Trump Has to Beg Two GOPers He’s Spurned to Get Blanche Over Finish Line 43%

By Nicole LaFond56%

7/21/2026, 10:09:06 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Biased Writer Voice, and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 27.7% saturation with 266 hits. Analysis detected 1,692 faulty-reasoning hits from 960 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.6% and a BS Rank of 43% (12,551 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.30% of the article peer group.

Republicans Can’t Afford to Lose Votes 
The White House is being forced to court a Republican senator who President Trump has labeled a “loser” and another whose political career Trump ended to advance acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's AG nomination to the Senate floor. 
During Blanche's confirmation hearing last week, both Sens. 
Thom Tillis (R-NC) and John Cornyn (R-TX) made a point of pressing Blanche on the so-called anti-weaponization fund and whether or not it is actually “dead,” as he has been claiming. 
During his round of questioning, Cornyn pushed Blanche to admit that the fund was not actually defunct because President Trump had not “not agreed in writing to delete” it, and there remains a chance that Trump or other plaintiffs in the IRS lawsuit case could bring a “breach of contract lawsuit in the future” to raise that issue. 
Tillis, on the other hand, seemed satisfied with Blanche’s explanations for why the fund is dead, and asked the acting AG to help him draft the legal language for legislation that lawmakers could pass that would officially “stick a fork in this turkey of a 1776 fund.” 
The senator also got Blanche to commit to meeting with victims of Jeffrey Epstein  something Blanche has reportedly already done. 
(Trump also recently called Tillis a “loser” for saying he wanted Blanche to more forcefully denounce the Jan. 6 attacks). 
Republicans cannot afford to lose votes on the Senate Judiciary Committee to advance Blanche's nomination out of committee. 
The White House is reportedly not taking any chances. 
It's actively courting the two senators, Politico reported, and Cornyn and Tillis confirmed from Capitol Hill Monday night. 
Per Politico: 
“Well, does he want to get confirmed or not?” 
was Cornyn’s response when asked whether he would be able to extract concessions from Blanche given his previous reticence to amend a controversial settlement agreement he entered into on President Donald Trump’s behalf. 
 
