After Some Early Trump Retribution Wins, Pirro Has Fallen Out of His Good Graces 36%

By Nicole LaFond66%

8/3/2026, 2:36:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Confirmation Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 33.8% saturation with 376 hits. Analysis detected 888 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,111 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.9% and a BS Rank of 36% (17,650 of 27,320 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.60% of the article peer group.

President Trump spent the weekend raging on Truth Social against Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, after the Justice Department wrote in a motion to dismiss the case that issues with the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool were the result of bad refurbishing work  and not the product of vandalism, as it had previously alleged. 
Trump still insists vandalism is to blame. 
In the Friday court filing, the DOJ acknowledged that Trump’s $14 million Reflecting Pool renovation was “hasty and botched. 
” In the filing, the DOJ said it was dropping its case against former Olympian David Hearn, whom the Justice Department accused of vandalism around the time that the renovation was getting bad press, including reports that the new lining was coming off in floating chunks. 
Hearn pleaded not guilty to the felony vandalism charges in D.C.’s Superior Court before the case was dismissed last week. 
Trump has, aggressively, *not* reached the same conclusions as his DOJ and brought his online anger with Pirro to the airwaves on Monday during an unrelated Oval Office meeting, during which he suggested Pirro “choked” in building a proper case against Trump’s perceived enemies for the supposed sabotage. 
“Frankly, I think she choked, because the judge was really vicious. 
Instead of going after the people that did it, the judge went after her and went after her department, and I guess she choked,” Trump said. 
Shortly after Trump’s Oval Office outburst against Pirro, CNN published a report this afternoon that Trump is considering removing Pirro over the filing, citing two people familiar with Trump’s thinking. 
Per CNN: 
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.” 
Trump reportedly spoke to Pirro on Saturday and she blamed career officials in her office for the Friday filing (though her name is on the bottom of it). 
It was the around the same time that Trump was publicly unleashing on her via Truth Social. 
“I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. 
Attorney for the District of Columbia, on the Reflecting Pool. 
I don’t know what she was thinking? 
To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM," he wrote. 
Up until this point, Trump has had no reason to question Pirro’s work. 
As TPM reported earlier this year, Pirro was one of a group of U.S. attorneys who met with Trump earlier this year and received a verbal lashing from the president for not acting fast enough to carry out his personal retribution crusade. 
Shortly after that meeting, the Federal Reserve received grand jury subpoenas from Pirro’s office, related to testimony that then-Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell  one of Trump’s favorite perceived enemies  gave Congress last summer about a Fed building renovation. 
Shortly after, Sen. 
Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) told the New York Times that she received requests for an interview with Pirro’s office; the FBI and others within the DOJ were at the time looking into Slotkin and other Democratic lawmakers who participated in a social media video aimed at reminding military service members that they shouldn’t obey illegal orders. 
Trump suggested that the Dems should be arrested and charged with “seditious behavior, punishable by death.” 
Seems like the retribution-inspired honeymoon between the two might be over. 
MAGA Melts Down Because Mullin Admits America Needs Farm Labor 
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has attracted ire from Trump’s base of supporters because he more or less conceded that the American farming industry needs migrant workers in order to survive. 
It’s a fact that played a political role in Trump’s decision early in his second term to flood blue cities with his Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to carry out his mass deportation clampdown in urban areas  largely avoiding, at least initially, rural parts of the country where immigrant labor is often what keeps farms running. 
During a bipartisan National Governors Association meeting in Oklahoma on Saturday, Mullin spoke about changes that need to be made to seasonal work visas to accommodate the year-round farm work demands of the agriculture industry. 
“If we’re looking to grow our economy, then we need to look at making more permanent solutions on this,” Mullin said, reportedly adding that the “narrative” that immigrants steal Americans’ jobs is “not true for all industries. 
” 
“It is America First. 
We want to take care of Americans first. 
It’s our economy. 
It’s our homeland. 
But there’s a way to utilize labor where we’re not having the participation rate where we need to. 
And we can plug those holes,” he said. 
Mistake on his end, per The New Republic: 
These remarks triggered extraordinary offense among MAGA figures. 
Fox News personality Tomi Lahren raged that Mullin is out to “appease liberal media.” 
Laura Loomer called on Trump to fire Mullin immediately. 
Podcasters Steve Bannon and Jack Posobiec both told Politico that MAGA wants Trump to replace Mullin with someone who, as Posobiec put it, “puts deportations first.” 
Crowdsourcing His War 
Per new reporting from CNN today: 
“We are looking for new creative and unconventional ways to pressure and punish Iran,” an officer in US Central Command’s intelligence branch wrote in a message sent Wednesday to a broad group of military analysts, according to a source familiar with the message. 
A second source also said that a senior US military officer sent the message last week soliciting new ideas for how to deal with Iran. 
More to Read From TPM Today 
Hunter Walker unpacks Trump’s bombastic remarks from the Oval Office today, during which he publicly let slide his disgust for blue cities: Trump Launches Into Extraordinary Rant About ‘Disgusting’ Blue Cities: ‘Their Trees Are All Gross’ 
The House Ethics Committee put out a report recommending the censure of Rep. 
Chuck Edwards (R-NC) over his treatment of and behavior towards two young women on his staff. 
Kate Riga digs in here: Bizarre Texts, Gifted Guns, 30 Types of Ice Cream: Rep. 
Faces Censure Following Sexual Harassment Allegations 
New from Sarah Posner: How Netanyahu’s MAGA Evangelical Backers Are Grappling With Backlash Against Him 
Yesterday’s Top Story 
The Low-Energy Response to the GOP’s ‘High-T’ Politics  
What I'm Reading 
She protested ICE raids. 
Then agents showed up at her door  
Trump still really wants a slush fund  
The right-wing bubble seals in the GOP with Max Miller  
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.0%Nicole LaFond: 3.4%Talking Points Memo: 4.2%Confirmation Bias9.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 2.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.2%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 1.2%Nicole LaFond: 0.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.5%Talking Points Memo: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 7.1%Talking Points Memo: 9.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.2%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.5%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.5%Talking Points Memo: 0.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.5%Talking Points Memo: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 33.8%Nicole LaFond: 14.0%Talking Points Memo: 11.5%Negativity Bias33.8%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 3.3%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Nicole LaFond: 2.3%Talking Points Memo: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error3.5%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.2%Talking Points Memo: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.2%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Nicole LaFond: 2.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%Recency Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Nicole LaFond: 4.0%Talking Points Memo: 2.9%Ad Hominem7.6%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.3%Talking Points Memo: 2.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.1%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.3%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.7%Nicole LaFond: 2.2%Talking Points Memo: 4.4%Hasty Generalization1.7%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.9%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 4.3%Talking Points Memo: 4.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.6%Talking Points Memo: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.5%Nicole LaFond: 2.4%Talking Points Memo: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.5%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.9%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.4%Talking Points Memo: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.2%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.8%Nicole LaFond: 3.8%Talking Points Memo: 1.8%Unattributed Quote9.8%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.8%Talking Points Memo: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.2%Nicole LaFond: 10.4%Talking Points Memo: 11.6%Biased Writer Voice2.2%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 6.8%Talking Points Memo: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.4%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 2.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1111 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers14%attributed speech958writer words
Selected voice

Donald Trump

75%flagged-word coverage
72 attributed words47% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote-11.4 ptsWriter: 11.4%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Donald Trump: 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.