Senators Never Asked Blanche the Most Obvious Epstein Question (w/ Andrew Weissmann) 92%

By Sarah Longwell91%

7/18/2026, 9:37:49 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Burden of Proof, and Framing Effect, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 59.3% saturation with 121 hits. Analysis detected 627 faulty-reasoning hits from 204 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86.8% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,596 of 18,365 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.30% of the article peer group.

On a week that tested both of them, Sarah and Andrew discuss: Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing, and Trump's prime-time speech on election interference. 
Andrew walks through the cross-examination Senate Democrats didn't run—the statements that went unchallenged, the follow-ups nobody asked, and the one question about the withheld Epstein files that Blanche has still never answered. 
Then: why he thinks dismantling the government's election-security apparatus isn't neglect, but the point. 
Also discussed: the $1.776 billion payout, the document absolving Trump of tax liability, what Blanche told the Epstein victims that simply isn't true, and why Andrew keeps calling BS. 
show notes: 
Andrew Weissmann's new book, Liar’s Kingdom, is out now. 
Watch, listen and leave a comment. 
The Illegal News with Sarah Longwell is available wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. 
Leave us a review and ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ so more people can find this important show from The Bulwark. 
Access to this show’s community comments and ad-free editions is available exclusively for Bulwark+ members here and on the Bulwark App—available now in the Apple and Google App stores. 
Bulwark+ members can also listen ad-free on your podcast player of choice—click SET UP here. 
Confirmation Bias
20.1%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
28.4%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
14.2%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
4.4%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
44.1%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
15.7%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
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
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
6.9%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
22.5%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
29.9%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
5.9%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
15.7%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
5.9%
Biased Writer Voice
15.7%
Indoctrination
18.6%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
59.3%

204 words analyzed.

Analysis

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