Raw Story⁠93%

WATCH: Todd Blanche faces Senate grilling in high-stakes confirmation hearing ⁠86%

By Alexander Willis⁠88%

7/15/2026, 12:54:11 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Horn Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 56.7% saturation with 102 hits. Analysis detected 524 faulty-reasoning hits from 180 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 77.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠86% (3,125 of 21,119 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.20% of the article peer group.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is slated to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and is expected to face tough questions from members on a number of topics, chief among them his role in the Justice Department’s botched release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. 
After firing Pam Bondi in April, President Donald Trump nominated then-Deputy Attorney General Blanche to assume Bondi’s role, a nomination that has received intense scrutiny given Blanche’s history as Trump’s personal lawyer, as well as his handling of the release of Epstein-related files. 
More than 1,200 former Justice Department (DOJ) employees signed a letter urging senators to reject Blanche’s nomination, as have several Epstein survivors, many of whom were unlawfully named in the DOJ’s release of Epstein-related files. 
Under Blanche’s leadership at the DOJ, around 16,000 employees have left, including FBI agents and more than 25% of the agency’s attorneys, according to former DOJ employees. 
Blanche has also faced scrutiny for spearheading what critics have described as politically motivated prosecutions of Trump’s perceived enemies. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 6.7%Rawstory: 7.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%Alexander Willis: 7.1%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic15.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.6%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 31.1%Alexander Willis: 18.7%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect31.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 3.1%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 56.7%Alexander Willis: 27.6%Rawstory: 21.8%Negativity Bias56.7%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 23.9%Alexander Willis: 1.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect23.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.8%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 3.8%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.4%Alexander Willis: 4.1%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority19.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.5%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.0%Alexander Willis: 8.0%Rawstory: 11.9%Hasty Generalization15.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 19.4%Alexander Willis: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon19.4%This article: 19.4%Alexander Willis: 11.2%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion19.4%This article: 10.6%Alexander Willis: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question10.6%This article: 15.0%Alexander Willis: 2.5%Rawstory: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.3%Rawstory: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 6.3%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 3.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 23.9%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy23.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 7.5%Rawstory: 5.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 10.6%Alexander Willis: 5.8%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection10.6%This article: 31.1%Alexander Willis: 13.4%Rawstory: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice31.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 7.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

180 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.