Trump isn't above the law 75%

By New York Daily News Editorial Board89%

7/10/2026, 1:00:44 AM

Keywords: Opinion

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 93.7% saturation with 582 hits. Analysis detected 2,578 faulty-reasoning hits from 621 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67% and a BS Rank of 75% (5,503 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.90% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump speaks with the media aboard Air Force One on July 8, 2026. 
(Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP via Getty Images) 
By New York Daily News Editorial Board 
PUBLISHED: July 10, 2026 at 4:00 AM EDT 
Donald Trump has been found at fault by courts of many offenses, from phony valuations of his holdings to being guilty of 34 felonies to abusing and defaming writer E. 
Jean Carroll, but he has never had to pay a price. 
Until now. 
Trump has been ordered by a Manhattan federal judge to pay Carroll a $5 million judgement (plus $800,000 in interest) for his sexual abuse and subsequent defamation of her, as determined by a jury. 
It’s been about three years since this judgement, and Trump has tried everything he can to wriggle out of it, but even running to his pals at the U.S. 
Supreme Court has not panned out this time. 
Time’s up, and Trump must finally pay. 
The money is a tiny fraction of the amount of cash Trump has raked in off of monetizing the presidency alone. 
It is not going to cause all too much financial pain to the president, even if it does help gain some measure of restitution for the woman a jury found him liable for assaulting. 
Nonetheless, it is important that he be forced to pay if only to demonstrate that he does not get to squirrel out of every consequence that would accrue to any other person. 
Going back decades, Trump has stiffed contractors, lied to lenders, evaded housing regulations and anti-discrimination rules, cheated on his taxes, evaded the draft and generally acted for his entire life like the rules simply did not apply to him. 
During his first presidential term, Trump committed not just two but dozens or potentially hundreds of impeachable offenses, yet he was not convicted in either of his two Senate impeachment trials despite oceans of evidence. 
He was convicted of 34 felonies in a Manhattan courtroom, but never faced jail time or any consequences at all as a result, and was able to avoid two different federal prosecutions (on trying to steal the 2020 election and purloined classified documents) not by winning acquittal, but by having been elected president once more. 
Since returning to the White House, Trump has, if anything, only increased his clip of impeachable offenses as compared to his first term, largely unconstrained now by the institutional actors that stopped his more extravagant power grabs the first time around. 
Congress may be abdicating its responsibility to hold the president accountable, but that certainly doesn’t mean he’s acting outside the bounds of his power. 
He is surrounded by people who are eager to act like he is in fact the king, and the king cannot be expected to have to pay the little people. 
That’s the main reason that Trump is so averse to just paying this Carroll judgment, despite now having the resources to do so easily, is because it benefits him to have this sense that he exists fully above the law. 
This façade has been personally and politically useful for him, and he is probably afraid of any cracks in it. 
But the truth is that in a country founded at least on the principle of due process and no one being beyond the reaches of our laws. 
It has been 250 years of strife and steps forward and back and failures and successes in trying to uphold the ideals of fairness that the Founders enunciated in the Declaration of Independence from the king. 
Trump paying this judgement is in some small way a vindication of those ideals; then there will be more consequences to come. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 40.3%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 14.6%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias40.3%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.6%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Availability Heuristic4.8%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 18.2%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 2.6%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias18.2%This article: 5.6%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias5.6%This article: 14.5%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 10.6%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect14.5%This article: 3.4%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion3.4%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 4.7%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias3.5%This article: 62.6%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 23.2%newyorkdailynews: 9.8%Negativity Bias62.6%This article: 6.4%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 2.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias6.4%This article: 4.8%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 2.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error4.8%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 3.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 4.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem9.8%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 2.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 3.3%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 3.9%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma3.9%This article: 8.4%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Slippery Slope8.4%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 34.9%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 12.7%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization34.9%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.6%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 10.1%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion11.6%This article: 11.9%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 5.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question11.9%This article: 12.4%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 3.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.4%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.2%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof5.2%This article: 4.3%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature4.3%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.1%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.6%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal11.1%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 93.7%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 47.2%newyorkdailynews: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice93.7%This article: 25.4%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 11.6%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination25.4%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 2.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

621 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.1%attributed speech614writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageNew York Daily News Editorial Board • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 55 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverage
0%flagged-word coverage
7 attributed words100% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%47.5%95.0%Biased Writer Voice-94.8 ptsWriter: 94.8%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-25.7 ptsWriter: 25.7%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 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.