Trump slams Biden as a ‘crooked politician’ as former president sues DOJ ⁠36%

By Alanna Durkin Richer⁠47% Owen Scott⁠0%

5/27/2026, 11:19:27 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, In-Group Bias, and False Dilemma, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 25.5% saturation with 119 hits. Analysis detected 758 faulty-reasoning hits from 467 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠36% (14,165 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.70% of the article peer group.

President Trump has branded his predecessor, Joe Biden, as a “crooked politician” after the latter initiated legal action against the Justice Department. 
Biden is seeking to prevent the release of audio recordings and transcripts from interviews he conducted with a ghostwriter. 
These materials were originally obtained by the special counsel investigating his handling of classified documents. 
Trump hit out at the news with a blunt caption on Truth Social, while sharing a report about Biden taking legal action. 
“A Crooked Politician!!!” 
Trump claimed on Tuesday. 
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington’s federal court, Biden’s legal team stated that the Justice Department intends to release these files to Congress and the conservative Heritage Foundation. 
This move comes despite the department previously arguing that the documents were exempt from disclosure under public records law. 
The former Delaware senator’s attorneys contend that such a disclosure would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of President Biden’s privacy”. 
They further argued, “Every American, including a sitting or former Vice President, has a right to privacy in the personal conversations he has within his own home. 
And when the U.S. 
Department of Justice obtains that private information through a criminal investigation, the Department bears a particular responsibility to protect it from disclosure.” 
The core of the dispute involves audio recordings and transcripts from interviews Biden held at his home in 2016 and 2017 with Mark Zwonitzer, who collaborated with Biden on his two memoirs. 
Special counsel Robert Hur scrutinized these files during his investigation into the president’s retention of classified documents from his time as a senator and vice president. 
Hur’s year-long probe culminated in a 345-page report that questioned Biden’s age and mental competence but ultimately recommended no criminal charges against the then-81-year-old, citing insufficient evidence for a successful prosecution. 
This legal battle is distinct from Biden’s ongoing efforts to block the release of audio from his interview with Hur. 
In 2024, the House voted to hold then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to hand over that audio, after the White House asserted executive privilege to shield it. 
Transcripts of five hours of Biden’s interviews with federal prosecutors were released that same year. 
While Biden maintained he took classified information seriously, the transcripts revealed instances in which he was unclear about dates and details, and he admitted he was unfamiliar with the paper trail for some sensitive documents he handled. 
Republicans have criticized the Justice Department, alleging Biden received preferential treatment and that Trump was unfairly targeted by prosecutors. 
Democrats, conversely, have emphasized Biden’s cooperation in the investigation, drawing a stark contrast with the separate criminal case against Trump, who faced accusations of refusing to return classified documents requested by the National Archives from his Florida estate. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 2.1%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Alanna Durkin Richer: 2.6%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic10.3%This article: 6.9%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.9%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic6.9%This article: 6.6%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.6%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 1.6%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Alanna Durkin Richer: 11.1%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect12.8%This article: 4.1%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.2%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion4.1%This article: 5.8%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.3%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 1.5%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.8%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 25.5%Alanna Durkin Richer: 12.7%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias25.5%This article: 4.1%Alanna Durkin Richer: 4.6%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias4.1%This article: 7.9%Alanna Durkin Richer: 1.5%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error7.9%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 12.2%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.8%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias12.2%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.6%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 1.0%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Alanna Durkin Richer: 1.0%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.1%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Alanna Durkin Richer: 2.3%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem5.4%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.3%Alanna Durkin Richer: 2.0%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority10.3%This article: 12.2%Alanna Durkin Richer: 1.8%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma12.2%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.2%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 2.9%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 4.1%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring4.1%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.3%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.1%Alanna Durkin Richer: 4.9%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion4.1%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.7%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.9%Alanna Durkin Richer: 2.4%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.9%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.3%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.8%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 1.0%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.6%Alanna Durkin Richer: 2.2%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.6%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 1.1%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.1%Alanna Durkin Richer: 1.9%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote8.1%This article: 5.4%Alanna Durkin Richer: 2.2%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.4%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 6.4%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.6%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 2.1%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.8%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alanna Durkin Richer: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

467 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers23%attributed speech359writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 3 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 4 words • 100.0% coverageBiden’s legal team • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageBiden’s attorneys • 19 words • 0.0% coverageBiden’s attorneys • 27 words • 100.0% coverageBiden’s attorneys • 4 words • 100.0% coverageBiden’s attorneys • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
7 attributed words6.5% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+36.7 ptsWriter: 6.1%Trump: 42.9%42.9%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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