America Was Born From Rebellion — But Not The Kind Trump Fomented ⁠50%

By Brandi Buchman⁠0%

7/1/2026, 10:00:17 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 50.4% saturation with 970 hits. Analysis detected 4,669 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,923 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠50% (10,732 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.60% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON — As the United States marks its 250th anniversary, it does so with a president who openly rewrites history about one of its darkest days — Jan. 6, 2021 — and embraces people convicted of what was previously considered one of the most serious crimes an American could commit: seditiously conspiring against the United States. 
Seditious conspiracy threatens the heart of democracy, since it involves plotting to put down the government by force or conspiring to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of the government’s laws. 
(It is slightly different from sedition, which is only defined as the act of forcibly trying to overthrow the government, or treason, which is defined as making an overt act of war against the U.S. or providing aid to U.S. enemies.) 
Of the thousands of people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, just 18 were charged with seditious conspiracy. 
All were members of far-right extremist groups, the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. 
Four pleaded guilty to the charge, and 10 others, including Oath Keeper leader Elmer Stewart Rhodes and Proud Boys leader Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, were found guilty of that and other charges after separate months-long trials in Washington, D.C. 
The Justice Department has since moved to wipe away those convictions entirely. 
Jan. 6 was certainly not the first time a group of Americans responded violently or seditiously to the U.S. government. 
“If you ask King George III, he would say the Founding Fathers were only in a position to write the U.S. 
Constitution because they had successfully engaged in insurrection,” said Marcus Gadson, associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and author of “Sedition: How America’s Constitutional Order Emerged from Violent Crisis.” 
“No insurrection, no treason, no rebellion, no United States, period,” he added. 
But Jan. 6, 2021, wasn’t about forming a constitution or securing independence from a monarch. 
It marked the first time that a president told a mob violently attacking that government, “We love you.” 
It was the first time a president did nothing for 187 minutes as the Capitol was ransacked and pleas for help from lawmakers flooded in. 
It was the first time a president told an armed mob, during a ceremony necessary for the transfer of power, that an election had been stolen and if they didn’t “fight like hell, you won’t have a country anymore.” 
President Donald Trump’s whitewashing of Jan. 6 and his manipulation of the Justice Department to advance that effort pose a unique threat to the future health of American democracy, legal experts and historians told HuffPost. 
Without course correction, they said, it cannot be overstated how much of what the country has achieved could be lost. 
“Fifty years from now, 20 years, even 10 years from now, what are we going to tell students about what went on here at the dawn of the 21st century?” 
said Kristy Parker, former special counsel and former deputy chief of the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section at the Justice Department. 
“If people come of age in a world in which it looks like insurrections are all right and what we have when we have elections is just one side changing history about what went on — it makes it a lot harder for us to have citizens equipped to keep a democratic republic alive.” 
**Rebel, Rebel** 
From the rejection of British rule that sparked the American Revolution to early uprisings against unfair taxes to slave rebellions to the Civil War, rebellion has shaped American identity from the beginning. 
Early on, there was Shay’s Rebellion, when cash-strapped Revolutionary War veterans led an uprising against debt-collection efforts by the government; the Whiskey Rebellion, where Americans protested taxes on whiskey distillers; and Fries’ Rebellion, when armed farmers revolted over taxes imposed on their slaves and property. 
“The U.S. throughout its history, just by its very nature, E. 
Pluribus Unum — ‘from many one’ — has always been a tenuous proposition,” Bruce Hoffman, terrorism and insurgency expert and co-author of “God, Guns and Sedition: Far Right Terrorism in America,” told HuffPost. 
After a tumultuous few early years, President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 into law. 
The law said anyone who wasn’t an American citizen would be deported, and it banned all “false, scandalous or malicious writing” against the government. 
Adams’ political opponents, and later presidential successors, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, issued state resolutions declaring that the law violated the First Amendment; by 1801, Congress let the Sedition Act expire and wouldn’t renew it again until World War I. 
By the end of World War II, Congress passed the seditious conspiracy law that’s still in place. 
It honed in on plotting action against the U.S., not just talking negatively about the government. 
Proving the distinction between dangerous speech and an actually dangerous conspiracy can be a thin line for prosecutors to walk. 
Before Jan. 6, there were fewer than a dozen successful seditious conspiracy convictions in the Justice Department’s history. 
In 1954, Puerto Rican nationalists who opened fire on the House floor were convicted of the charge, and Islamic militant Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman was convicted of it in the 1990s. 
However, cases were infrequent and convictions hard to land. 
White supremacists in Arkansas accused of trying to overthrow the government and poison a water supply were acquitted for lack of evidence in the 1980s. 
