MS NOW⁠95%

Trump officials could face consequences for carrying out his unlawful agenda⁠0%

By Joe Scarborough⁠0%

11/26/2025, 6:17:50 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 38% saturation with 158 hits. Analysis detected 867 faulty-reasoning hits from 416 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

This is an adapted excerpt from the Nov. 26 episode of "Morning Joe." 
In a new court filing, Justice Department lawyers revealed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was the Trump official who made the final decision to continue deportation flights to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador in March, despite an order from a federal judge to turn the planes around. 
The revelation came after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg resumed his criminal contempt inquiry into whether the Trump administration violated his orders to halt the deportation flights. 
According to the filing, Noem made the decision to continue the flights after receiving legal advice from Donald Trump's Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and former top Justice Department official Emil Bove, who now serves as a federal judge. 
Bove's conduct had previously come in for criticism after a whistleblower accused the Trump appointee of advising his subordinates that they would need to consider ignoring court orders to carry out the president's mass deportation policies. 
Now, these officials will likely run into a few problems, the first of which is that they're dealing with Boasberg, one of the most respected conservative jurists in Washington, D.C. 
The Trump administration won't be able to paint him as some left-wing radical on a witch hunt. 
That's certainly not going to work in Washington among conservatives, and it's not going to work if this case makes it all the way up to the Supreme Court. 
The court's conservative justices know who Boasberg is. 
They knew him well before they ever dealt with Trump. 
Second, whether it's Noem, Blanche or Bove, I hope there are people around these officials who can explain to them what happened to those in the first Trump administration who thought they were above the law. 
Just look at what happened to Jenna Ellis, one of Trump's former personal attorneys, who was part of the president's legal team as he tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election. 
After Ellis pleaded guilty in Georgia for making false statements regarding the election, her law license in Colorado was suspended for three years. 
Ellis wasn't the only one. 
Rudy Giuliani and Kenneth Chesebro, who also advised Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 election, were both disbarred for their conduct. 
Officials in Trump's second term should consider these cautionary tales: There are consequences for carrying out Trump's agenda with total disregard for the law. 
If history is any indication, legally and politically speaking, this won't end well. 
Allison Detzel contributed. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 2.1%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 26.2%Joe Scarborough: 4.9%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic26.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 37.3%Joe Scarborough: 6.1%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias37.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 38.0%Joe Scarborough: 19.7%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect38.0%This article: 14.4%Joe Scarborough: 2.2%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error14.4%This article: 7.2%Joe Scarborough: 5.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect7.2%This article: 3.1%Joe Scarborough: 1.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.6%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 6.7%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 11.5%Joe Scarborough: 19.8%MS NOW: 19.3%Negativity Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 5.9%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 5.7%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Joe Scarborough: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 1.6%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Joe Scarborough: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 1.3%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 2.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 1.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 5.4%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.7%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 13.2%Joe Scarborough: 5.5%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal13.2%This article: 9.1%Joe Scarborough: 8.4%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority9.1%This article: 5.8%Joe Scarborough: 10.2%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion5.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.4%Joe Scarborough: 2.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question14.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.4%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.4%Joe Scarborough: 8.3%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization8.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 1.6%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.1%Joe Scarborough: 2.9%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 4.1%Joe Scarborough: 1.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man4.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Scarborough: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%

416 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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