Trump’s Delusional Election Fraud Speech Sparks 25th Amendment Calls 96%

By Malcolm Ferguson68%

7/17/2026, 7:53:06 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Politically Left Leaning Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 54.9% saturation with 328 hits. Analysis detected 2,385 faulty-reasoning hits from 597 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 92.4% and a BS Rank of 96% (1,077 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 95.10% of the article peer group.

Democrats across the country questioned the president’s fitness after his baseless, incendiary prime-time Thursday night speech accusing foreign agents of tampering with our last three elections—all to push his restrictive SAVE America Act. 
“This is a 25th Amendment moment,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said , referring to the law that allows Congress to replace the president if deemed “unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the job. 
“I just watched the ramblings of a mad king, and what else can I say—the only thing missing was tinfoil. 
Donald Trump is trying to rig our elections, and we have to stop him. 
Show up and VOTE this November.” 
“How can anyone deny the urgency of the 25th Amendment at this point,” echoed Representative Yassamin Ansari. 
Others focused on the illegitimacy of the claims Trump made. 
“Tonight I heard a failed and desperate president who as war spirals and prices rise is as always focused on his grievances, his shame, and above all his fear of the accountability that will come with defeat,” Senator Jon Ossoff wrote on X . 
“I also heard a president signaling his unmistakable intent to attack these elections and our voting rights, just as he tried to throw out our votes and seize the presidency in 2020. 
Our answer will be overwhelming.” 
“Donald Trump is releasing unverified, meaningless documents to appease his own delusions about an election he lost resoundingly, all while continuing to withhold 3 million pages of the Epstein files,” wrote Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. 
“Donald Trump is a feeble, unhinged conspiracy-peddling 80-year old failed President. 
The economy is a disaster under this guy and the American people know it,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffires said . 
“Pathetic.” 
“Trump says Democrats forgot to rig the election in 2016, successfully rigged it while *he* was president in 2020, then forgot how to rig it again in 2024. 
So the only election Democrats supposedly stole was the one he himself controlled,” said Representative Jim McGovern. 
“You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe this bullshit.” 
“Donald Trump just used a primetime address to relitigate an election he lost six years ago—and to demand new laws making it harder to vote,” former gubernatorial candidate turned voting rights activist Stacey Abrams wrote . 
“Americans see through the lies. 
He tried this in Georgia first: a call to ‘find 11,780 votes,’ a raid on Fulton County, and now a war on the ballot itself. 
That’s not democracy. 
That’s cowardice. 
America, we’ve beaten it before.” 
“Tonight, the same President who once badgered Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State to find 11,780 votes that didn’t exist, so he could overtake Biden’s lead in the state in 2020, put out a whole new set of lies about our elections, past and present,” Senator and Trump nemesis Adam Schiff added. 
“All of his claims and the selective release of any documents must be treated with the greatest skepticism given the President’s many lies and misrepresentations about our elections.” 
Outgoing GOP Representative Thomas Massie had some words for the president, as well. 
“This is absurd,” he wrote. 
“Every piece of voter data Trump mentions here, as well as which elections each voter voted in, is readily available in Kentucky for a small fee.” 
Trump’s rambling speech was as inaccurate as it was disconcerting. 
He sounded bad, had no energy, and stuck so closely to the teleprompter it seemed like he’d never seen the speech before he read it. 
Not exactly a vote of confidence for the next two years. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 49.1%Malcolm Ferguson: 5.6%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias49.1%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Malcolm Ferguson: 3.3%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic4.2%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.7%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias3.7%This article: 4.4%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias4.4%This article: 23.1%Malcolm Ferguson: 11.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect23.1%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: 2.5%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias2.5%This article: 4.7%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias4.7%This article: 54.9%Malcolm Ferguson: 17.7%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias54.9%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error7.4%This article: 12.7%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias12.7%This article: 3.5%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.2%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%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: 5.4%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.6%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias5.4%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: 28.3%Malcolm Ferguson: 5.2%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem28.3%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.7%Malcolm Ferguson: 3.1%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority4.7%This article: 3.4%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.6%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 4.2%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope4.2%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.9%Malcolm Ferguson: 6.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization7.9%This article: 6.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring6.0%This article: 1.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon1.0%This article: 24.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 8.9%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion24.0%This article: 11.2%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question11.2%This article: 19.9%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.9%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 28.8%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof28.8%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: 10.2%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal10.2%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 0.8%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.8%This article: 4.7%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading4.7%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.9%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.9%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote7.9%This article: 1.5%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection1.5%This article: 13.9%Malcolm Ferguson: 16.7%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice13.9%This article: 8.9%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination8.9%This article: 36.7%Malcolm Ferguson: 10.3%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias36.7%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

597 words analyzed.

Speakers

9speakers76%attributed speech143writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 35 words • 100.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageYassamin Ansari • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageJon Ossoff • 44 words • 100.0% coverageJon Ossoff • 32 words • 0.0% coverageJon Ossoff • 5 words • 100.0% coverageChuck Schumer • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageHakeem Jeffires • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageJim McGovern • 28 words • 0.0% coverageJim McGovern • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJim McGovern • 13 words • 0.0% coverageStacey Abrams • 36 words • 100.0% coverageStacey Abrams • 5 words • 0.0% coverageStacey Abrams • 25 words • 0.0% coverageStacey Abrams • 3 words • 0.0% coverageStacey Abrams • 2 words • 0.0% coverageStacey Abrams • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Schiff • 51 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Schiff • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Massie • 5 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Massie • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Adam Schiff

100%flagged-word coverage
79 attributed words17% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Politically Left Leaning B+28.2 ptsWriter: 36.4%Adam Schiff: 64.6%64.6%Biased Writer Voice-44.1 ptsWriter: 44.1%Adam Schiff: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+21.5 ptsWriter: 14.0%Adam Schiff: 35.4%35.4%Unattributed Quote-8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%Adam Schiff: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Adam Schiff: 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.