Raw Story⁠93%

Top senator slams Todd Blanche's 'baloney' excuse on Epstein: 'It's embarrassing' ⁠83%

By Matthew Chapman⁠85%

7/16/2026, 1:01:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 61.3% saturation with 179 hits. Analysis detected 742 faulty-reasoning hits from 292 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠83% (3,648 of 21,097 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.70% of the article peer group.

Sen. 
Dick Durbin (D-IL) on Thursday morning took a swipe at acting Attorney General Todd Blanche for claiming at his confirmation hearing that he couldn't meet with Epstein survivors because they had lawyered up. 
Durbin, in a conversation with CNN anchor John Berman, argued Blanche had no business leading the Department of Justice and called his excuse "baloney." 
"It's not unusual for a person to have a lawyer by their side, and it doesn't stop him from asking some basic questions," said Durbin. 
"I want to tell you, they have a lot to say, and they have the courage to say it. 
And it's embarrassing that the man who wants to be attorney general of the United States refuses." 
Durbin also slammed President Donald Trump for his ongoing obsession with 2020 election conspiracy theories, which are expected to make up a significant part of his upcoming public address Thursday night. 
"We have seen so many examples of this president's craziness when it comes to the 2020 election," said Durbin. 
"It reached the point that his nominees for federal judgeships looking for lifetime appointments have to continue the charade that the Big Lie is true." 
This dig arrived one day after Jay Clayton, Trump’s pick to replace Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, refused multiple times to say who won the 2020 election during his Senate confirmation hearing. 
Durbin vented about it at length to Berman. 
"Donald Trump lost the election to Joe Biden by 7 million votes," he said. 
"Period. 
Nothing that he has produced since then argues otherwise. 
He's fixated in his mind that he's never lost an election. 
And we're going to hear more of that craziness tonight." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.4%Matthew Chapman: 7.5%Rawstory: 7.7%Confirmation Bias13.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Matthew Chapman: 3.6%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic6.5%This article: 8.6%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.6%This article: 6.5%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.8%Matthew Chapman: 16.5%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect17.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Matthew Chapman: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias6.5%This article: 6.5%Matthew Chapman: 2.5%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias6.5%This article: 61.3%Matthew Chapman: 22.3%Rawstory: 21.8%Negativity Bias61.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Matthew Chapman: 3.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error3.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 25.7%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias25.7%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.6%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem12.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.5%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.1%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.2%Matthew Chapman: 9.9%Rawstory: 11.9%Hasty Generalization18.2%This article: 10.6%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring10.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.2%Matthew Chapman: 7.7%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion9.2%This article: 0.3%Matthew Chapman: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.3%This article: 11.6%Matthew Chapman: 3.5%Rawstory: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.1%Matthew Chapman: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.5%Burden of Proof3.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 15.1%Matthew Chapman: 4.2%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal15.1%This article: 8.6%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman8.6%This article: 4.8%Matthew Chapman: 2.8%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.3%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 5.4%Unattributed Quote0.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.4%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.8%Matthew Chapman: 16.0%Rawstory: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice3.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.2%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.6%Rawstory: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

292 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker82%attributed speech54writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageDick Durbin • 33 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 25 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 19 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 31 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 19 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 1 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDick Durbin • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Dick Durbin

100%flagged-word coverage
238 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.4 ptsWriter: 20.4%Dick Durbin: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.9 ptsWriter: 1.9%Dick Durbin: 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.