BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Ad Hominem, and Appeal to Emotion, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 6.6% saturation with 37 hits. Analysis detected 212 faulty-reasoning hits from 563 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.7% and a BS Rank of 7% (20,350 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.00% of the article peer group.

A key Republican lawmaker says he believes that special counsel Jack Smith may have made false statements to Congress while testifying about his investigation of President Donald Trump and that the Justice Department should consider prosecuting him. 
Lawyers for Smith deny the allegation and say he testified truthfully. 
Rep. 
Jim Jordan of Ohio, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, referred Smith to the Justice Department for possible prosecution related to closed-door testimony about whether he had obtained records of lawmakers while investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss. 
The referral, sent Wednesday, centers on a December 2025 exchange in which Smith was asked about subpoenas that prosecutors had issued for the toll records of some Republican lawmakers as part of the investigation. 
Toll records show the time, date, length of call and phone numbers involved but do not reveal the content of the communication. 
“Did the toll records that you requested from the senators, did they include the content of the phone calls?” 
Smith was asked. 
“No,” he said. 
He again answered no when asked whether the toll records he had requested included the content of text messages. 
Smith’s lawyers defend his veracity 
In a letter to Jordan and Rep. 
Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Smith’s lawyers called his answers “unimpeachably truthful” and noted that he was responding to questions explicitly about toll records, which did not include the contents of any text messages. 
“The toll record subpoenas that were the focus of those questions did not call for the content of text messages,” wrote Smith’s lawyers, Peter Koski and Lanny Breuer. 
“The questions and answers preceding and following these exchanges also make clear that the focus of the questions was on the toll records subpoenas. 
Notably, the referral letter does not contest the truthfulness of Mr. 
Smith’s answers.” 
Raskin said in his own statement that House Republicans had “embarrassed themselves” with the referral and that Smith answered accurately when asked if the toll records subpoenas sought the content of lawmakers’ communications. 
He said Republicans were faulting Smith for not volunteering information he was not asked. 
“Wishing that you had asked different questions while you had the opportunity to examine a witness is not a proper basis for a referral of a witness for criminal prosecution. 
Congressional Republicans never asked Jack Smith about presidential records,” Raskin wrote. 
“Not during his 9-hour closed-door testimony or his 4-hour public hearing.” 
A criminal referral to the Justice Department from Congress or any other party has no legal authority and does not compel prosecutors to act. 
But the department under the Trump administration has proved to be eager to investigate and in some cases prosecute foes of the president. 
Smith is certainly one such adversary, with Trump having called him “deranged” and urging his prosecution. 
“During his testimony, Mr. 
Smith provided truthful, responsive answers and candidly discussed his work as Special Counsel,” Smith’s lawyers wrote. 
“This referral reflects a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system by attacking a career, nonpartisan public servant who faithfully and fearlessly performed his duties by following the facts and the law.” 
The Justice Department in a statement Wednesday night confirmed receipt of the referral and said it “will investigate all evidence of criminal conduct.” 
___ 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.6%Eric Tucker: 3.3%AP News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.4%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 2.4%AP News: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.1%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.8%AP News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Eric Tucker: 8.4%AP News: 8.0%Framing Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.2%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.3%AP News: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.9%AP News: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Eric Tucker: 11.8%AP News: 9.6%Negativity Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 3.1%AP News: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.0%AP News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Eric Tucker: 0.6%AP News: 1.1%In-Group Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%AP News: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.6%AP News: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.3%AP News: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%AP News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Eric Tucker: 1.6%AP News: 0.8%Ad Hominem5.7%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.6%Eric Tucker: 2.3%AP News: 3.7%Appeal to Authority6.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.2%AP News: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.2%AP News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.4%AP News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 3.2%AP News: 2.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.7%Eric Tucker: 4.5%AP News: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion5.7%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%AP News: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.4%AP News: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.4%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.9%AP News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%AP News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 2.0%AP News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 3.1%AP News: 2.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.4%Eric Tucker: 2.6%AP News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection3.4%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 6.9%AP News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%AP News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 2.8%AP News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

563 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers30%attributed speech395writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJack Smith • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coveragePeter Koski • 28 words • 0.0% coveragePeter Koski • 24 words • 0.0% coveragePeter Koski • 11 words • 0.0% coveragePeter Koski • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJamie Raskin • 30 words • 0.0% coverageJamie Raskin • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJamie Raskin • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJack Smith • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJack Smith • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jack Smith

63%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words30% of attributed speech28% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%Jack Smith: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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