James Comey indicted over 2025 social media post allegedly threatening Trump ⁠87%

By Perry Stein⁠0%

4/28/2026, 6:48:50 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, In-Group Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 80% saturation with 88 hits. Analysis detected 465 faulty-reasoning hits from 110 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (2,756 of 21,179 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.00% of the article peer group.

James Comey indicted over 2025 social media post allegedly threatening Trump 
The former FBI director issued a video statement maintaining his innocence and criticizing the current Justice Department. 
Former FBI director James B. 
Comey has been indicted on allegations that a photo he posted on social media in 2025 constituted a dangerous threat to the president. 
The indictment by a federal grand jury in North Carolina marks the second time the Justice Department has pursued a criminal prosecution against Comey and is the law enforcement agency’s latest attempt to criminally charge one of President Donald Trump’s longtime political foes. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.5%Perry Stein: 9.3%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias15.5%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.9%Perry Stein: 2.4%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic20.9%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 3.9%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 80.0%Perry Stein: 35.3%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect80.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 15.5%Perry Stein: 1.8%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias15.5%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 17.3%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 59.1%Perry Stein: 18.1%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias59.1%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 3.9%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 39.1%Perry Stein: 4.4%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias39.1%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 4.4%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.0%Perry Stein: 1.1%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias10.0%This article: 10.0%Perry Stein: 1.1%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect10.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 1.2%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 39.1%Perry Stein: 8.4%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization39.1%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 3.9%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 39.1%Perry Stein: 8.4%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion39.1%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 2.4%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 1.5%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 15.5%Perry Stein: 1.8%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof15.5%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 3.9%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.5%Perry Stein: 2.1%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.5%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.5%Perry Stein: 6.9%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote15.5%This article: 10.0%Perry Stein: 5.1%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection10.0%This article: 10.0%Perry Stein: 20.7%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice10.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 39.1%Perry Stein: 15.6%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias39.1%This article: 0.0%Perry Stein: 11.8%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

110 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.5%attributed speech105writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageJames B. • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

James B.

100%flagged-word coverage
5 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Politically Right Leaning -41.0 ptsWriter: 41.0%James B.: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-16.2 ptsWriter: 16.2%James B.: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.5 ptsWriter: 10.5%James B.: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-10.5 ptsWriter: 10.5%James B.: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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