One Weird Trick for Torpedoing Todd Blanche’s Hearing ⁠100%

By Sarah Longwell⁠91%

7/12/2026, 4:04:21 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Indoctrination, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 68.3% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 785 faulty-reasoning hits from 120 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠100% (59 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 99.70% of the article peer group.

WHEN ATTORNEY GENERAL–DESIGNATE Todd Blanche appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democratic senators are going to have a lot of opportunities to make him look like a corrupt, unqualified, incompetent hack. 
He’s certainly played the part. 
There are the conflicts of interest, the DOJ purges, the slush fund, the January 6th pardons and attempted self-pardons, the nakedly political prosecutions, his “war” on judges, and the stonewalling of oversight efforts. 
Democrats shouldn’t ignore all of that as they go about grilling President Trump’s nominee to be our nation’s top law enforcement official. 
But there is one area they should really focus on—an area that, far more than any others, could be Blanche’s undoing: 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 57.5%Sarah Longwell: 9.9%The Bulwark: 5.8%Confirmation Bias57.5%This article: 17.5%Sarah Longwell: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias17.5%This article: 27.5%Sarah Longwell: 3.4%The Bulwark: 2.9%Availability Heuristic27.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.7%The Bulwark: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 68.3%Sarah Longwell: 13.7%The Bulwark: 6.8%Framing Effect68.3%This article: 18.3%Sarah Longwell: 2.1%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion18.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias17.5%This article: 60.0%Sarah Longwell: 23.5%The Bulwark: 11.2%Negativity Bias60.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.7%The Bulwark: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.8%The Bulwark: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 18.3%Sarah Longwell: 3.1%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias18.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.1%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.4%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Sarah Longwell: 1.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 25.8%Sarah Longwell: 8.0%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem25.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.8%The Bulwark: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 35.8%Sarah Longwell: 1.8%The Bulwark: 2.2%False Dilemma35.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.1%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 27.5%Sarah Longwell: 12.2%The Bulwark: 8.2%Hasty Generalization27.5%This article: 27.5%Sarah Longwell: 2.2%The Bulwark: 0.5%Red Herring27.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.4%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.2%Sarah Longwell: 11.5%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion4.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.8%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.1%The Bulwark: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 18.3%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof18.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 27.5%Sarah Longwell: 1.6%The Bulwark: 2.4%Anecdotal27.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.4%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 17.5%Sarah Longwell: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.3%Special Pleading17.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 27.5%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 2.2%Unattributed Quote27.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 64.2%Sarah Longwell: 24.6%The Bulwark: 15.3%Biased Writer Voice64.2%This article: 63.3%Sarah Longwell: 6.8%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination63.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 12.9%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 25.8%Sarah Longwell: 2.1%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias25.8%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 28.3%The Bulwark: 4.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

120 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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