RedState91%

Herridge Warns: CCP’s 220 Million Voter Data Theft Enables Espionage and Election Fraud 99%

By Rusty Weiss90%

7/17/2026, 12:51:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 51.9% saturation with 317 hits. Analysis detected 2,251 faulty-reasoning hits from 611 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 98.3% and a BS Rank of 99% (404 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 98.20% of the article peer group.

Newly available declassified documents and recent statements from President Trump are shining a light on the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) theft of personal data belonging to a staggering 220 million American voters. 
According to investigative journalist Catherine Herridge, that massive haul—which can be combined with other hacked records such as 2015 security clearance applications and health data—creates serious risks for voter registration fraud, identity theft, and espionage recruitment. 
The reporting paints a picture of a massive national security failure compounded by politicized intelligence. 
The President, as reported by RedState Managing Editor Jennifer Van Laar, announced "the immediate declassification and release of critical intelligence revealing shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure," during a primetime address to the nation on Thursday. 
Among the documents is evidence of "China’s illicit acquisition of 220 million U.S. voter files." 
It's a revelation that even had CNN calling it "an alarming disclosure." 
Herridge, as Trump's speech was ongoing, emphasized and reiterated that China and the CCP are aggressively collecting massive amounts of data on Americans through buying, stealing, or hacking in order to exploit vulnerabilities. 
"In 2015, 22 million security clearance applications, known as the SF 86 (it's a road map to your life) were hacked by China," she reported on X. 
"The threat comes from combining the data: weaponizing voter roles, health care records, and security clearance applications can build an entire profile of a US citizen," Herridge explained. 
"This can be used for fraudulent voter registration, identity theft, targeting US citizens for recruitment by China." 
She expanded upon that notion of combining the 2015 hack with the 220 million voter rolls that were compromised in an interview with NewsNation's Katie Pavlich. 
“You can really build this kind of digital composite of an individual and you can use that for, you know, voter registration fraud, you can use that for identity theft," she revealed. 
"And significantly, you can also use it to recruit American citizens to your efforts.” 
“So it’s not just about the collection of the data around the vote," Herridge continued, before she and Pavlich agreed that it amounted to "espionage." 
At the same time, Herridge reports that intelligence officials suppressed warnings about China’s related influence operations targeting the 2020 election, including efforts to “massage” presidential daily briefs (PDB) and strip out information that could have helped Trump’s reelection. 
The investigative reporter uncovered a heavily redacted email amongst the documents recently dropped, showing that on November 20th, 2020, a “Strategic Intelligence Analyst” had "deliberately massaged ... one pending PDB to avoid any direct links to the election.” 
“I understand the whistleblower complaint alleged, and I think we’re now seeing it in the emails that there was an intentional effort to suppress intelligence about China’s influence operations,” Herridge told NewsNation. 
“I think the larger question is why, if there was such a threat from this influence operation on a scale much more significant than Russia, Iran, and North Korea, why was it suppressed?” 
she wondered. 
These revelations make clear the urgent need to treat election security as a top-tier national security priority. 
Lawmakers and the administration must move quickly to shore up voter registration systems, purge any compromised data, and impose real consequences on the officials who buried critical intelligence for political reasons. 
Whether they do so will be an interesting development, but public trust in our elections absolutely depends on it. 
Editor’s Note: Republicans are fighting for election integrity by requiring proper identification to vote. 
Help us continue to report why Democrats oppose such obvious measures by joining RedState VIP and using promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 41.9%Rusty Weiss: 9.6%RedState: 7.0%Confirmation Bias41.9%This article: 6.2%Rusty Weiss: 0.7%RedState: 0.8%Anchoring Bias6.2%This article: 11.6%Rusty Weiss: 3.9%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic11.6%This article: 10.5%Rusty Weiss: 0.8%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic10.5%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.8%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Rusty Weiss: 1.2%RedState: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias12.8%This article: 19.8%Rusty Weiss: 13.0%RedState: 9.2%Framing Effect19.8%This article: 5.1%Rusty Weiss: 0.5%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion5.1%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.4%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.4%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.5%Rusty Weiss: 2.0%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias19.5%This article: 51.9%Rusty Weiss: 19.8%RedState: 13.9%Negativity Bias51.9%This article: 4.3%Rusty Weiss: 1.9%RedState: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 2.2%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Rusty Weiss: 4.5%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 2.5%RedState: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 1.0%RedState: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.8%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 1.5%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Rusty Weiss: 0.9%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Rusty Weiss: 10.0%RedState: 6.9%Ad Hominem4.3%This article: 4.3%Rusty Weiss: 2.3%RedState: 2.6%Straw Man4.3%This article: 31.1%Rusty Weiss: 3.4%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority31.1%This article: 8.5%Rusty Weiss: 2.7%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma8.5%This article: 4.6%Rusty Weiss: 1.9%RedState: 1.4%Slippery Slope4.6%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.3%Rusty Weiss: 9.6%RedState: 10.1%Hasty Generalization10.3%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 1.3%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.0%Rusty Weiss: 1.5%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon2.0%This article: 25.7%Rusty Weiss: 9.3%RedState: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion25.7%This article: 11.5%Rusty Weiss: 2.1%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question11.5%This article: 9.5%Rusty Weiss: 4.9%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.5%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 3.1%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.7%Rusty Weiss: 2.5%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof8.7%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.4%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.7%Rusty Weiss: 2.0%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal9.7%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 32.4%Rusty Weiss: 1.8%RedState: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)32.4%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.3%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.7%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 3.8%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 2.3%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 24.5%RedState: 21.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 9.3%Rusty Weiss: 4.5%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination9.3%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.3%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Rusty Weiss: 14.5%RedState: 15.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.3%This article: 4.3%Rusty Weiss: 4.2%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.3%

611 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers62%attributed speech232writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJennifer Van Laar • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 33 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 27 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 28 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 32 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 14 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 25 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 32 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 33 words • 0.0% coverageCatherine Herridge • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 26 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

RedState

100%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words6.9% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%RedState: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+86.6 ptsWriter: 13.4%RedState: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning -6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%RedState: 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.