MS NOW⁠95%

FBI directing hundreds of analysts to dig into Georgia election probe subjects, sources say ⁠41%

By Ken Dilanian⁠0%

7/2/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 44.7% saturation with 232 hits. Analysis detected 1,100 faulty-reasoning hits from 519 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠41% (12,626 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 59.60% of the article peer group.

The FBI is surging resources into what it calls a “priority” investigation related to the 2020 election in Georgia, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter, in an extraordinary effort by the nation’s most prominent law enforcement agency to find evidence supporting President Donald Trump’s darkest election fraud conspiracy theories. 
Documents obtained by MS NOW — which the two officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to share internal matters, said were related to the Georgia election investigation — show that FBI leadership is authorizing intelligence analysts to work overtime, including weekends and holidays, on the case. 
And they show that FBI Director Kash Patel is ordering personnel from all field offices to participate. 
“In support of the Director’s Office priority effort, the Directorate of Intelligence (DI) and Criminal Division are requesting all FBI field offices to immediately surge support to an FBI Atlanta priority investigation,” said an unclassified memo issued Wednesday. 
The FBI declined to comment to MS NOW. 
The memo went on to detail the number of personnel each field office must contribute, depending on its size, for a total of 260 FBI intelligence officials. 
The guidance did not include numbers for FBI agents, dozens of whom are also working on the investigation. 
Each intelligence analyst would be expected to conduct a total of 708 records checks by July 17, the memo said. 
 “Overtime (including weekends and holidays) has been authorized,” it added. 
Asked what analysts would be looking for, one of the officials said, “Looking for derogatory information is the short answer. 
The idea is to build a case. 
Look at associations between people, look into their social media, their business activity, travel, contact with other investigative subjects.” 
In January, the FBI executed a search warrant and seized more than 600 boxes of records relating to the 2020 election from storage in Fulton County, including physical ballots, ballot images, voter rolls and tabulation materials. 
When the basis for the search warrant was unsealed, it became clear that it relied largely on claims that had previously been debunked, including by Republican-led investigations in Georgia. 
The special agent in charge in Atlanta, Paul Brown, left his job shortly before the warrant was executed. 
The warrant said the investigation was based on a referral from Kurt Olsen, a White House official in charge of election integrity who backed Trump’s bogus claims of fraud in the 2020 election. 
Joe Biden beat Trump in Georgia in 2020 by 11,779 votes. 
In response to a lawsuit by Fulton County, a judge criticized aspects of the Justice Department’s justification as “misleading” or “troubling” but declined to order the materials returned. 
Then-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accompanied the FBI during the search and arranged for Trump to speak by phone with some of the agents, a move Democrats say was deeply inappropriate. 
White House officials defended Gabbard’s presence.  
Justice Department officials insist they are not pursuing criminal investigations based on the whims of the president, despite an increasing number of investigations targeting his adversaries or his political concerns. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.7%Ken Dilanian: 6.7%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias17.7%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.5%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Ken Dilanian: 4.3%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic8.9%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.6%Ken Dilanian: 0.5%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias5.6%This article: 3.5%Ken Dilanian: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias3.5%This article: 2.7%Ken Dilanian: 13.0%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Ken Dilanian: 2.4%MS NOW: 3.3%Pessimism Bias10.0%This article: 44.7%Ken Dilanian: 24.5%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias44.7%This article: 5.8%Ken Dilanian: 4.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias5.8%This article: 6.4%Ken Dilanian: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error6.4%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Ken Dilanian: 3.2%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 2.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 3.6%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.8%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Ken Dilanian: 5.1%MS NOW: 4.8%Ad Hominem6.4%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 9.1%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.8%Ken Dilanian: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma5.8%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.6%Ken Dilanian: 5.8%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 2.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.2%Ken Dilanian: 12.4%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion16.2%This article: 1.3%Ken Dilanian: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question1.3%This article: 3.5%Ken Dilanian: 3.2%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.7%Ken Dilanian: 3.4%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal3.7%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.9%Ken Dilanian: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.9%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.4%Ken Dilanian: 6.4%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote16.4%This article: 9.2%Ken Dilanian: 1.5%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection9.2%This article: 21.6%Ken Dilanian: 8.7%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice21.6%This article: 1.3%Ken Dilanian: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination1.3%This article: 5.8%Ken Dilanian: 3.5%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

519 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers38%attributed speech323writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageDirectorate of Intelligence (DI) and Criminal Division • 38 words • 100.0% coverageFBI • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageFBI • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coveragePaul Brown • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageFulton County • 28 words • 0.0% coverageTulsi Gabbard • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWhite House officials • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJustice Department officials • 30 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words15% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Justice Department officials: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.7 ptsWriter: 34.7%Justice Department officials: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-26.3 ptsWriter: 26.3%Justice Department officials: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Justice Department officials: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Justice Department officials: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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