John Bolton expected to plead guilty in classified-documents case ⁠9%

By Katie Mettler⁠0% Perry Stein⁠0% Jeremy Roebuck⁠0%

6/4/2026, 5:01:53 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 3 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority and Unattributed Quote, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 48.1% saturation with 38 hits. Analysis detected 62 faulty-reasoning hits from 79 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25% and a BS Rank of ⁠9% (20,114 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.90% of the article peer group.

John Bolton, a former national security adviser turned outspoken critic of President Donald Trump, is expected to plead guilty in a case involving his alleged mishandling of classified materials. 
Bolton pleaded not guilty in the case in October. 
A change-of-plea hearing is scheduled for June 26 before U.S. 
District Judge Theodore D. 
Chuang, according to a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Maryland. 
The spokesperson declined to comment further. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 9.3%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 48.1%Katie Mettler: 30.2%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect48.1%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 9.3%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.2%Katie Mettler: 2.1%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority15.2%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 18.5%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.2%Katie Mettler: 2.1%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote15.2%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 9.3%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Mettler: 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…

Analysis

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