Only Trump matter to Trump as Blanche AG nod wilts 83%

By New York Daily News Editorial Board97%

8/2/2026, 1:00:32 AM

Topics: US Politics
Keywords: Opinion

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 79.6% saturation with 473 hits. Analysis detected 2,152 faulty-reasoning hits from 594 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.4% and a BS Rank of 83% (4,457 of 26,282 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.00% of the article peer group.

What matters to Donald Trump is Donald Trump and so the famously selfish president shows that once again in his willingness to sacrifice his slavishly loyal personal criminal defense lawyer Todd Blanche from becoming the permanent U.S. attorney general rather than Trump give up his forever free pass from the IRS for him and his family and pals that Blanche arranged for. 
GOP Sens. 
John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, who are now lame ducks because Trump pushed them out, are seeking written agreements that Blanche will not pursue Trump’s stalled attempt to engineer a fraudulent deal with his own administration. 
Otherwise, the duo will refuse to support the confirmation of Blanche, which is enough to block him. 
Instead of saying yes, Trump has threatened to withdraw the nomination and wait until Cornyn and Tillis are out of office. 
The president’s demands were framed as an “ultimatum” to the two senators, but the last time we checked, the president does not have the power to give orders to the Senate. 
It is the latter that is empowered under the Constitution to provide “advice and consent” for high-level presidential appointees including cabinet secretaries, which was never intended to be a rubber stamp (Congress also creates the laws that the president must ensure are “faithfully executed” though this particular president seems to relish violating them). 
And what is all this hostility for? 
Presidents past have clashed with Congress over issues as weighty as whether the nation over war-making and fundamental rights and our economic character. 
Trump? 
He is fighting to have legislators stop asking questions over, one, his stunningly corrupt attempted raiding of the public coffers to grant his friends, allies and authoritarian foot soldiers some $1.8 billion in gifts for their loyalty; and two, his pending immunity agreement with the IRS, which would grant not only him but family, friends and affiliated entities blanket, permanent protection from investigations into past tax malfeasance. 
This slush fund and immunity deal are being framed as a “settlement,” but to echo the ruling of Miami Federal Judge Kathleen Williams, there is no such settlement, legally speaking. 
Settlements require there to be oppositional parties in a dispute, and the president and an executive agency he controls are not that. 
The Department of Justice itself realized this, which is why it pursued this “settlement” quickly after the judge had first raised jurisdictional questions in the lawsuit. 
In that way, it is not only improper but arguably a fraud on the court, leading Williams to refer Trump’s attorneys for discipline. 
Blanche had already assured senators that “the settlement fund is just not moving forward” in mid-July, some two weeks before Trump not only threatened to pull his nomination until senators dropped the topic but then appealed Williams’ ruling, indicating pretty concretely that he does not intend to let it go. 
Either Blanche was lying, out of the loop or Trump simply did a U-turn on this issue  all relatively strong possibilities in the chaotic, back-stabbing world of MAGA. 
The president can kick and scream about this all he wants, but if Cornyn and Tillis hold firm, Blanche is not going to be confirmed. 
Turns out Congress can in fact constrain an out of control executive if it really wants, it’s just a shame that it really does these days. 
Similarly, we hope that the federal appeals courts and, if need be, the U.S. 
Supreme Court will do its job and slap down his appeal and this laughable attempt to extort the public. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 31.1%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 18.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias31.1%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 2.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.4%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 2.6%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias8.4%This article: 4.9%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 2.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias4.9%This article: 5.2%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 8.8%newyorkdailynews: 5.8%Framing Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.4%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 4.6%newyorkdailynews: 2.7%Optimism Bias2.4%This article: 10.3%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Pessimism Bias10.3%This article: 52.5%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 30.3%newyorkdailynews: 9.5%Negativity Bias52.5%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 2.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 23.4%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 5.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error23.4%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 3.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 3.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 12.1%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 8.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem12.1%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.8%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 4.4%newyorkdailynews: 3.1%Appeal to Authority17.8%This article: 10.9%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma10.9%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.4%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 10.9%newyorkdailynews: 4.0%Hasty Generalization4.4%This article: 3.9%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring3.9%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.4%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 13.1%newyorkdailynews: 7.3%Appeal to Emotion20.4%This article: 1.2%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 3.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question1.2%This article: 12.8%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 4.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.8%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 22.9%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 3.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof22.9%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.7%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division3.7%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 2.4%newyorkdailynews: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.8%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.6%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.8%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.5%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 1.8%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote13.5%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 79.6%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 46.3%newyorkdailynews: 6.6%Biased Writer Voice79.6%This article: 1.7%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 7.6%newyorkdailynews: 3.7%Indoctrination1.7%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 9.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%New York Daily News Editorial Board: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

594 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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