Wonkette93%

Judge Boxwine Drops Case Against Reflecting Pool Terrorist Just Because Of How He Didn't 61%

By Gary Legum92%

8/1/2026, 9:15:11 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 61.6% saturation with 722 hits. Analysis detected 3,460 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,173 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.5% and a BS Rank of 61% (10,954 of 27,589 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.30% of the article peer group.

Imagine, if you will, the great Gilda Radner doing her Emily Litella bit. 
There she is on a 1970s “Weekend Update” set, ranting and raving about vandals defacing the Reflecting Pool. 
Then Jane Curtin leans over and tells her no, Emily, further investigation revealed that the cause of all that paint peeling off the pool’s bottom really was caused by a “rushed and flawed installation process,” no one cut a 300-foot long slit in the pool’s concrete bottom with a knife, and there is no criminal case here to prosecute. 
Emily, as is her wont, turns to the camera and gives her famous line: Oh. 
Never mind. 
In case you haven’t figured it out, the Trump administration is Emily Litella and Jane Curtin is either the Department of Justice or every damn poster on BlueSky with a little knowledge of painting and an ounce of common sense. 
Oh boy, the administration really Emily Litella’d this whole story. 
Trump and his sycophants spent weeks going on TV and forcefully, with all the seriousness they could muster, told the public there had been vandalism, it was no laughing matter, it was done by antifa commandos who hate America, and the full weight of the United States government would come down on those responsible. 
MeidasTouch put up a video montage of Trump administration officials and right-wing journalists making total asses of themselves with their usual screeching that sounds like two horny condors fucking: 
In fact, they all huffed, they had already arrested one man, a former Olympic canoeist named David Hearn who had been seen picking up a chunk of paint floating on the surface of the pool. 
Hearn was accused of actually tearing the paint up himself,  forcefully and violently  ripping and tearing it, purposely marring the repainted Reflecting Pool’s beauty. 
And all because he hates Donald Trump, and beauty, and MAGA, and America. 
Then on Friday night came the  never mind .” 
The US Attorney for Washington DC, Jeanine Pirro, filed a motion with the court seeking to dismiss the felony vandalism charge against Hearn. 
In the motion, Pirro admitted that the DOJ had, among other evidence, uncovered photographs taken by a Park Service employee proving the paint liner was already peeling well before Hearn was even seen in the area, and that the liner had failed due to a “rushed and flawed installation process” by an unqualified hack of a Trump crony contractor. 
Hearn was arrested on June 19. 
A few weeks later, the pool was drained so that the alleged vandalism could be repaired. 
On July 17, Pirro and her staff visited the drained pool and noticed that there was extensive damage to the liner everywhere. 
They then requested that the Department of the Interior, which oversees the Park Service, give them all the records the department has about the installation of the pool lining. 
Why Pirro’s office hadn’t looked at some of those documents before is beyond us. 
If the defense had requested and gotten them, that would have killed their entire case and been hugely embarrassing. 
It turns out the defense didn’t need to bother; Jeanine Pirro is perfectly capable of embarrassing herself without any help. 
The most hilarious part of this motion is watching Pirro not only throw the Department of the Interior under the bus, but then backing the bus up so she can run over it a few more times : 
Based on this request, USAO-DC received 695 megabytes of additional documents from DOI, which took days to review. 
These documents indicated a rushed and flawed installation process, with repeated failures of the lining during the installation process, and extensive peeling of the lining throughout the Reflecting Pool. 
This was the first time that DOI made USAO-DC aware of such information. 
Later on, Pirro accused the DOI of providing “less than fulsome information at the outset of this case.” 
Translation: We at DOJ are just smol beans, Your Honor. 
We’re only guilty of being too trusting of people who work in the freaking Trump administration. 
Pwease, pwease yell at them and not us. 
The brief also revealed that the Park Service was aware of some paint peeling in the area where Hearn was later accused of pulling it up eight days before Hearn committed his horrific crime. 
That would have been good to know sooner! 
About the only hitch here is that the DOJ is seeking to dismiss the charges without prejudice. 
That means they can be refiled. 
This seems like Pirro covering her ass with Trump: Yes, Mr. 
President, of course we still think he’s guilty, of course we’re not giving up, of course we’ll continue to investigate whether Mr. 
Hearn conspired with the contractors to do a bad job to purposely embarrass you. 
Of course, your average mommy blogger could have told Judge Drunky McWinebottle in June everything that she apparently learned in the last two weeks: The contractor was unqualified and did a shit job with materials that were not right for the purpose. 
Trump rushed the whole thing because he wanted it done by his birthday. 
No communist super-soldier made the effort to get into the pool while it was full of water, squat down, and drag a box cutter for 300 feet to make a gash as long as a football field in the paint liner, Jesus Christ, are you people even listening to yourselves. 
In fact, we did tell her . 
Several times ! 
Judge Jeanine, why are you not reading yr Wonkette? 
Given this latest development, it’s fun to watch the judge’s press conference announcing the charges a month ago. 
She was so dramatic, as if Hearn’s alleged act had been a defiant blow aimed at the very foundations of the Republic: 
“The most offensive images that I hold in my mind are the images of national monuments that are being defaced, roped, torn down, graffitied, and damaged by individuals. 
