By Blessing Corruption, Todd Blanche Has Disqualified Himself From the Job He Wants 71%

By Jacob Sullum20%

7/15/2026, 4:01:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 68.7% saturation with 477 hits. Analysis detected 2,344 faulty-reasoning hits from 694 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.5% and a BS Rank of 71% (6,278 of 21,203 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.40% of the article peer group.

"I'm guessing I'll be in line," former FBI Director James Comey quipped after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced a "settlement agreement" between President Donald Trump and the IRS that included $1.8 billion in taxpayer money for targets of "lawfare and weaponization." 
Comey's joke encompasses two reasons why the Senate should not confirm Blanche as attorney general: a flagrantly unconstitutional prosecution and a brazenly corrupt arrangement that delivered huge favors to Trump, his family, and his followers at taxpayers' expense. 
Blanche's participation in both of those scams demonstrated his eagerness to please his boss, which explains why Trump nominated him to replace Pam Bondi. 
But that same tendency should alarm anyone who thinks the attorney general should pursue justice rather than the president's personal agenda. 
In a scathing ruling on Monday, a federal judge described Trump's lawsuit against the IRS as a pretext for "a 'settlement' that had no viable basis in law or fact." 
Kathleen Williams, who oversaw the case in the Southern District of Florida, concluded that it never involved a genuine controversy between adverse parties, since both sides were controlled by the president. 
Trump's lawsuit, which was joined by two of his sons and the Trump Organization, preposterously alleged that an IRS contractor's illegal disclosure of their tax returns had caused "at least" $10 billion in damages. 
In addition to offering an improbable estimate of the injury he had suffered, Trump filed the lawsuit more than two years after learning about the leak, exceeding the time limit set by the statute he invoked. 
That law covers unauthorized disclosures by "any officer or employee of the United States." 
So even if Trump had filed his lawsuit on time, he would have faced the challenge of arguing that a contractor employed by a consulting business fit into that category—a point that the Justice Department has disputed in other cases involving similar claims. 
Despite those legal weaknesses, the Justice Department never bothered to contest Trump's claims, in sharp contrast with the way it usually treats such lawsuits. 
That failure highlighted the blatant conflicts of interest created by a case that pitted Trump against agencies he oversees, represented by lawyers who also answer to him. 
Further compromising the Justice Department's ability to defend the IRS, a February 2025 executive order bars the government's lawyers from taking legal positions at odds with the president's. 
As Williams saw it, that order, the Justice Department's lassitude, and Trump's "direct, unassailable control over Defendants" proved the case was phony from the beginning. 
Blanche nevertheless approved the resulting "settlement with myself," which provoked a fierce bipartisan backlash that persuaded him to abandon the "Anti-Weaponization Fund" two weeks after he announced it. 
That decision left in place another provision of this cozy deal: Blanche's order shielding Trump and his relatives from liability for tax violations and any other federal offenses they may have committed, which could save the president more than $100 million in back taxes, interest, and penalties. 
Even as Blanche promised compensation for victims of politically motivated government abuse, he was compounding that problem by pursuing a laughable criminal case against Comey. 
According to Blanche, Comey committed two federal felonies by posting a photograph of seashells arranged to form the slogan "86 47," which Blanche conceded is a ubiquitous expression of opposition to the president. 
That message, which did not even come close to meeting the constitutional test for a "true threat," was indisputably political speech protected by the First Amendment. 
Yet there was Blanche, claiming with a straight face that Comey's seashell picture justifiably provoked an 11-month investigation culminating in an indictment that threatens him with up to 10 years in prison. 
That case shows Blanche is willing to subvert justice in service of the president's grudges, and his participation in the IRS "settlement" shows he is happy to bless a grossly unethical product of self-dealing. 
Either would be enough to disqualify him from the job he is seeking. 
© Copyright 2026 by Creators Syndicate Inc. 
The post By Blessing Corruption, Todd Blanche Has Disqualified Himself From the Job He Wants appeared first on Reason.com. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.8%Jacob Sullum: 4.8%Associated Press: 2.1%Confirmation Bias14.8%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.4%Associated Press: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Jacob Sullum: 1.1%Associated Press: 2.9%Availability Heuristic10.1%This article: 6.2%Jacob Sullum: 0.6%Associated Press: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic6.2%This article: 3.6%Jacob Sullum: 0.6%Associated Press: 0.4%Hindsight Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 1.2%Associated Press: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Jacob Sullum: 5.2%Associated Press: 5.4%Framing Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.1%Associated Press: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.1%Associated Press: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 1.4%Associated Press: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Jacob Sullum: 0.6%Associated Press: 1.3%Pessimism Bias8.5%This article: 68.7%Jacob Sullum: 7.1%Associated Press: 7.4%Negativity Bias68.7%This article: 4.8%Jacob Sullum: 0.5%Associated Press: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias4.8%This article: 7.3%Jacob Sullum: 1.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error7.3%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.1%Associated Press: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.3%Associated Press: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.1%Associated Press: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.5%Associated Press: 3.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.3%Associated Press: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.6%Associated Press: 1.4%Recency Bias13.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.1%Associated Press: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.1%Associated Press: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Jacob Sullum: 1.4%Associated Press: 0.7%Ad Hominem9.5%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.3%Associated Press: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.6%Jacob Sullum: 2.9%Associated Press: 4.1%Appeal to Authority18.6%This article: 11.0%Jacob Sullum: 1.0%Associated Press: 1.1%False Dilemma11.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 1.4%Associated Press: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.6%Associated Press: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 25.6%Jacob Sullum: 2.4%Associated Press: 3.3%Hasty Generalization25.6%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.2%Associated Press: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.3%Associated Press: 0.7%Bandwagon4.0%This article: 23.5%Jacob Sullum: 3.5%Associated Press: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion23.5%This article: 3.6%Jacob Sullum: 1.5%Associated Press: 0.6%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 8.1%Jacob Sullum: 1.7%Associated Press: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.1%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.1%Associated Press: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.9%Jacob Sullum: 0.7%Associated Press: 0.5%Burden of Proof3.9%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.4%Associated Press: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.4%Associated Press: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 3.7%Jacob Sullum: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%No True Scotsman3.7%This article: 3.7%Jacob Sullum: 0.9%Associated Press: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.7%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.3%Associated Press: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.8%Jacob Sullum: 0.4%Associated Press: 0.2%Special Pleading4.8%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.1%Associated Press: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.8%Jacob Sullum: 0.6%Associated Press: 1.8%Unattributed Quote13.8%This article: 6.1%Jacob Sullum: 0.9%Associated Press: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection6.1%This article: 54.8%Jacob Sullum: 11.0%Associated Press: 6.1%Biased Writer Voice54.8%This article: 3.0%Jacob Sullum: 1.2%Associated Press: 1.8%Indoctrination3.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 2.9%Associated Press: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 1.1%Associated Press: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jacob Sullum: 0.1%Associated Press: 3.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

694 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers8.5%attributed speech635writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCreators Syndicate Inc. • 7 words • 0.0% coverageReason.com • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Todd Blanche

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words56% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-59.8 ptsWriter: 59.8%Todd Blanche: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-15.1 ptsWriter: 15.1%Todd Blanche: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Todd Blanche: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Todd Blanche: 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.