Trump’s Own Election Fraud Guy Admits He’s Found No Proof ⁠85%

By Malcolm Ferguson⁠68%

7/17/2026, 12:57:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 51.7% saturation with 165 hits. Analysis detected 1,479 faulty-reasoning hits from 319 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠85% (3,388 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.50% of the article peer group.

Not even President Trump’s own election fraud guy could back up his claims that votes in the last three general and midterm elections were tampered with in any way. 
“Can you acknowledge that there were no votes changed in 2020?” 
MS NOW’s Vaughn Hill asked John Solomon, an election interference conspiracy theorist who now sits on the White House’s election task force, after Trump’s speech Thursday night. 
“All I can acknowledge is what the intelligence shows. 
I only know—the intelligence community has zero evidence that … a foreign power flipped the vote in 2020, ’22, or ’24,” Solomon replied . 
“And you’re able to acknowledge that Venezuela has not tampered with voting machines in the United States?” 
“No, the intelligence is very clear: They did it on their own machines,” Solomon said before fleeing the scene. 
Trump used his prime-time speech to accuse China of “illicit acquisition of 220 million U.S. voter files.” 
He said that there was a “specific plot to do a big number in favor of the corrupt Maduro regime in Venezuela,” and that no vote would be safe and sound unless his restrictive SAVE America Act was passed. 
And yet Solomon, a MAGA journalist who has made a career out of manufacturing consent for Trump’s claims, couldn’t even back this one up a little bit. 
NEW: John Solomon acknowledges no votes were changed in the 2020, 2022 or 2024 elections. 
He also, when asked if the 2020 results showing Biden won the presidential election are accurate, said, “I'm researching.” 
And says no intell that Venezuela tempered with US voting machines. pic.twitter.com/nllLSKgPl7 
— Vaughn Hillyard (@VaughnHillyard) July 17, 2026 
That’s probably because Trump’s own intel doesn’t back it up. 
Alongside his speech, Trump declassified documents that confirmed Russia interfered in his favor by pushing claims about Hunter Biden and conspiracies about the reliability of mail-in voting. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 29.8%Malcolm Ferguson: 5.6%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias29.8%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 3.3%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 16.3%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias16.3%This article: 39.5%Malcolm Ferguson: 11.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect39.5%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias3.1%This article: 51.7%Malcolm Ferguson: 17.7%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias51.7%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 12.2%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error12.2%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.2%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias8.5%This article: 8.5%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias8.5%This article: 8.5%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect8.5%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.6%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 26.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 5.2%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem26.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.8%Malcolm Ferguson: 3.1%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority24.8%This article: 8.8%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.6%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma8.8%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.7%Malcolm Ferguson: 6.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization4.7%This article: 5.3%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring5.3%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.4%Malcolm Ferguson: 8.9%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion15.4%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.1%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.1%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 26.6%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof26.6%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.8%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal3.8%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 34.5%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)34.5%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 6.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading6.0%This article: 8.5%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy8.5%This article: 16.3%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.9%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote16.3%This article: 11.3%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection11.3%This article: 42.9%Malcolm Ferguson: 16.7%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice42.9%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 30.7%Malcolm Ferguson: 10.3%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias30.7%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 12.2%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…12.2%

319 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers33%attributed speech213writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageVaughn Hill • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Solomon • 9 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Solomon • 24 words • 100.0% coverageVaughn Hill • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Solomon • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Solomon • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageVaughn Hillyard • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

John Solomon

100%flagged-word coverage
71 attributed words67% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Unattributed Quote+73.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%John Solomon: 73.2%73.2%Biased Writer Voice-28.6 ptsWriter: 55.4%John Solomon: 26.8%26.8%Politically Left Leaning B-46.0 ptsWriter: 46.0%John Solomon: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -18.3 ptsWriter: 18.3%John Solomon: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+0.0 ptsWriter: 12.7%John Solomon: 12.7%12.7%

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.