Trump’s acting AG Todd Blanche can’t give ‘definitive answer’ as to whether 2020 election was stolen 63%

By Josh Marcus57%

5/18/2026, 4:34:21 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Overconfidence Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.5% saturation with 169 hits. Analysis detected 1,658 faulty-reasoning hits from 537 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.9% and a BS Rank of 63% (8,187 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 62.60% of the article peer group.

There’s a “ton of evidence” the 2020 presidential election was rigged against President Donald Trump, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Sunday, though he soon conceded he couldn’t provide a “definitive answer” if that was actually true or when federal officials would prove it. 
“I’m not going to promise there’s going to be a definitive answer,” Blanche told Sunday Morning Futures on Fox News. 
“That wouldn’t be fair to you or anybody else, but we are looking at it, and we’re hoping to get one.” 
Speaking with host Maria Bartiromo, Trump’s former criminal defense attorney pointed to the Trump administration’s ongoing investigations in Georgia and Florida but said it was unclear what those probes would result in. 
“It takes a lot of work to uncover what happened in 2020,” he said. 
“It takes a lot of old, good-old-fashioned law enforcement, police work, which is what we’re doing, and we have great prosecutors working on it as well, and I assure the American people that as soon as we have something to say for it  whether it’s charges, whether it’s a report, whether it’s the results of an investigation  the American people will learn about what we uncovered.” 
To date, no credible evidence has been discovered that proves the 2020 election was rigged and Trump was the rightful winner. 
The Trump campaign and its allies repeatedly challenged the results in states he lost to Joe Biden in the aftermath of the 2020 election court, and subsequent court cases, recounts, committee probes and press investigations have not yielded any proof of the president’s ongoing claims that he won the contest. 
Nonetheless, top officials across the administration have echoed the president’s conspiracy theories about the election, and Trump loyalists are driving multiple highly unusual investigations across the country looking for proof six years later that the election was indeed stolen from him. 
In Florida, former Trump lawyer Joseph diGenova has been selected to lead a sprawling federal investigation about the president’s rivals, reportedly premised on the idea that various actions since 2016 constitute a “grand conspiracy” among Democratic officials to keep Republicans out of power. 
The FBI has also seized election records in Arizona. 
Earlier this year in Georgia, meanwhile, the FBI raided an elections office in the closely fought 2020 battleground state, based on a referral from election denier Kurt Olsen, who worked closely with Trump’s campaign in 2020 to challenge election results as part of a “Stop the Steal” movement. 
The warrant that prompted the search itself provided no additional evidence to support a claim of fraud, and it even noted that “many allegations” have already been “disproven.” 
“After more than five years, dozens of court cases, and over a year in total control of the federal government, this is all they’ve got?” 
elections law expert David Becker, director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, told The Independent at the time of the raid. 
The FBI has also reportedly assembled a “payback squad” of agents willing to take on political cases in an effort to expose and discredit federal law enforcement officials who investigated Trump and his allies. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.5%Josh Marcus: 4.5%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 3.6%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.0%Josh Marcus: 0.7%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic8.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 20.9%Josh Marcus: 2.1%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias20.9%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 8.9%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.6%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.6%This article: 16.6%Josh Marcus: 1.9%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias16.6%This article: 4.7%Josh Marcus: 1.4%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias4.7%This article: 31.5%Josh Marcus: 12.4%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias31.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.6%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.1%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Josh Marcus: 1.7%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.7%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.7%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect12.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.5%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Josh Marcus: 2.5%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem8.9%This article: 8.0%Josh Marcus: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man8.0%This article: 22.2%Josh Marcus: 3.6%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority22.2%This article: 3.7%Josh Marcus: 1.2%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.0%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.3%Josh Marcus: 4.1%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization9.3%This article: 14.9%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring14.9%This article: 7.6%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon7.6%This article: 14.3%Josh Marcus: 7.9%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion14.3%This article: 7.6%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question7.6%This article: 6.3%Josh Marcus: 3.8%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.3%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 20.9%Josh Marcus: 1.1%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof20.9%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.3%Josh Marcus: 2.5%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal9.3%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.2%Josh Marcus: 1.6%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.2%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 4.7%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity4.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 2.4%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 8.2%Josh Marcus: 2.6%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection8.2%This article: 11.9%Josh Marcus: 5.5%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice11.9%This article: 12.7%Josh Marcus: 1.5%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination12.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.6%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Josh Marcus: 1.0%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

537 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers20%attributed speech427writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 44 words • 100.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 20 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 68 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Becker • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Todd Blanche

100%flagged-word coverage
85 attributed words77% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Quote-first Misdirection+51.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Todd Blanche: 51.8%51.8%Biased Writer Voice+14.6 ptsWriter: 10.1%Todd Blanche: 24.7%24.7%Indoctrination-15.9 ptsWriter: 15.9%Todd Blanche: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -9.6 ptsWriter: 9.6%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…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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