MS NOW⁠95%

U.S. attorney abruptly fired by Trump sues in first-of-its-kind lawsuit ⁠27%

By Allison Detzel⁠85%

7/23/2026, 4:21:36 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.5% saturation with 103 hits. Analysis detected 756 faulty-reasoning hits from 588 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠27% (15,974 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 73.00% of the article peer group.

The U.S. attorney who filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against the Trump administration after he was abruptly fired last week told MS NOW’S Nicolle Wallace that “the rule of law is not being followed” and said the people of the Western District of Washington deserve a “legitimate” top prosecutor who has been “appointed pursuant to the legislative acts that have been created according to the Constitution.” 
A panel of judges unanimously appointed Roger Rogoff to the position on July 15, which had been vacant for more than three years. 
However, less than an hour after his selection, he was notified via email that he would be removed from his post. 
Rogoff, who previously served as a judge and a prosecutor, said the firing was illegal, arguing in his complaint that President Donald Trump can’t fire court-appointed U.S. attorneys. 
He said he should serve in the role until the president appoints and the Senate confirms a replacement. 
Typically, U.S. attorneys are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. 
However, judges can fill the role if there is a long-term vacancy. 
“The idea is that the president is supposed to appoint U.S. attorneys across the country, but he has to do it with the advice and consent of the Senate, and he hasn’t done that,” Rogoff told Wallace on “Deadline: White House” on Thursday. 
“The rule of law is not being followed. 
The purpose of the advice and consent clause of the Constitution is being frustrated, and that’s not the way that the process is supposed to work.” 
The lawsuit names the president, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Justice Department as defendants. 
Rogoff isn’t the first judicially-appointed U.S. attorney to be fired by the administration. 
Trump has terminated prosecutors in New Jersey, New York, Nevada and Virginia. 
But Rogoff is the first to challenge the firing in a court of law. 
“My connection to the Department of Justice, no matter who’s been in office, whether it’s been Democrats and Republicans, has been light touches, and I am not involved in what happens at Maine Justice,” he said. 
“In this case, with this department, with this district that I live in, and that I’ve worked in my entire career, it is not working the way it’s supposed to work. 
And someone needs to make it work right.” 
The former prosecutor told Wallace his legal challenge was not about politics, but about protecting the process laid out in the Constitution. 
“I don’t know that Republican, Democrat, or whatever really matters with this lawsuit,” he said. 
“The idea is that every president faces hurdles with Congress, and the idea is that the president figures it out and appoints someone who can be confirmed, whether that takes a couple tries or not.” 
“That’s the way presidents have done it forever, and that’s the way this president should do it as well,” he added. 
In a statement posted to X , Blanche maintained that the president had the right to dismiss Rogoff. 
“District court judges can appoint a temporary U.S. 
Attorney, and POTUS can fire them,” he wrote. 
The acting attorney general, who is in the midst of his own confirmation battle, said the Seattle-area panel of judges did not consult with the White House about their selection. 
“WDWA judges abandoned the time-honored process of consultation with the administration so that the selected U.S. 
Attorney is qualified to serve in the administration,” he said. 
“Roger Rogoff has been fired by the President.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.5%Allison Detzel: 11.7%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias10.5%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 2.9%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Allison Detzel: 5.4%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic2.0%This article: 1.7%Allison Detzel: 3.6%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic1.7%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 4.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Allison Detzel: 30.4%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect10.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 1.5%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.0%Allison Detzel: 1.6%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Allison Detzel: 0.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 6.6%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%Allison Detzel: 28.4%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias17.5%This article: 9.9%Allison Detzel: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias9.9%This article: 5.1%Allison Detzel: 4.9%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error5.1%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Allison Detzel: 8.1%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias6.1%This article: 2.6%Allison Detzel: 7.1%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 3.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 3.6%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Allison Detzel: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias3.6%This article: 3.6%Allison Detzel: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 4.5%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 4.8%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.3%Allison Detzel: 6.1%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority7.3%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 3.3%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 1.7%Allison Detzel: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning1.7%This article: 4.6%Allison Detzel: 12.1%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization4.6%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 1.5%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 23.1%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 1.4%Allison Detzel: 3.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question1.4%This article: 4.4%Allison Detzel: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.4%This article: 3.7%Allison Detzel: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque3.7%This article: 4.8%Allison Detzel: 1.6%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof4.8%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.3%Allison Detzel: 5.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal5.3%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.4%Allison Detzel: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.4%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.1%Allison Detzel: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading3.1%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 2.1%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.5%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.7%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.1%Allison Detzel: 1.6%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice11.1%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.3%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.0%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Allison Detzel: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

588 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers65%attributed speech207writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 65 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Rogoff • 28 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Rogoff • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Rogoff • 43 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Rogoff • 8 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Rogoff • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Rogoff • 36 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Rogoff • 31 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Rogoff • 8 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Rogoff • 22 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Rogoff • 15 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Rogoff • 35 words • 0.0% coverageRoger Rogoff • 21 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 18 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 30 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 16 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 10 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Roger Rogoff

100%flagged-word coverage
291 attributed words76% of attributed speech60% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.4 ptsWriter: 31.4%Roger Rogoff: 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.