Fox News87%

Jack Smith hit with criminal referral as GOP moves testimony fight toward prosecution 60%

7/23/2026, 1:00:33 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36% saturation with 191 hits. Analysis detected 1,093 faulty-reasoning hits from 531 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.2% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,293 of 20,370 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.30% of the article peer group.

FIRST ON FOX: Former Biden special counsel Jack Smith could face potential criminal prosecution after Republicans accused the ex-prosecutor of misleading Congress about the scope of his investigation into President Donald Trump. 
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, issued a criminal referral of Smith on Wednesday, arguing newly released records contradict Smith's testimony to his committee that he did not obtain or review lawmakers' text messages during his multiple probes into President Donald Trump. 
"All individuals have an obligation to comply with a duly authorized congressional inquiry. 
Mr. 
Smith, a former public servant, is no different," Jordan wrote in a letter to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Wednesday. 
"Yet his testimony included intentionally false statements designed to obstruct the Committee’s oversight." 
"His conduct can only be understood as an effort to thwart the Committee’s inquiry by intentionally making false statements and representations before Congress," Jordan continued, adding that the Justice Department should examine whether Smith's actions warrant criminal charges. 
VETERAN DEM BREAKS PARTY LINE AS JACK SMITH SPYING SCANDAL GRIPS CAPITOL HILL 
Jordan’s letter accused Smith of making false statements during a December deposition before the House Judiciary Committee. 
Specifically, Jordan argued that "responses provided by Mr. 
Smith gave the impression that neither Mr. 
Smith nor his team had access to the content of members’ privileged text messages." 
"We now know this to be false," the letter said. 
The referral comes after Smith faced mounting scrutiny from Republicans over allegedly weaponizing the Justice Department and violating constitutional privacy protections during his investigations into alleged interference during the 2020 election and Trump’s handling of classified documents. 
He has denied any wrongdoing. 
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released documents last week showing Smith's team read the text messages of 44 members of Congress from both parties as well as White House staff during its investigation. 
Targeted lawmakers included Jordan and Grassley in addition to the late Sen. 
Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Sen. 
Susan Collins, R-Maine, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., and Sen. 
Cory Booker, D-N.J. 
Meanwhile, Trump officials who were impacted included former Vice President Mike Pence, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, FBI Director Kash Patel and Ivanka Trump, among others in the president's orbit during his first term. 
BIDEN SPECIAL COUNSEL’S 'RUNAWAY TRAIN’ SCOOPED UP SENSITIVE LAWMAKER INFO: 'ABUSE OF POWER' 
Grassley's office also found that Smith's team appeared to violate investigative protocols by accessing text messages that had not been reviewed by a "filter team"  a safeguard designed to prevent investigators from accessing privileged information, according to the documents. 
When Smith was asked by congressional investigators if he examined the contents of lawmakers’ text messages during his probe, he said, "no." 
He told the House Judiciary Committee that his team only sought telephone toll records. 
"Toll records were sought for historical telephone routing information, collected after calls had taken place, identifying the incoming and outgoing call numbers, the time of the calls and their duration," Smith testified in December. 
"Toll records do not include the content of calls." 
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 31.1%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias31.1%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic7.0%This article: 4.0%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 26.7%Fox Nation: 12.0%Framing Effect26.7%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias7.2%This article: 36.0%Fox Nation: 10.9%Negativity Bias36.0%This article: 0.9%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.9%This article: 7.2%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error7.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias9.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.7%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority14.7%This article: 7.2%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma7.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.9%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization1.9%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.0%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon7.0%This article: 11.9%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion11.9%This article: 7.2%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question7.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.9%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.9%This article: 9.2%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof9.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division4.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.3%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.3%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.5%Fox Nation: 1.7%Unattributed Quote1.5%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.2%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice0.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

531 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers49%attributed speech272writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 43 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageJim Jordan • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 8 words • 100.0% coverageJim Jordan • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Grassley • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Grassley • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jim Jordan

85%flagged-word coverage
184 attributed words71% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Unattributed Quote+4.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jim Jordan: 4.3%4.3%Biased Writer Voice-0.4 ptsWriter: 0.4%Jim Jordan: 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.