Raw Story⁠93%

'This is insane!' Eyes widen over teased Trump stunt during upcoming national address ⁠70%

By Matthew Chapman⁠86%

7/13/2026, 4:26:37 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Framing Effect, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 47.8% saturation with 181 hits. Analysis detected 1,236 faulty-reasoning hits from 379 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠70% (6,616 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.80% of the article peer group.

As President Donald Trump gears up for a mysterious Thursday-night announcement to the nation, a massive new election conspiracy theory stunt has been teased ahead of time by the conservative D.C. 
Reporter. 
Specifically, said the report, "President Trump is planning to announce that Georgia's two senators, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, are illegitimate because of fraud, a well-placed source in Georgia tells us. 
Announcement could come as soon as tonight." 
This revelation, which comes after years of Trump asserting with no evidence the 2020 election results in Georgia were rigged or otherwise invalid and trying to have them overturned through various legal and illegal methods, triggered reactions ranging from incredulity to outrage from commenters on social media — and while MAGA voices cheered it on, few others took it remotely seriously. 
"This is insane. 
INSANE," wrote former Rep. 
Adam Kinzinger (R-IL). 
"Record-breaking Ossoff and Warnock fundraising day incoming…" wrote Rep. 
Maxwell Frost (D-FL). 
"So a Civil War instead of midterm elections," wrote Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts. 
"This is a test run for 2026," wrote progressive talk radio host Dean Obeidallah. 
"If Trump steals the 2026 election, ballots will not be enough to save us. 
It will take much more." 
"The same Georgia election that elected Republicans statewide is somehow only fake when it elected Ossoff and Warnock?" 
wrote Alex Cole of Newsitics. 
"Lol, 'well-placed source.'" 
Meanwhile, policy consultant Adam Cochran posted a comprehensive takedown of the whole thing. 
"Doesn’t work like that," he wrote. 
"First off, there was no fraud, but you seized the ballots and the paper backups to make sure no one could question it. 
Second, the constitution has no way to nullify a swearing-in. 
Only peer expulsion. 
Third, this sudden 'announcement' is when Trump is down by two Senators and desperate to pass a bill." 
"Lastly, Trump had 64 court cases to try and litigate the election, including in Georgia," Cochran continued. 
"No case turned up any evidence, including after an audit of these ballots. 
Trump’s own lawyers and advocates then admitted to making up the conspiracy about this country, and were charged for it. 
Part of the court evidence included their own email records of coming up with the plot." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 47.8%Matthew Chapman: 7.5%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias47.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.1%Matthew Chapman: 4.1%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic16.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias8.4%This article: 21.9%Matthew Chapman: 17.2%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect21.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.9%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias5.0%This article: 44.6%Matthew Chapman: 22.8%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias44.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Matthew Chapman: 3.4%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error4.7%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 16.1%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.4%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.8%Matthew Chapman: 6.5%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.4%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority12.4%This article: 5.8%Matthew Chapman: 3.9%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma5.8%This article: 7.7%Matthew Chapman: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope7.7%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 23.7%Matthew Chapman: 10.2%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization23.7%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.2%Matthew Chapman: 7.9%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion8.2%This article: 8.2%Matthew Chapman: 2.1%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question8.2%This article: 20.8%Matthew Chapman: 3.5%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)20.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 19.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof19.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.1%Matthew Chapman: 4.0%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal6.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.4%Matthew Chapman: 3.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.8%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.2%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote8.2%This article: 1.8%Matthew Chapman: 4.4%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection1.8%This article: 12.7%Matthew Chapman: 16.7%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice12.7%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.9%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 16.1%Matthew Chapman: 2.5%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

379 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers45%attributed speech210writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 61 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Kinzinger (R-IL) • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMaxwell Frost (D-FL) • 3 words • 0.0% coverageShannon Watts • 15 words • 0.0% coverageDean Obeidallah • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDean Obeidallah • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDean Obeidallah • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAlex Cole of Newsitics • 18 words • 0.0% coverageAlex Cole of Newsitics • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAlex Cole of Newsitics • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Cochran • 6 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Cochran • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Cochran • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Cochran • 3 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Cochran • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Cochran • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Cochran • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Shannon Watts

100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words8.9% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Politically Right Leaning -29.0 ptsWriter: 29.0%Shannon Watts: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.9 ptsWriter: 22.9%Shannon Watts: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-14.8 ptsWriter: 14.8%Shannon Watts: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Shannon Watts: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.