Trump Hosts Convicted Election Fraudster at White House ⁠87%

By Edith Olmsted⁠82%

6/30/2026, 2:16:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 56.5% saturation with 144 hits. Analysis detected 1,018 faulty-reasoning hits from 255 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 78.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (3,033 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.10% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump invited Tina Peters, the former Colorado county election clerk found guilty of tampering with voting machines, to the White House on Tuesday. 
Trump took to Truth Social to brag about the “honor” of meeting up with a fellow election denier. 
“Tina Peters just came to the White House to thank me for getting her released from prison in Colorado,” the president wrote. 
“She was put there because she found Election Fraud, but instead of arresting the people that committed the Fraud, they arrested her!” 
Trump posted a photograph of the two of them smiling from behind his desk in the Oval Office. 
Peters became a mascot of the MAGA movement’s supposed victimhood after she was sentenced to nine years in prison for conspiring to publicize the voting machine records in Mesa County. 
She turned all the cameras off while allowing fellow election denier Conan Hayes to copy, photograph, and download information in an effort to prove Trump’s election fraud claims in 2020. 
Peters was freed from prison after the Trump administration pressured Democratic Colorado Governor Jared Polis into granting her clemency. 
“What she went through should never happen to anyone again,” Trump wrote. 
“Just think of it, she caught the Democrats cheating, and they put her in jail for Voter Fraud.” 
Of course, the Mesa County district attorney’s office uncovered zero evidence to back up Peters’s claims of voter fraud. 
The only evidence of any election meddling in 2020 came from Trump’s own camp. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 30.6%Edith Olmsted: 4.8%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias30.6%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Edith Olmsted: 3.2%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic7.1%This article: 11.8%Edith Olmsted: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic11.8%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Edith Olmsted: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias5.5%This article: 46.3%Edith Olmsted: 11.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect46.3%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 3.3%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 56.5%Edith Olmsted: 21.0%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias56.5%This article: 7.1%Edith Olmsted: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.7%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Edith Olmsted: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias18.8%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Edith Olmsted: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect7.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Edith Olmsted: 6.0%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem7.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.5%Edith Olmsted: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority7.5%This article: 12.5%Edith Olmsted: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma12.5%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.8%Edith Olmsted: 9.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization18.8%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.8%Edith Olmsted: 7.6%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion11.8%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 16.1%Edith Olmsted: 6.2%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 15.7%Edith Olmsted: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof15.7%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.2%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.2%Edith Olmsted: 2.5%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.2%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.6%Edith Olmsted: 4.1%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote8.6%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 46.3%Edith Olmsted: 25.6%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice46.3%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 31.0%Edith Olmsted: 11.9%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias31.0%This article: 14.1%Edith Olmsted: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias14.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

255 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker36%attributed speech163writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 18 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 22 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
92 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-35.0 ptsWriter: 58.9%Donald Trump: 23.9%23.9%Politically Left Leaning B-48.5 ptsWriter: 48.5%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning +39.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 39.1%39.1%Unattributed Quote+23.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 23.9%23.9%

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.