In 2010, members of the Christian extremist Hutaree militia in Michigan were charged and acquitted after a judge found prosecutors relied too much on protected speech. 
“The Jan. 6 attackers literally trying to prevent the execution of the laws of the United States, the Electoral Count Act, the certification of a presidential election,” said Kirschner, who observed weeks of the seditious conspiracy trials in person. 
“I can’t imagine more compelling direct non-circumstantial evidence of sedition than what we saw on Jan 6.” 
“You’re goddamn right the DOJ was charging these people with seditious conspiracy,” he said. 
Trump was indicted in August 2023 by then-special counsel Jack Smith for allegedly perpetrating three different criminal conspiracies tied to Jan. 6, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy to corruptly obstruct the certification and conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted. 
In his final report, Smith said Trump’s “lies” were used to “defeat a federal government function foundational to the United States’ democratic process.” 
But Smith stopped short of charging Trump with insurrection, finding Trump’s claim that his conduct was protected under the First Amendment might be too large an obstacle to overcome. 
Trump dragged out the proceedings, and the question of whether he had immunity from criminal acts went all the way to the Supreme Court. 
With only a few months to go until the 2024 election, justices upended years of precedent and ruled 6-3 that presidents have immunity for official acts and presumptive immunity for official acts that may fall within the “outer perimeter” of their duties. 
Trump escaped criminal liability for Jan. 6 since the Justice Department bars prosecuting sitting presidents. 
And he has committed himself fully to rewriting the narrative of Jan. 6 and wiping away all attempts to place him as a key figure in it. 
On his first day back in office in 2024, Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 rioters, saying, “These are the hostages.” 
He also commuted Rhodes’ 18-year prison sentence and Tarrio’s 22-year sentence. 
That day set the tone for Trump’s second term. 
He has called the rioters “peaceful” and “patriots,” although over 600 people were charged with assault. 
He has downplayed the event as a “day of love,” despite the abundance of neo-Nazi, anti-government, antisemitic and white supremacist groups present, and the fact that people erected gallows outside the U.S. 
Capitol and chanted “Hang Mike Pence!” 
He has falsely claimed there were no guns, which court records clearly dispute. 
The Justice Department — now led by Trump’s former personal lawyers, including those who represented him in the Jan. 6 criminal indictment — fired prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6 cases. 
The DOJ made thousands of press releases related to Jan. 6 disappear from the internet. 
Rhodes came to the Capitol after his pardon and with the tacit approval of the Justice Department — which, before Trump returned to power, had barred him from Washington, D.C. 
Tarrio told reporters last May he had a meeting with Trump in Florida where they had “a great conversation” over dinner. 
One pardoned Jan. 6 rioter, Elias Irizarry, has been hired to work in a Pentagon department focused on counterterrorism. 
Another pardoned Jan. 6 rioter, former FBI agent Jared Wise, became an adviser to the Justice Department’s self-proclaimed “weaponization working group” set up by former Attorney General Pam Bondi, another former personal lawyer to Trump. 
The group’s focus was to “restore credibility with the public” and promised to examine all investigations into Trump, including the Jan. 6 criminal probe. 
Wise resigned in April. 
“Rewriting history and reframing the truth of events is actually a well-worn playbook,” said Parker, the former DOJ special counsel. 
“This is not at all unlike what we saw after the Civil War. 
There was a conscious, systematic decades-long effort that went on to reframe what the Civil War was about through the Lost Cause Movement.” 
“What we’re seeing today very much parallels that, and the dangers of that cannot be overstated,” she added. 
“The vigilance that people need to have here as we come upon our 250th birthday is to remember, validate and speak about our true history and what is really going on — and not allowing things like what went on the last 10 years and certainly on Jan. 6 to be erased. 
That couldn’t be more important.” 
‘Free Rein’ or Reined In? 
Trump had planned to compensate Jan. 6 rioters from a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” carved out of a settlement deal he reached with the IRS. 
Although acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told Congress the fund “wasn’t moving forward,” lawyers for the Justice Department have refused to put in writing that it is officially shuttered. 
A highly skeptical federal judge overseeing a lawsuit against the fund has ordered the Justice Department to issue a clear declaration by July 17. 
Kirschner and Parker said the way the Justice Department conducts itself now, through its obfuscations in court and its about-face on Jan. 6, is tragic. 
“The Trump administration is treating seditious conspiracy as not even worthy of accountability, not even worthy of punishment,” Kirschner said. 
“Then adding to injury to injustice, they try to set up a fund to pay the people who attempted to destroy our nation. 
It’s insanely destructive of what America is and it’s Donald Trump, in a layman’s sense, being treasonous and seditious himself, is how I see it.” 
