DOJ investigating Trump sex abuse accuser E. Jean Carroll: reports ⁠43%

By Colin Mixson⁠63%

5/28/2026, 2:47:47 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Negativity Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 46.5% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 581 faulty-reasoning hits from 200 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠43% (12,122 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.20% of the article peer group.

The U.S. 
Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation into E. 
Jean Carroll, a magazine advice columnist who accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s in a widely-publicized civil lawsuit, according to multiple reports. 
According to CNN, The New York Times and other outlets, federal investigators are probing whether Carroll committed perjury in her two civil suits against President Trump, whom she accused of sexually assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room. 
Manhattan juries found Trump liable for sex abuse and defamation, eventually ordering Trump to pay damages totaling $88.3 million. 
The president has denied the allegations against him. 
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch, who represented Trump as his personal attorney during one of Carroll’s appeals, has recused himself from the case, according to CNN. 
The DOJ has mounted cases against several of Trump’s political foes during his second term, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was accused of federal bank fraud. 
James described the charges as President Trump’s “vehicle of retribution.” 
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to messages left seeking comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 2.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Colin Mixson: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias5.0%This article: 18.0%Colin Mixson: 4.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.3%Availability Heuristic18.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 46.5%Colin Mixson: 8.1%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect46.5%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 27.0%Colin Mixson: 12.9%newyorkdailynews: 9.7%Negativity Bias27.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Colin Mixson: 1.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error13.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%Colin Mixson: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias17.5%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 3.4%newyorkdailynews: 4.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%Colin Mixson: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem17.5%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 4.2%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.5%Colin Mixson: 3.1%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization6.5%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.0%Colin Mixson: 10.3%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion5.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 2.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.5%Colin Mixson: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof9.5%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 3.1%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 25.5%Colin Mixson: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)25.5%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 46.5%Colin Mixson: 3.5%newyorkdailynews: 2.2%Unattributed Quote46.5%This article: 22.0%Colin Mixson: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection22.0%This article: 8.5%Colin Mixson: 4.8%newyorkdailynews: 6.8%Biased Writer Voice8.5%This article: 5.0%Colin Mixson: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination5.0%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%Colin Mixson: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias17.5%This article: 0.0%Colin Mixson: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

200 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers47%attributed speech106writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanch • 26 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageLetitia James • 10 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Letitia James

100%flagged-word coverage
10 attributed words11% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Letitia James: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-63.2 ptsWriter: 63.2%Letitia James: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-41.5 ptsWriter: 41.5%Letitia James: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Letitia James: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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