Trump judge makes his disgust plain as he's forced to clear rioting Proud Boys 12%

By Daniel Hampton75%

7/11/2026, 12:46:12 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.5% saturation with 66 hits. Analysis detected 506 faulty-reasoning hits from 400 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.6% and a BS Rank of 12% (18,745 of 21,164 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.60% of the article peer group.

A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump agreed on Friday to dismiss the Justice Department's case against four Proud Boys tied to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. 
Capitol, but he took pains to separate the ruling from his own view of it. 
Judge Timothy J. 
Kelly granted the government's unopposed motion to end the prosecution of Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, and Dominic Pezzola with prejudice, after an appeals court had already vacated their convictions. 
Nordean, Biggs, and Rehl had been convicted of seditious conspiracy , while Pezzola was acquitted of that charge but convicted of others. 
Kelly repeatedly stressed these were "serious crimes," and that the case was being wiped away "without regard for the seriousness of the conduct at issue." 
He was blunt that his hands were tied. 
"Denying the motion would not somehow revive the convictions" that the appeals court vacated, Kelly wrote, adding that the court "lacks the authority to compel the Executive to pursue a prosecution, full stop." 
The dismissal, he noted, was "mandated by the Executive Order" Trump signed on his first day back in office, the same order under which the Justice Department moved to vacate the convictions in April. 
He then delivered a strong assessment. 
"No one should mistake the Court's granting of the Government's motion for its agreement with those decisions," Kelly wrote. 
He also took a pointed swipe at the president's account of the riot, referencing "President Trump's views about the prosecution of those who attacked the U.S. 
Capitol on January 6  whether those views are based on fact or fiction." 
Kelly singled out Pezzola for breaking the Capitol window that created "the first entry point through which hundreds of rioters streamed into the building." 
He closed with a civics warning, calling Jan. 6 "a perilous event" and an attack on "the Constitution's mechanism to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power." 
If this nation's "experiment in self-government is to last another 250 years," Kelly wrote, Americans "no matter their partisan preferences" must act together to preserve it. 
Some of the freed defendants were eyeing payouts from a Trump fund set up for those he viewed as wronged by the prosecutions. 
That fund has since been scrapped, according to Trump's own administration, though the president has since suggested he might revive it. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 3.8%Rawstory: 7.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Daniel Hampton: 3.6%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic6.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 2.1%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.8%Daniel Hampton: 11.7%Rawstory: 13.6%Framing Effect14.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.1%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%Daniel Hampton: 18.1%Rawstory: 21.9%Negativity Bias16.5%This article: 5.8%Daniel Hampton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.9%Rawstory: 2.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Daniel Hampton: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.5%Daniel Hampton: 5.1%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority8.5%This article: 3.5%Daniel Hampton: 1.1%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma3.5%This article: 6.5%Daniel Hampton: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope6.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 12.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 6.5%Daniel Hampton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.6%Red Herring6.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.0%Daniel Hampton: 8.7%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion10.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 5.0%Rawstory: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.8%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 4.0%Anecdotal5.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 2.4%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.3%Daniel Hampton: 2.3%Rawstory: 5.5%Unattributed Quote8.3%This article: 6.5%Daniel Hampton: 5.1%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection6.5%This article: 11.5%Daniel Hampton: 7.6%Rawstory: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice11.5%This article: 11.3%Daniel Hampton: 0.6%Rawstory: 3.1%Indoctrination11.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 4.6%Rawstory: 7.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

400 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker58%attributed speech168writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Timothy J. Kelly • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Timothy J. Kelly • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Timothy J. Kelly • 33 words • 100.0% coverageJudge Timothy J. Kelly • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageJudge Timothy J. Kelly • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageJudge Timothy J. Kelly • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Timothy J. Kelly • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJudge Timothy J. Kelly • 26 words • 100.0% coverageJudge Timothy J. Kelly • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
76%flagged-word coverage
232 attributed words100% of attributed speech54% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-27.4 ptsWriter: 27.4%Judge Timothy J. Kelly: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+19.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Judge Timothy J. Kelly: 19.4%19.4%Unattributed Quote+14.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Judge Timothy J. Kelly: 14.2%14.2%Quote-first Misdirection+11.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Judge Timothy J. Kelly: 11.2%11.2%

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.