And Trump’s rewriting of Jan. 6, and especially his penchant for claiming every election he doesn’t like or loses is rigged, is “deeply problematic,” Gadson said. 
What happened on Jan. 6 was a byproduct of that, and Gadson fears what will happen if people feel like they can’t win an election by working inside of the political system. 
As with so many things, we’ve seen this before. 
In the 19th century, he said, elections were particularly affected by violence. 
“Polling places historically have been places where violence has happened,” Gadson said. 
“This is part of our history that a lot of us don’t fully appreciate: when you give free rein to violent impulses, it can have really negative ramifications.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.2%Brandi Buchman: 6.9%AP: 3.2%Confirmation Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 1.1%AP: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Brandi Buchman: 3.6%AP: 2.8%Availability Heuristic7.1%This article: 3.9%Brandi Buchman: 0.9%AP: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.9%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.3%AP: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Brandi Buchman: 2.2%AP: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias2.2%This article: 2.3%Brandi Buchman: 7.3%AP: 9.9%Framing Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.2%AP: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.2%AP: 0.3%Status Quo Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.1%AP: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Brandi Buchman: 2.6%AP: 2.4%Pessimism Bias10.4%This article: 50.4%Brandi Buchman: 20.3%AP: 13.5%Negativity Bias50.4%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.2%AP: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.7%Brandi Buchman: 1.0%AP: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.7%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.7%Brandi Buchman: 1.7%AP: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.7%This article: 0.7%Brandi Buchman: 0.5%AP: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.7%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Brandi Buchman: 0.9%AP: 1.5%Recency Bias3.7%This article: 0.6%Brandi Buchman: 0.1%AP: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.6%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Brandi Buchman: 3.7%AP: 2.9%Ad Hominem6.2%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.4%AP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.0%Brandi Buchman: 2.8%AP: 2.6%Appeal to Authority15.0%This article: 2.3%Brandi Buchman: 1.3%AP: 1.9%False Dilemma2.3%This article: 8.2%Brandi Buchman: 6.2%AP: 2.0%Slippery Slope8.2%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.8%Brandi Buchman: 5.3%AP: 6.5%Hasty Generalization9.8%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.1%AP: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 25.3%Brandi Buchman: 7.1%AP: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion25.3%This article: 4.9%Brandi Buchman: 3.2%AP: 1.3%Begging the Question4.9%This article: 11.9%Brandi Buchman: 2.1%AP: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.9%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.5%AP: 0.6%Burden of Proof3.0%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.7%Brandi Buchman: 0.3%AP: 0.1%Composition/Division1.7%This article: 7.4%Brandi Buchman: 1.3%AP: 1.3%Anecdotal7.4%This article: 1.7%Brandi Buchman: 0.3%AP: 0.2%No True Scotsman1.7%This article: 6.3%Brandi Buchman: 1.1%AP: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.3%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.6%AP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.6%Brandi Buchman: 0.8%AP: 2.7%Unattributed Quote4.6%This article: 3.2%Brandi Buchman: 1.4%AP: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection3.2%This article: 33.5%Brandi Buchman: 16.3%AP: 12.7%Biased Writer Voice33.5%This article: 9.0%Brandi Buchman: 3.1%AP: 1.6%Indoctrination9.0%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 7.1%AP: 4.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brandi Buchman: 0.0%AP: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1923 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers30%attributed speech1,344writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 56 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageMarcus Gadson • 36 words • 0.0% coverageMarcus Gadson • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageKristy Parker • 21 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Parker • 54 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageBruce Hoffman • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageKirschner • 39 words • 0.0% coverageKirschner • 17 words • 0.0% coverageKirschner • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageJack Smith • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageHenry “Enrique” Tarrio • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Parker • 20 words • 100.0% coverageKristy Parker • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Parker • 23 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Parker • 18 words • 0.0% coverageKristy Parker • 52 words • 100.0% coverageKristy Parker • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageKirschner • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKirschner • 23 words • 0.0% coverageKirschner • 25 words • 100.0% coverageMarcus Gadson • 26 words • 100.0% coverageMarcus Gadson • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMarcus Gadson • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMarcus Gadson • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMarcus Gadson • 28 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kristy Parker

100%flagged-word coverage
206 attributed words36% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Indoctrination+48.6 ptsWriter: 2.9%Kristy Parker: 51.5%51.5%Biased Writer Voice-32.0 ptsWriter: 41.7%Kristy Parker: 9.7%9.7%Unattributed Quote-5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%Kristy Parker: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.6 ptsWriter: 4.6%Kristy Parker: 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.