Raw Story93%

'This is nuts stuff': Disturbing threat alarms as Trump admin escalates midterms rhetoric 82%

By Robert Davis75%

7/19/2026, 4:42:36 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.8% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 782 faulty-reasoning hits from 234 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.5% and a BS Rank of 82% (4,029 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.60% of the article peer group.

A disturbing threat from a Trump administration official regarding the 2026 midterm elections alarmed an analyst on Sunday. 
Jacob Soboroff, host of MS NOW's "Connect with Jacob Soboroff," discussed comments that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin made during a recent press conference about election security. 
Mullin said during the event that he was directing states to "scrub their voter rolls" to comply with a series of new election mandates from the Trump administration. 
"If the election officials, once we gave them the information they need to secure their elections and they chose not to, then those individuals can also be held accountable by fines, by penalties, and even, depending on how far it goes, prison time," Mullin said. 
The threat alarmed Soborof. 
"This is nuts stuff," Soborof said. 
"While Donald Trump's first administration was filled with more traditional government officials or people with extensive military backgrounds, this time around, he is surrounded by people like these guys, Todd Blanche [and] Markwayne Mullin, people who are not pushing back on the president's worst impulses." 
The Trump administration has been escalating its rhetoric about election security as the midterms approach. 
Last week during his national address, Trump made a series of claims about foreign election interference and demanded that lawmakers pass his SAVE Act, a bill that would overhaul how elections are conducted. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.4%Robert Davis: 9.7%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Robert Davis: 3.4%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic7.7%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.7%Robert Davis: 15.2%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect19.7%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 36.8%Robert Davis: 20.5%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias36.8%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.3%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 19.2%Robert Davis: 3.6%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error19.2%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 19.2%Robert Davis: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias19.2%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 22.2%Robert Davis: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias22.2%This article: 19.2%Robert Davis: 1.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect19.2%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 5.0%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.1%Robert Davis: 5.5%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority14.1%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.6%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 19.2%Robert Davis: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope19.2%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.2%Robert Davis: 14.2%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization19.2%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 34.2%Robert Davis: 8.2%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion34.2%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.2%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.4%Robert Davis: 4.2%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.4%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 4.8%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 19.2%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman19.2%This article: 33.3%Robert Davis: 5.8%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)33.3%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 19.2%Robert Davis: 5.5%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote19.2%This article: 5.6%Robert Davis: 6.1%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.6%This article: 13.2%Robert Davis: 13.1%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice13.2%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 5.0%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

234 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers79%attributed speech50writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageJacob Soboroff • 27 words • 0.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJacob Soboroff • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJacob Soboroff • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 33 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jacob Soboroff

65%flagged-word coverage
78 attributed words42% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice-62.0 ptsWriter: 62.0%Jacob Soboroff: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-26.0 ptsWriter: 26.0%Jacob Soboroff: 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.