Senate Judiciary Republicans Advance Blanche Nomination, Co-Signing His Scandalous Record at DOJ ⁠85%

By Newswire editor⁠98%

8/4/2026, 9:11:48 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 56.8% saturation with 92 hits. Analysis detected 850 faulty-reasoning hits from 162 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠85% (4,627 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.90% of the article peer group.

Today, Republicans on the U.S. 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary voted to advance Todd Blanche’s nomination to be U.S. 
Attorney General to the full Senate. 
Stand Up America’s Managing Director of Policy & Political Affairs, Brett Edkins, issued the following statement on Blanche’s confirmation: 
“Every Senate Judiciary Republican just endorsed Todd Blanche’s extreme agenda for the Department of Justice: politically motivated prosecutions of the president’s perceived enemies, defending and giving taxpayer-funded settlements to January 6th insurrectionists, burying the Epstein files, and shielding Trump and his family from the IRS. 
Now it’s up to the full Senate. 
Are there still Republicans willing to stand up to the president—willing to say they’re against weaponizing the Justice Department, against shielding Trump and his family from accountability, and against protecting predators in the Epstein files? 
The Senate doesn’t need unanimous courage to block Blanche—it needs a few Republicans willing to put country over party.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 27.8%Newswire editor: 8.3%Common Dreams: 7.8%Confirmation Bias27.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.5%Common Dreams: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 5.1%Common Dreams: 4.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.8%Common Dreams: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.9%Common Dreams: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.5%Newswire editor: 19.0%Common Dreams: 16.8%Framing Effect23.5%This article: 11.7%Newswire editor: 1.9%Common Dreams: 1.4%Loss Aversion11.7%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.8%Common Dreams: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.9%Common Dreams: 1.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Newswire editor: 3.4%Common Dreams: 3.1%Pessimism Bias4.3%This article: 56.8%Newswire editor: 18.7%Common Dreams: 18.6%Negativity Bias56.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.8%Common Dreams: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.5%Common Dreams: 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 49.4%Newswire editor: 3.3%Common Dreams: 3.7%In-Group Bias49.4%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.1%Common Dreams: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.9%Common Dreams: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.8%Common Dreams: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.4%Common Dreams: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.5%Primacy Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 5.3%Common Dreams: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.9%Common Dreams: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 5.2%Common Dreams: 4.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 21.6%Newswire editor: 4.1%Common Dreams: 3.5%False Dilemma21.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 3.7%Common Dreams: 3.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 27.8%Newswire editor: 8.9%Common Dreams: 8.0%Hasty Generalization27.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.3%Common Dreams: 2.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 49.4%Newswire editor: 18.9%Common Dreams: 17.7%Appeal to Emotion49.4%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 3.9%Common Dreams: 3.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 4.3%Common Dreams: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 27.8%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.3%Burden of Proof27.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.6%Common Dreams: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.8%Common Dreams: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 21.6%Newswire editor: 1.8%Common Dreams: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.7%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.1%Middle Ground11.7%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.4%Common Dreams: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 27.8%Newswire editor: 1.5%Common Dreams: 1.8%Unattributed Quote27.8%This article: 27.8%Newswire editor: 2.3%Common Dreams: 2.3%Quote-first Misdirection27.8%This article: 39.5%Newswire editor: 15.7%Common Dreams: 16.9%Biased Writer Voice39.5%This article: 33.3%Newswire editor: 10.5%Common Dreams: 8.2%Indoctrination33.3%This article: 27.8%Newswire editor: 18.5%Common Dreams: 17.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias27.8%This article: 27.8%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias27.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

162 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers77%attributed speech37writer words
Selected voice

Brett Edkins

100%flagged-word coverage
106 attributed words85% of attributed speech32% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Indoctrination+50.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brett Edkins: 50.9%50.9%Biased Writer Voice+16.6 ptsWriter: 32.4%Brett Edkins: 49.1%49.1%Unattributed Quote+42.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brett Edkins: 42.5%42.5%Quote-first Misdirection+42.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brett Edkins: 42.5%42.5%Politically Left Leaning B+42.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brett Edkins: 42.5%42.5%Politically Right Leaning +42.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brett Edkins: 42.5%42.5%

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.