This article: 4.6%Gary Legum: 3.0%Wonkette: 2.7%Straw Man4.6%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 1.5%Wonkette: 1.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 1.8%Gary Legum: 1.5%Wonkette: 1.1%False Dilemma1.8%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 1.3%Wonkette: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.0%Wonkette: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.7%Gary Legum: 8.9%Wonkette: 8.0%Hasty Generalization6.7%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.4%Wonkette: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.1%Wonkette: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 17.9%Gary Legum: 6.5%Wonkette: 7.2%Appeal to Emotion17.9%This article: 0.8%Gary Legum: 1.1%Wonkette: 0.7%Begging the Question0.8%This article: 9.0%Gary Legum: 1.8%Wonkette: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.3%Wonkette: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.9%Gary Legum: 0.8%Wonkette: 0.7%Burden of Proof1.9%This article: 1.6%Gary Legum: 0.3%Wonkette: 0.1%Appeal to Nature1.6%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.0%Wonkette: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.0%Gary Legum: 2.4%Wonkette: 2.1%Anecdotal5.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.1%Wonkette: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.3%Gary Legum: 1.0%Wonkette: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.3%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.0%Wonkette: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.0%Wonkette: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.3%Gary Legum: 0.3%Wonkette: 0.2%Personal Incredulity1.3%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.1%Wonkette: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 1.1%Wonkette: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.6%Gary Legum: 3.9%Wonkette: 2.0%Unattributed Quote11.6%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.5%Wonkette: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 62.7%Gary Legum: 34.0%Wonkette: 30.7%Biased Writer Voice62.7%This article: 7.4%Gary Legum: 3.3%Wonkette: 2.2%Indoctrination7.4%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 7.6%Wonkette: 10.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%Gary Legum: 1.3%Wonkette: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.9%Wonkette: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1066 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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