I have a vivid memory of this happening several years ago and over time where our national monuments and statues are being torn down. 
This is not the way of a civilized society. 
It is anarchy. 
And our nation has weathered moments of anarchy and chaos in the past.” 
If you are screaming What about January 6 at your computer screen, be assured that a reporter later asked Judge Pinot how she could justify charging Hearn with a minor amount of damage while at the same time supporting the pardons of thousands of January 6 rioters. 
This sent her into a paroxysm of spittle as she snapped, “Are you really talking about January 6? 
I’m not. 
Who’s next?” 
Well. 
Excuuuuse us for asking. 
This is another embarrassment for the Department of Justice after a solid year and a half of embarrassing itself. 
Or it would be another embarrassment, if Trump administration officials were capable of feeling that. 
[ Motion / WaPo / YouTube ] 
Send this post to a friend who loves joy. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 26.4%Gary Legum: 8.2%Wonkette: 5.5%Confirmation Bias26.4%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.2%Wonkette: 0.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Gary Legum: 2.2%Wonkette: 2.1%Availability Heuristic2.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.9%Wonkette: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.5%Gary Legum: 1.7%Wonkette: 0.7%Hindsight Bias2.5%This article: 3.4%Gary Legum: 1.9%Wonkette: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias3.4%This article: 4.2%Gary Legum: 2.6%Wonkette: 4.0%Framing Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.6%Wonkette: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.2%Wonkette: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.0%Wonkette: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.8%Wonkette: 0.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 1.4%Wonkette: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 35.3%Gary Legum: 14.6%Wonkette: 16.0%Negativity Bias35.3%This article: 1.7%Gary Legum: 1.0%Wonkette: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias1.7%This article: 5.1%Gary Legum: 2.1%Wonkette: 2.1%Fundamental Attribution Error5.1%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.1%Wonkette: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.6%Wonkette: 1.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Gary Legum: 1.2%Wonkette: 2.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.0%Wonkette: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.2%Wonkette: 1.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Gary Legum: 0.5%Wonkette: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect3.6%This article: 6.4%Gary Legum: 1.2%Wonkette: 0.9%Recency Bias6.4%This article: 0.8%Gary Legum: 0.1%Wonkette: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.8%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.1%Wonkette: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 17.2%Gary Legum: 11.1%Wonkette: 11.9%Ad Hominem17.2%This article: 6.5%Gary Legum: 3.0%Wonkette: 2.7%Straw Man6.5%This article: 5.0%Gary Legum: 1.5%Wonkette: 1.5%Appeal to Authority5.0%This article: 4.3%Gary Legum: 1.5%Wonkette: 1.1%False Dilemma4.3%This article: 5.5%Gary Legum: 1.3%Wonkette: 1.3%Slippery Slope5.5%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.0%Wonkette: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.5%Gary Legum: 8.9%Wonkette: 8.0%Hasty Generalization10.5%This article: 0.9%Gary Legum: 0.4%Wonkette: 0.5%Red Herring0.9%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.1%Wonkette: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 21.7%Gary Legum: 6.5%Wonkette: 7.2%Appeal to Emotion21.7%This article: 10.1%Gary Legum: 1.1%Wonkette: 0.7%Begging the Question10.1%This article: 1.4%Gary Legum: 1.8%Wonkette: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.4%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.3%Wonkette: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.3%Gary Legum: 0.8%Wonkette: 0.7%Burden of Proof4.3%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.3%Wonkette: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.0%Wonkette: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.2%Gary Legum: 2.4%Wonkette: 2.1%Anecdotal3.2%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.1%Wonkette: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.9%Gary Legum: 1.0%Wonkette: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.9%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.0%Wonkette: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.0%Wonkette: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.3%Wonkette: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Gary Legum: 0.1%Wonkette: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 2.3%Gary Legum: 1.1%Wonkette: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy2.3%This article: 9.6%Gary Legum: 3.9%Wonkette: 2.0%Unattributed Quote9.6%This article: 5.0%Gary Legum: 0.5%Wonkette: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection5.0%This article: 61.6%Gary Legum: 34.0%Wonkette: 30.7%Biased Writer Voice61.6%This article: 14.4%Gary Legum: 3.3%Wonkette: 2.2%Indoctrination14.4%This article: 13.6%Gary Legum: 7.6%Wonkette: 10.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias13.6%This article: 1.7%Gary Legum: 1.3%Wonkette: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias1.7%This article: 0.8%Gary Legum: 0.9%Wonkette: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.8%

1173 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers17%attributed speech974writer words
Selected voice

Jeanine Pirro

59%flagged-word coverage
100 attributed words50% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice-74.1 ptsWriter: 74.1%Jeanine Pirro: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+56.3 ptsWriter: 2.7%Jeanine Pirro: 59.0%59.0%Indoctrination+47.7 ptsWriter: 11.3%Jeanine Pirro: 59.0%59.0%Politically Left Leaning B-16.4 ptsWriter: 16.4%Jeanine Pirro: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.1 ptsWriter: 6.1%Jeanine Pirro: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -2.1 ptsWriter: 2.1%Jeanine Pirro: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -0.9 ptsWriter: 0.9%Jeanine Pirro: 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.