The Blaze⁠79%

‘Fascinating’: JD Vance tells Joe Rogan the Trump administration ‘screwed up the comms’ with the Epstein files ⁠84%

By BlazeTV Staff⁠87%

7/17/2026, 10:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 29.6% saturation with 132 hits. Analysis detected 795 faulty-reasoning hits from 446 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (3,555 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.80% of the article peer group.

For years, the Epstein files have fueled endless speculation, conspiracy theories, and demands for transparency — which have resulted in widespread disappointment among Americans demanding to know the truth. 
Now, on the biggest podcast in the world, Vice President JD Vance is offering one of the administration’s most direct explanations yet for why the highly anticipated document release left so many Americans frustrated. 
“The Epstein files were supposed to be released,” Joe Rogan said to Vance on “The Joe Rogan Experience.” 
“And there was a tremendous amount of resistance to those files being released. 
That concerned a lot of people because if you’re talking about very wealthy, powerful people that were engaged in crimes.” 
“So you’re basically saying the fear is that whatever’s in the Epstein files was used to blackmail the administration into doing the Iran thing,” Vance replied. 
“Or, at the very least, the people that were involved in the Epstein files that didn’t want them coming out had undue influence,” Rogan said. 
“I say this with all candor, we absolutely screwed up the comms of the Epstein files. 
Like we just did. 
But do I think the reason we screwed up the comms is because we were trying to hide something? 
No,” Vance explained. 
Instead, Vance believes the reason the administration “screwed up the comms” was that former Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed the client list was on her desk. 
“So, what was the purpose of that performative display of the Epstein files, and she was saying there’s tens of thousands of hours of film?” 
Rogan asked. 
“I don’t know what the purpose of it was, but I know that the effect of it was to make people mistrust the entire effort,” Vance answered, noting that he believes Bondi was “trying to respond to the political moment.” 
Vance called himself one of the “OG Epstein conspiracy theorists” and admitted to going “down every single rabbit hole.” 
“The original sin of the Epstein investigation, and obviously I’m biased here, but it was not what Donald Trump and the administration did in 2025. 
It was, you have to go back to 2007, 2008, the original Alex Acosta investigation of Jeffrey Epstein where he basically dropped the federal charges,” he explained. 
“You go to the original warrant back in 2008, what was he looking for? 
What was he allowed to look for? 
What were they collecting? 
It was not looking at a broader conspiracy,” he added. 
“That’s fascinating,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray comments. 
“I don’t know if we’ll ever find out the truth,” he adds, “but that was fascinating.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.8%BlazeTV Staff: 8.1%Blaze Media: 5.6%Confirmation Bias5.8%This article: 6.1%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.7%Anchoring Bias6.1%This article: 10.8%BlazeTV Staff: 5.2%Blaze Media: 3.2%Availability Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.7%Blaze Media: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.1%BlazeTV Staff: 1.7%Blaze Media: 0.8%Hindsight Bias6.1%This article: 2.2%BlazeTV Staff: 3.0%Blaze Media: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias2.2%This article: 13.0%BlazeTV Staff: 10.6%Blaze Media: 9.6%Framing Effect13.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%BlazeTV Staff: 1.4%Blaze Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias3.6%This article: 18.6%BlazeTV Staff: 9.3%Blaze Media: 9.8%Negativity Bias18.6%This article: 4.3%BlazeTV Staff: 1.3%Blaze Media: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias4.3%This article: 9.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error9.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 4.8%Blaze Media: 2.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 2.6%Blaze Media: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%BlazeTV Staff: 6.8%Blaze Media: 2.6%Halo Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.9%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 1.1%Recency Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.2%Blaze Media: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.5%Blaze Media: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 2.1%Blaze Media: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 3.7%Blaze Media: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.6%BlazeTV Staff: 2.7%Blaze Media: 2.4%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.0%Blaze Media: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 13.4%Blaze Media: 8.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.7%Blaze Media: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.8%Blaze Media: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.1%BlazeTV Staff: 12.2%Blaze Media: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion12.1%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.8%Blaze Media: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.1%BlazeTV Staff: 2.9%Blaze Media: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.1%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.6%BlazeTV Staff: 1.3%Blaze Media: 1.0%Burden of Proof5.6%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.1%Blaze Media: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 7.4%Blaze Media: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.8%BlazeTV Staff: 2.0%Blaze Media: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.8%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.7%Blaze Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.8%Blaze Media: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 29.6%BlazeTV Staff: 2.9%Blaze Media: 2.8%Unattributed Quote29.6%This article: 3.8%BlazeTV Staff: 2.8%Blaze Media: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection3.8%This article: 12.6%BlazeTV Staff: 11.4%Blaze Media: 10.6%Biased Writer Voice12.6%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 7.4%Blaze Media: 4.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%BlazeTV Staff: 9.2%Blaze Media: 7.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 6.6%Blaze Media: 2.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

446 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers82%attributed speech82writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageJoe Rogan • 18 words • 100.0% coverageJoe Rogan • 13 words • 100.0% coverageJoe Rogan • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Rogan • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 26 words • 100.0% coverageJoe Rogan • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 40 words • 100.0% coverageJD Vance • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 27 words • 100.0% coverageJD Vance • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 10 words • 100.0% coveragePat Gray • 7 words • 0.0% coveragePat Gray • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Pat Gray

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words6.3% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Politically Right Leaning -41.5 ptsWriter: 41.5%Pat Gray: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-35.4 ptsWriter: 35.4%Pat Gray: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-20.7 ptsWriter: 20.7%Pat Gray: 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.