Senators Never Asked Blanche the Most Obvious Epstein Question (w/ Andrew Weissmann) ⁠92%

By Sarah Longwell⁠91%

7/18/2026, 9:37:49 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Burden of Proof, and Framing Effect, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 59.3% saturation with 121 hits. Analysis detected 627 faulty-reasoning hits from 204 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠92% (1,772 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.90% of the article peer group.

On a week that tested both of them, Sarah and Andrew discuss: Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing, and Trump's prime-time speech on election interference. 
Andrew walks through the cross-examination Senate Democrats didn't run—the statements that went unchallenged, the follow-ups nobody asked, and the one question about the withheld Epstein files that Blanche has still never answered. 
Then: why he thinks dismantling the government's election-security apparatus isn't neglect, but the point. 
Also discussed: the $1.776 billion payout, the document absolving Trump of tax liability, what Blanche told the Epstein victims that simply isn't true, and why Andrew keeps calling BS. 
show notes: 
Andrew Weissmann's new book, Liar’s Kingdom, is out now. 
Watch, listen and leave a comment. 
The Illegal News with Sarah Longwell is available wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. 
Leave us a review and ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ so more people can find this important show from The Bulwark. 
Access to this show’s community comments and ad-free editions is available exclusively for Bulwark+ members here and on the Bulwark App—available now in the Apple and Google App stores. 
Bulwark+ members can also listen ad-free on your podcast player of choice—click SET UP here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.1%Sarah Longwell: 9.9%The Bulwark: 5.8%Confirmation Bias20.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.4%The Bulwark: 2.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%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: 28.4%Sarah Longwell: 13.7%The Bulwark: 6.8%Framing Effect28.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.1%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 14.2%Sarah Longwell: 0.8%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias14.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Sarah Longwell: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.5%Optimism Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 44.1%Sarah Longwell: 23.5%The Bulwark: 11.2%Negativity Bias44.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.7%The Bulwark: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 15.7%Sarah Longwell: 3.8%The Bulwark: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error15.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 3.1%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias0.0%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: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 8.0%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem0.0%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: 6.9%Sarah Longwell: 1.8%The Bulwark: 2.2%False Dilemma6.9%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: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 12.2%The Bulwark: 8.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.2%The Bulwark: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.4%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 22.5%Sarah Longwell: 11.5%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion22.5%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: 29.9%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof29.9%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: 5.9%Sarah Longwell: 1.6%The Bulwark: 2.4%Anecdotal5.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.7%Sarah Longwell: 2.4%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.7%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: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 1.5%The Bulwark: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 5.9%Sarah Longwell: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection5.9%This article: 15.7%Sarah Longwell: 24.6%The Bulwark: 15.3%Biased Writer Voice15.7%This article: 18.6%Sarah Longwell: 6.8%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination18.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 12.9%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Longwell: 2.1%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 59.3%Sarah Longwell: 28.3%The Bulwark: 4.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…59.3%

204 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers37%attributed speech128writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Weissmann • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageThe Bulwark • 29 words • 100.0% coverageThe Bulwark • 15 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Andrew Weissmann

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words42% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrew Weissmann: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -60.2 ptsWriter: 60.2%Andrew Weissmann: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-18.0 ptsWriter: 18.0%Andrew Weissmann: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.4 ptsWriter: 9.4%Andrew Weissmann: 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.