RedState⁠91%

Hillary Clinton Weighs in on Trump Election Security Speech - It's As Ridiculous As You'd Expect ⁠97%

By Nick Arama⁠94%

7/17/2026, 8:22:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ad Hominem, and Politically Right Leaning Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 67.7% saturation with 283 hits. Analysis detected 1,881 faulty-reasoning hits from 418 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 94.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠97% (766 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 96.40% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump delivered an important speech about election vulnerabilities and foreign interference on Thursday night. 
The liberal media did all they could to make sure that people didn't see it, with outlets like NBC, ABC, and CNN refusing to carry it live. 
CNN even admitted they had "executives" decide not to show it live because to show it could be "dangerous." 
So much for being journalists, presenting the facts, and letting the American people decide what to think of it. 
You have to think too; they seemed very anxious not to have people watch it. 
Democrats, of course, lost their minds over it. 
READ MORE: CNN Accidentally Tells on Itself, Reveals Why It Didn't Air Trump's Speech Live 
Hot Takes: Democrats Melt Down and Break Out the Talking Points After Trump Speech on Election Integrity 
But the very last person who should be weighing in on the subject also weighed in - Hillary Clinton. 
How many years has Hillary been ranting about losing to Trump in 2016? 
She's still going after 10 years. 
So this is some world-class projection. 
Hillary's still so upset that she shuts off replies to her posts, because she knows people are going to call her out on her nonsense. 
Imagine her having the gall to try to lecture anyone. 
Here's one of the many, many times she sowed doubt about elections, as she claimed the 2016 election was "stolen" from her. 
Can't forget this fun moment. 
Really, how dare she? 
Her campaign was behind helping to promote the Russia collusion hoax. 
But Trump can't call out real vulnerabilities in the system. 
Maybe Hillary is concerned about what people might hear, such as this from journalist Catherine Herridge. 
Herridge spoke about Trump's Thursday speech and the "burn bags" that were found. 
READ MORE: Forget the Voter Rolls—China May Be Building Digital Dossiers on Millions 
Herridge said that in one of the bags was a note from the CIA director to the FBI, that "had that intelligence about Hillary Clinton planning to paint Trump as a puppet of Russia." 
Hillary can try to rant and spin, but it will always be good that she'll never be president. 
Editor's Note: President Trump is leading America into the "Golden Age" as Democrats try desperately to stop it. 
Help us continue to report on President Trump's successes. 
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 22.2%Nick Arama: 10.0%RedState: 7.1%Confirmation Bias22.2%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Nick Arama: 2.1%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic7.7%This article: 5.3%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic5.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.9%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.5%RedState: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Nick Arama: 7.3%RedState: 9.3%Framing Effect8.1%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.3%Nick Arama: 1.1%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias4.3%This article: 8.4%Nick Arama: 2.6%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias8.4%This article: 53.6%Nick Arama: 21.4%RedState: 14.1%Negativity Bias53.6%This article: 6.5%Nick Arama: 1.3%RedState: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias6.5%This article: 13.4%Nick Arama: 3.2%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error13.4%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Nick Arama: 6.1%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 5.5%RedState: 3.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.5%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.7%Nick Arama: 1.7%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.6%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 38.8%Nick Arama: 11.9%RedState: 7.0%Ad Hominem38.8%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 3.1%RedState: 2.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.7%Nick Arama: 3.6%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority12.7%This article: 6.7%Nick Arama: 2.3%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma6.7%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.2%RedState: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.2%Nick Arama: 13.6%RedState: 10.2%Hasty Generalization13.2%This article: 3.1%Nick Arama: 0.9%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring3.1%This article: 6.0%Nick Arama: 1.1%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon6.0%This article: 22.7%Nick Arama: 7.6%RedState: 8.7%Appeal to Emotion22.7%This article: 11.5%Nick Arama: 2.7%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question11.5%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.6%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 1.8%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.1%Nick Arama: 0.7%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof3.1%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.9%Nick Arama: 1.9%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal17.9%This article: 4.3%Nick Arama: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman4.3%This article: 3.6%Nick Arama: 1.4%RedState: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.6%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.4%Nick Arama: 0.4%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity1.4%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 3.8%Nick Arama: 0.7%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy3.8%This article: 21.8%Nick Arama: 2.8%RedState: 2.5%Unattributed Quote21.8%This article: 23.4%Nick Arama: 2.1%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection23.4%This article: 67.7%Nick Arama: 34.4%RedState: 22.0%Biased Writer Voice67.7%This article: 10.3%Nick Arama: 7.1%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination10.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Arama: 0.3%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 23.7%Nick Arama: 24.4%RedState: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias23.7%This article: 9.8%Nick Arama: 5.2%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.8%

418 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers15%attributed speech357writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageRedState VIP • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Catherine Herridge

100%flagged-word coverage
47 attributed words77% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+87.7 ptsWriter: 12.3%Catherine Herridge: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-79.3 ptsWriter: 79.3%Catherine Herridge: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+54.4 ptsWriter: 17.9%Catherine Herridge: 72.3%72.3%Politically Right Leaning -27.7 ptsWriter: 27.7%Catherine Herridge: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-12.0 ptsWriter: 12.0%Catherine Herridge: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.6 ptsWriter: 7.6%Catherine Herridge: 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.