Trump storms off 'Meet the Press' over baseless California election fraud claim 56%

By Alene Tchekmedyian82%

6/7/2026, 6:48:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 28.3% saturation with 117 hits. Analysis detected 838 faulty-reasoning hits from 414 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.4% and a BS Rank of 56% (9,424 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.50% of the article peer group.

President Trump shut down an interview with NBC News after host Kristen Welker pushed back on his unproven assertions that elections in California on Tuesday were rigged. 
During a lengthy interview in Wisconsin that aired on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Trump echoed claims he made in recent days  without providing evidence  that officials in California were “cheating,” because after four days, they “aren’t even close” to finishing the ballot counting. 
With more than 70% of the vote in on Sunday, veteran Democratic politician Xavier Becerra was about a percentage point ahead of Republican Steve Hilton in the governor’s race. 
In the Los Angeles mayoral race, City Councilmember Nithya Raman moved ahead of former reality TV personality Spencer Pratt by less than a percentage point as of Sunday afternoon. 
“Do you have evidence to support that?” 
Welker asked Trump about his cheating claims. 
“All I have to do is look,” he said. 
“But sir, that’s not evidence. 
That’s how they count the votes in California,” Welker said. 
She added that state and local officials acknowledge they are slow. 
“No, they’re crooked  just like you’re crooked. 
Your press is crooked and ‘Meet the Press’ is crooked,” Trump said. 
“You’re either crooked or you’re stupid,” he went on. 
“You know that these elections are rigged. 
Your network knows that they’re rigged.” 
The back-and-forth continued until Trump decided to “call it quits.” 
“I’ve had enough,” he said, removing the microphone from his lapel and tossing it to the floor. 
“Thank you, darling, have a good time.” 
As Welker tried to convince him to finish the interview, he added: “A country can never be great with a dishonest press.” 
And eventually he walked off. 
A misreading of voting data in the Los Angeles mayoral race late on election night has fueled the false narrative that Trump and other Republicans have pushed in recent days that California Democrats were cheating. 
The claim was that in one vote count update, one candidate received zero votes. 
First Assistant U.S. 
Atty. 
Bill Essayli said on X that the claim was false, and “each candidate received votes in every update.” 
Essayli has confirmed on X that his office “has multiple election fraud investigations underway,” in coordination with the FBI in Los Angeles. 
In another post, he asked witnesses to come forward: “We want to hear from you,” Essayli posted. 
“Please do not send rumors, theories, or second-hand information.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 24.2%Alene Tchekmedyian: 3.9%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias24.2%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 4.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Alene Tchekmedyian: 7.2%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Alene Tchekmedyian: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias5.3%This article: 22.5%Alene Tchekmedyian: 15.0%Daily Pilot: 7.7%Negativity Bias22.5%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 7.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 2.9%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 3.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem7.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.7%Alene Tchekmedyian: 4.3%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority14.7%This article: 7.5%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 28.3%Alene Tchekmedyian: 3.7%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization28.3%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 5.4%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion13.0%This article: 8.5%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question8.5%This article: 19.6%Alene Tchekmedyian: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.6%This article: 1.9%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque1.9%This article: 9.4%Alene Tchekmedyian: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof9.4%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.5%Alene Tchekmedyian: 4.5%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal7.5%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.9%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.9%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.2%Alene Tchekmedyian: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity2.2%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 2.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.2%Alene Tchekmedyian: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote2.2%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.9%Alene Tchekmedyian: 1.9%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice17.9%This article: 4.1%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination4.1%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 2.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alene Tchekmedyian: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

414 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers49%attributed speech211writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageKristen Welker • 7 words • 0.0% coverageKristen Welker • 7 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 9 words • 100.0% coverageKristen Welker • 5 words • 0.0% coverageKristen Welker • 10 words • 0.0% coverageKristen Welker • 11 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 12 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 7 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 17 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 7 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageBill Essayli • 18 words • 0.0% coverageBill Essayli • 22 words • 0.0% coverageBill Essayli • 17 words • 0.0% coverageBill Essayli • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

93%flagged-word coverage
97 attributed words48% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-35.1 ptsWriter: 35.1%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+17.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 17.5%17.5%Unattributed Quote+9.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 9.3%9.3%

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.