Prosecutor charged with stealing Jack Smith’s sealed report on Trump classified-documents case ⁠50%

By Jeremy Roebuck⁠0%

5/20/2026, 7:34:14 PM

Topics: Justice, Politics
Keywords: Justice, Politics

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 73.4% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 225 faulty-reasoning hits from 79 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of ⁠50% (11,073 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.60% of the article peer group.

The Justice Department announced charges Wednesday against a former federal prosecutor in Florida accused of stealing a copy of special counsel Jack Smith’s report on his investigation into President Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents, despite a judge’s order that it remain under court seal. 
Authorities say Carmen Lineberger emailed a copy of the document to her personal email disguised as a recipe for Bundt cake. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 58.2%Jeremy Roebuck: 3.9%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias58.2%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 26.6%Jeremy Roebuck: 1.8%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic26.6%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 4.1%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 73.4%Jeremy Roebuck: 35.2%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect73.4%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 41.8%Jeremy Roebuck: 25.0%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias41.8%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 7.3%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 58.2%Jeremy Roebuck: 4.9%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority58.2%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 4.1%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 2.5%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 6.3%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 26.6%Jeremy Roebuck: 14.1%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice26.6%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 5.1%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeremy Roebuck: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

79 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

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

Analysis

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