Cornyn said Monday he is currently discussing with the Trump administration two main components of that settlement Blanche, in his capacity as deputy attorney general, brokered with the IRS: one shielding Trump and his family from IRS audits, the other launching a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” critics believe could operate as a slush fund for the president’s allies. 
“Those are the issues we’re continuing to discuss with the administration to see whether we can get a modification of the settlement agreement,” said Cornyn. 
And while Tillis has made it clear that he will likely be satisfied with some sort of legislative declaration that the fund is dead, Cornyn has said that such a move would be "much more problematic." 
You'll recall that shortly after Trump ensured the end of Cornyn's career in the Senate via political backstabbing, Cornyn predicted a "miserable" final two years for Trump in an interview with the New York Times. 
We'll soon see how much of that was just talk. 
Guy Who Wouldn’t Say Who Won in 2020 Moved Out of Committee 
During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, Director of National Intelligence nominee Jay Clayton repeatedly refused to directly say that President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, as TPM reported. 
Why was the guy Trump wants to lead the foreign intelligence office being asked about a presidential election six years ago? 
Because during Trump II that position has been transformed into little more than an investigative arm of Trump's 2020 election delusions. 
Nevertheless, Republicans advanced his nomination out of committee today: 
Navarro Still Could Not Prove Exec Privilege Claims 
Blast from the past: White House trade adviser during Trump I, Peter Navarro's conviction for defying a congressional subpoena was upheld by a federal appeals court on Tuesday. 
Navarro filed an appeal after serving a four-month sentence upon being convicted for contempt of Congress. 
The House January 6 select committee that investigated the insurrection issued a subpoena in March 2022 to turn over documents and appear for a deposition. 
He did not comply, claiming executive privilege. 
A three-judge panel from the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision on Tuesday, saying Navarro still could not prove that Trump had somehow shielded him from having to comply with the subpoena. 
“In short, Dr. 
Navarro has acknowledged that even if executive privilege had been invoked, that would not have excused his categorical failure to comply with the Select Committee’s subpoena,” D.C. 
Circuit Judge Patricia Millett wrote. 
More to Read From TPM Today 
Mike Lindell tells Khaya Himmelman that he actually is registered to vote in Minnesota, touting the state's automatic voter registration laws that election deniers like him love to criticize. 
The temporary ID he sent us expired at the beginning of the year: Mike Lindell Is Not Registered to Vote in Minnesota. 
He Claims His Temp ID Registers Him. 
Sen. 
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) attempted to question Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about a theory TPM covered extensively at the start of the Iran war about the administration's potential argument for backdoor congressional authorization. 
Hegseth dodged the question. 
Emine Yücel has more here: Hegseth Sidesteps Murkowski Question About Backdoor War Authorization 
"The Trump administration’s Air Force One leak investigation targeting the New York Times is encountering severe turbulence already," David Kurtz writes in today's edition of Morning Memo: Conceding Major Screwups, DOJ Pauses NYT Subpoenas 
Yesterday's Top Story 
Trump Comes to Terms With the Fact That the Entire SAVE Act Can’t Be Stuffed in Budget Bill 
What I'm Reading 
How the G.O.P. 
Turned Olive Garden Into a Voter ID Talking Point 
State officials preparing if the federal government tries interfering with how they run elections 
US pauses $1 billion in Medicaid payments to California, Minnesota 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.7%Nicole LaFond: 5.1%Talking Points Memo: 5.0%Confirmation Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Nicole LaFond: 2.3%Talking Points Memo: 2.7%Availability Heuristic6.8%This article: 2.2%Nicole LaFond: 0.7%Talking Points Memo: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic2.2%This article: 3.6%Nicole LaFond: 1.2%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Nicole LaFond: 5.0%Talking Points Memo: 12.6%Framing Effect3.0%This article: 2.5%Nicole LaFond: 0.8%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Loss Aversion2.5%This article: 5.2%Nicole LaFond: 1.7%Talking Points Memo: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Nicole LaFond: 3.3%Talking Points Memo: 2.6%Pessimism Bias8.8%This article: 27.7%Nicole LaFond: 18.9%Talking Points Memo: 12.7%Negativity Bias27.7%This article: 0.7%Nicole LaFond: 0.2%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.7%This article: 4.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.3%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error4.0%This article: 0.7%Nicole LaFond: 0.2%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.7%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.8%Nicole LaFond: 3.9%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Recency Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Nicole LaFond: 5.2%Talking Points Memo: 3.3%Ad Hominem1.7%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.4%Nicole LaFond: 1.1%Talking Points Memo: 4.0%Appeal to Authority3.4%This article: 5.6%Nicole LaFond: 2.2%Talking Points Memo: 1.2%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.1%Nicole LaFond: 2.8%Talking Points Memo: 5.6%Hasty Generalization6.1%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.8%Nicole LaFond: 0.3%Talking Points Memo: 0.4%Bandwagon0.8%This article: 14.5%Nicole LaFond: 4.8%Talking Points Memo: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion14.5%This article: 1.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.3%Talking Points Memo: 1.7%Begging the Question1.0%This article: 3.6%Nicole LaFond: 1.2%Talking Points Memo: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.6%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 1.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.4%Nicole LaFond: 1.1%Talking Points Memo: 0.8%Burden of Proof3.4%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.1%Nicole LaFond: 3.0%Talking Points Memo: 2.0%Anecdotal9.1%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.4%Nicole LaFond: 3.1%Talking Points Memo: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.4%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.2%Nicole LaFond: 0.7%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Personal Incredulity2.2%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 1.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.9%Nicole LaFond: 0.3%Talking Points Memo: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.9%This article: 4.5%Nicole LaFond: 1.8%Talking Points Memo: 2.3%Quote-first Misdirection4.5%This article: 12.4%Nicole LaFond: 12.7%Talking Points Memo: 14.1%Biased Writer Voice12.4%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 3.0%Nicole LaFond: 6.0%Talking Points Memo: 6.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.0%This article: 5.8%Nicole LaFond: 1.9%Talking Points Memo: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Nicole LaFond: 0.0%Talking Points Memo: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

960 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers7.9%attributed speech884writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 58 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 58 words • 0.0% coverageCornyn • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 4 words • 0.0% coverageEmine Yücel • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Kurtz • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

David Kurtz

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words45% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+99.0 ptsWriter: 1.0%David Kurtz: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.5 ptsWriter: 13.5%David Kurtz: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%David Kurtz: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%David Kurtz: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.0 ptsWriter: 1.0%David Kurtz: 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.