Trump's justice department scrubs its website of news releases about January 6 defendants ⁠80%

By Associated Press⁠60%

5/23/2026, 7:23:57 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.8% saturation with 122 hits. Analysis detected 966 faulty-reasoning hits from 384 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠80% (4,579 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.10% of the article peer group.

The Department of Justice is acknowledging it has removed from its website news releases about criminal cases related to the 6 January 2021 Capitol attack, calling the information about the prosecutions “partisan propaganda”. 
The purge of news releases documenting criminal charges, convictions and sentencings is the latest step by the Trump administration to dramatically rewrite the history of the assault on the US Capitol, when hundreds of supporters of Donald Trump stormed the building in an effort to halt the congressional certification of his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. 
Trump, on his first day back in office in January 2025, pardoned, commuted the prison sentences of or vowed to dismiss the cases of all of the 1,500-plus people charged with crimes during the Capitol assault, including those convicted of attacking officers with makeshift weapons such as flagpoles, a hockey stick and a crutch. 
On Monday, the justice department announced the creation of a $1.776bn fund meant to compensate Trump allies who feel they were unjustly investigated and prosecuted. 
The acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, has not ruled out that rioters convicted of violence will be eligible for payouts, prompting bipartisan anger in Congress. 
After a journalist on Friday observed on the social media platform X that the justice department was “quietly” removing news releases on its website that were related to the January 6 attack, including about a Texas man who pleaded guilty to assault and also faced separate state charges of soliciting a minor, the department responded through its “rapid response” account that there was “nothing ‘quiet’ about it”. 
“We are proud to reverse the [justice department’s] weaponization under the Biden administration. 
We will do everything in our power to make whole those who were persecuted for political purposes,” the post said. 
“This includes stripping [the justice department’s] website of partisan propaganda.” 
Among the releases removed from the site were those concerning seditious conspiracy cases against members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, far-right extremist groups. 
The justice department, in an unopposed motion last month, asked a federal appeals court to vacate those seditious conspiracy convictions, a request that was granted on Thursday. 
The department on Friday moved to dismiss the cases against the group members. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.0%Associated Press: 2.2%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.2%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.8%Associated Press: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic6.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.4%Associated Press: 7.1%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect22.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.1%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.6%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 31.8%Associated Press: 8.7%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias31.8%This article: 5.2%Associated Press: 2.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias5.2%This article: 15.1%Associated Press: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error15.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.0%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.3%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 31.5%Associated Press: 1.4%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias31.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.4%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 15.1%Associated Press: 0.6%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope15.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.1%Associated Press: 2.7%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization14.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.2%Associated Press: 4.7%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion5.2%This article: 11.2%Associated Press: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question11.2%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.2%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.4%Associated Press: 1.7%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal17.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.4%Associated Press: 1.2%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.2%Associated Press: 1.3%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote11.2%This article: 3.4%Associated Press: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection3.4%This article: 18.5%Associated Press: 3.0%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice18.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 6.8%Associated Press: 0.8%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.8%This article: 6.5%Associated Press: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

384 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers32%attributed speech261writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 58 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 54 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 67 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Todd Blanche

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words20% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-27.2 ptsWriter: 27.2%Todd Blanche: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-16.5 ptsWriter: 16.5%Todd Blanche: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-10.0 ptsWriter: 10.0%Todd Blanche: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%Todd Blanche: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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