BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Availability Heuristic, and Politically Right Leaning Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 27% saturation with 213 hits. Analysis detected 1,563 faulty-reasoning hits from 790 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.1% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,790 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.80% of the article peer group.

The White House hosted about two dozen Trump-aligned activists this week ahead of President Donald Trump’s primetime address on the 2020 election. 
The session was convened by conservative lawyer Cleta Mitchell and attended by figures who have spent years promoting the conspiracy theories Trump has invoked in falsely claiming the race was “stolen” from him. 
At least some of the activists engaged in conversations around Thursday’s planned announcement were told to sign nondisclosure agreements, according to a person familiar with the White House’s arrangements and granted anonymity to speak candidly, and attendees of the Monday meeting were told the proceedings were confidential. 
“I’m allowed to say that I was at a briefing,” Charles Faltenovich, the director of PA Fair Elections, later told members of his own group in a recording obtained by MS NOW. 
“It’s basically sworn to secrecy what was said.” 
He then described it. 
Faltenovich said the information provided “was basically all the media reporting that John Solomon and others have done already.” 
Solomon, a conservative media figure who joined the White House in June as a special government employee, is driving a push to declassify documents alongside Bill Pulte, the acting director of national intelligence, MS NOW has reported . 
Those documents are expected to contain details about voting machines and alleged efforts by foreign nations to interfere in U.S. elections. 
Faltenovich suggested to his group, however, that “apparently” there is “a whole tranche of stuff, like tens of thousands of pages, maybe hundreds of thousands, that have been declassified, but have not been published.” 
The briefing did not provide insight into any new information that could be inside that raw material. 
“The White House regularly holds calls with stakeholders and other interested parties on a variety of policy matters,” a White House official told MS NOW. 
A source familiar with the meeting and its attendees said Catherine Engelbrecht, the co-founder of True the Vote, joined the same briefing. 
In a recording of a live podcast with supporters of her own organization, Engelbrecht then said the president’s speech and document release would support their claims about the 2020 election. 
“You’ve no doubt read [that] the president is going [to] make remarks to America about what his administration [inaudible] regarding the 2020 election. 
There are lots and lots and lots of people, lots of agencies, lots of interaction on this front,” Engelbrecht said. 
“I can only tell you what we have known to be true, and I’ll start by saying this: The 2020 election was stolen.” 
Engelbrecht’s group was behind one of the most durable falsehoods to emerge from that election: that paid operatives stuffed drop boxes with fraudulent ballots. 
Subpoenaed by Georgia’s State Election Board for records substantiating the alleged ballot-gathering scheme, True the Vote’s attorneys, at the time, responded that it had “no such documents in its possession, custody, or control.” 
Mitchell, who advised Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 result, runs the Election Integrity Network, an umbrella group for state-level election activists. 
PA Fair Elections is its Pennsylvania chapter; the chapter’s previous leader, Heather Honey, is now the Homeland Security Department’s deputy assistant secretary for election integrity. 
“The Election Integrity Network has served as the connective tissue linking the failed 2020 election deniers directly to the White House  and it is now being used to turn their debunked claims into government action,” Lauren Groh-Wargo, CEO of Fair Fight Action, a Georgia-based nonprofit that advocates for voting rights, told MS NOW in a statement. 
“These are the same people who tried to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss, and tonight the same lies are the pretext for a rumored document dump and a potential national emergency executive order forcing new election rules on states.” 
Tina Peters, the former Colorado county clerk convicted in a scheme to tamper with voting equipment after the 2020 election, is expected in Washington around Thursday’s announcement, according to a person familiar with the rollout of the speech and document release. 
Trump welcomed her to the White House in June, weeks after Democratic Gov. 
Jared Polis commuted her nine-year prison sentence. 
What Trump will actually say remains unclear  including to the people he invited. 
“I don’t know what’s going to come out on Thursday, but I expect it to actually be some results in some things that we’ve all been hoping for,” Faltenovich said. 
“What the plan is to do about the midterms  I don’t know. 
I’m really curious to find that out. 
But we shall see.” 
Engelbrecht and Faltenovich did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 
The post Election denial activists briefed at White House ahead of Trump’s primetime speech appeared first on MS NOW . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.1%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.9%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.4%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Vaughn Hillyard: 3.1%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic13.4%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.1%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect8.7%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.2%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.1%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias8.1%This article: 3.9%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.6%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias3.9%This article: 27.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 9.5%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias27.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.9%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error10.8%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.2%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 3.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.7%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Vaughn Hillyard: 4.2%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem5.2%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.3%Vaughn Hillyard: 5.2%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority7.3%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.3%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 4.8%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope4.8%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.5%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization3.0%This article: 4.8%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring4.8%This article: 2.5%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon2.5%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 5.0%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 7.1%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question7.1%This article: 7.2%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.2%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.8%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.2%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal4.8%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.3%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.3%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.1%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote18.1%This article: 11.8%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.3%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection11.8%This article: 4.6%Vaughn Hillyard: 5.7%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice4.6%This article: 2.9%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination2.9%This article: 7.2%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.9%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.2%This article: 11.9%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

790 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers43%attributed speech452writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageCharles Faltenovich • 32 words • 100.0% coverageCharles Faltenovich • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageCharles Faltenovich • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCharles Faltenovich • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageCatherine Engelbrecht • 30 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Engelbrecht • 23 words • 100.0% coverageCatherine Engelbrecht • 20 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Engelbrecht • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageLauren Groh-Wargo • 57 words • 100.0% coverageLauren Groh-Wargo • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageCharles Faltenovich • 30 words • 0.0% coverageCharles Faltenovich • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCharles Faltenovich • 7 words • 0.0% coverageCharles Faltenovich • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lauren Groh-Wargo

100%flagged-word coverage
95 attributed words28% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Politically Left Leaning B+60.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lauren Groh-Wargo: 60.0%60.0%Quote-first Misdirection+40.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lauren Groh-Wargo: 40.0%40.0%Unattributed Quote-29.9 ptsWriter: 29.9%Lauren Groh-Wargo: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -15.7 ptsWriter: 15.7%Lauren Groh-Wargo: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Lauren Groh-Wargo: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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