Raw Story93%

'Poking the bear:' CNN analyst stunned by John Brennan's new lawsuit against Trump 70%

By Nicole Charky-Chami0%

7/1/2026, 7:06:40 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 70.2% saturation with 255 hits. Analysis detected 1,135 faulty-reasoning hits from 363 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.9% and a BS Rank of 70% (6,630 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.70% of the article peer group.

CNN correspondent Katelyn Polantz said that President Donald Trump's enemy, former CIA Director John Brennan, has filed a new lawsuit against the administration that could provoke Trump. 
Polantz reported that Brennan has sued to try to have investigative records into him preserved. 
She revealed more details about the lawsuit during a live segment with CNN anchor Boris Sanchez. 
"Well, Boris, this filing  it's essentially been described to me as poking the bear, where John Brennan's team is trying to signal to the Justice Department that if he were to be indicted for, say, potentially perjury, we knew he had been investigated for that, or something additional that they will be challenging it," Polantz said. 
"That's what this lawsuit is putting a marker down on," Polantz added. 
"This is an investigation into Brennan that's been going on for some time. 
It's out of the US Attorney's office in Miami. 
But what Brennan's legal team is saying here is that they believe the Justice Department may be trying to follow Donald Trump's orders to vindictively and selectively prosecute him, single him out illegally, to bring charges against him because Trump doesn't like him from the time he served." 
Brennan's lawyers wrote a statement explaining the response. 
"Administration officials from the Acting Attorney General to the FBI Director and the Counselor overseeing the Brennan investigations have been publicly declaring Director Brennan a criminal, not only before securing a conviction in court but even before a full investigation and an indictment," Brennan’s lawyers wrote. 
"And, certain officials in the Department of Justice are engaging in demonstrably irregular prosecutorial activity in order to gin up a case that will satisfy the President’s direction." 
"Officials of this Administration have shown an advertent disdain for their preservation obligations," the lawyers added. 
Brennan has petitioned a federal judge in Washington to order Trump, White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Miami prosecutors and intelligence officials to preserve records concerning him, CNN reported. 
Brennan also wants records preserved for any broader Justice Department "grand conspiracy" probe into past officials tied to Trump investigations. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.3%Nicole Charky-Chami: 4.1%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias3.3%This article: 15.7%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias15.7%This article: 3.6%Nicole Charky-Chami: 2.7%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic3.6%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 32.2%Nicole Charky-Chami: 14.0%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect32.2%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.8%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.3%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 70.2%Nicole Charky-Chami: 20.6%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias70.2%This article: 13.2%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias13.2%This article: 13.2%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.7%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error13.2%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.1%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.7%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Nicole Charky-Chami: 7.9%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem4.4%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 5.1%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.4%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 7.7%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning7.7%This article: 16.3%Nicole Charky-Chami: 5.2%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization16.3%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.5%Nicole Charky-Chami: 10.8%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion5.5%This article: 3.3%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question3.3%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.4%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 4.5%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 12.1%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof12.1%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.3%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.7%Nicole Charky-Chami: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.7%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 51.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 10.3%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote51.0%This article: 15.7%Nicole Charky-Chami: 5.4%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection15.7%This article: 29.5%Nicole Charky-Chami: 6.2%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice29.5%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.6%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 2.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole Charky-Chami: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

363 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker37%attributed speech230writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKatelyn Polantz • 27 words • 100.0% coverageKatelyn Polantz • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKatelyn Polantz • 57 words • 100.0% coverageKatelyn Polantz • 12 words • 100.0% coverageKatelyn Polantz • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKatelyn Polantz • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Katelyn Polantz

82%flagged-word coverage
133 attributed words100% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Unattributed Quote+19.2 ptsWriter: 43.9%Katelyn Polantz: 63.2%63.2%Quote-first Misdirection+42.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Katelyn Polantz: 42.9%42.9%Biased Writer Voice-0.2 ptsWriter: 29.6%Katelyn Polantz: 29.3%29.3%

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.