DOJ Accidentally Gives Jack Smith Report to Person They’re Suing 24%

By Hafiz Rashid68%

7/2/2026, 10:34:34 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 49.4% saturation with 154 hits. Analysis detected 742 faulty-reasoning hits from 312 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.9% and a BS Rank of 24% (16,655 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.10% of the article peer group.

The Department of Justice accidentally released the second volume of former special counsel Jack Smith’s report on President Trump’s handling of classified documents in a legal case last month, according to a legal filing published Thursday. 
DOJ lawyers sent the sealed report to lawyers for Carmen Lineberger, who was charged with stealing the report by emailing it to herself disguised as a cake recipe. 
On June 3, DOJ officials handed over discovery items on flash drives to Lineberger’s lawyers. 
Included in those drives were documents embedded in electronic messages that were required to be disclosed. 
On June 9, the defendant’s attorneys reported they found three documents and contacted the government to confirm if they were supposed to be part of discovery materials. 
After they reviewed the documents, DOJ lawyers confirmed that they were actually copies of Smith’s report. 
Defense attorneys told the government they stopped reviewing the material before examining the report itself, deleted the discovery materials they had downloaded, and handed the flash drives back to the government. 
Thursday’s legal filing was to notify Judge Aileen Cannon, the judge presiding over Trump’s classified documents case. 
The accidental leak has to be embarrassing for the government, considering Trump’s successful effort to keep the Smith’s report hidden from the public after he won the 2024 presidential election. 
The defense counsel could have leaked the documents, but considering that their client was accused of improperly handling them, chose to follow the rules. 
The situation is ironic, considering Smith’s report was all about how Trump allegedly mishandled classified documents by keeping them at Mar-a-Lago instead of returning them to the government. 
Smith’s case wasn’t allowed to go to trial thanks to Cannon, a Trump appointee, dismissing it on flimsy grounds. 
It seems that the public may never know the full details of what Trump did. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 23.4%Hafiz Rashid: 7.5%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias23.4%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Hafiz Rashid: 4.3%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic4.8%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.6%Hafiz Rashid: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.2%Hafiz Rashid: 10.9%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect12.2%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.4%Hafiz Rashid: 3.0%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias14.4%This article: 18.9%Hafiz Rashid: 16.7%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias18.9%This article: 7.7%Hafiz Rashid: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias7.7%This article: 6.1%Hafiz Rashid: 2.9%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error6.1%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Hafiz Rashid: 3.5%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem6.1%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.1%Hafiz Rashid: 4.2%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority6.1%This article: 7.7%Hafiz Rashid: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma7.7%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.8%Hafiz Rashid: 8.6%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization4.8%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 18.6%Hafiz Rashid: 6.1%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion18.6%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.6%Hafiz Rashid: 3.5%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.6%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.0%Hafiz Rashid: 3.9%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal9.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.0%Hafiz Rashid: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.8%Hafiz Rashid: 4.0%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote4.8%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 3.1%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 49.4%Hafiz Rashid: 14.6%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice49.4%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 6.1%Hafiz Rashid: 7.0%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.1%This article: 9.6%Hafiz Rashid: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

312 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.