MS NOW⁠98%

‘I haven’t made a determination’: Trump hedges on Jeanine Pirro’s fate ⁠52%

By Steve Benen⁠99%

8/5/2026, 5:54:39 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Pessimism Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 26.8% saturation with 128 hits. Analysis detected 774 faulty-reasoning hits from 477 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠52% (14,711 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.90% of the article peer group.

With the criminal cases against the alleged Reflecting Pool vandals having collapsed , Donald Trump has an obvious political problem. 
The president has spent the summer telling Americans about nefarious scoundrels with box cutters who do not appear to exist in reality. 
As a consequence, Trump has directed his ire at U.S. 
Attorney Jeanine Pirro, the former Fox News host who’s currently the top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C., whose office didn’t want to bring baseless criminal cases against innocent defendants without evidence. 
The presidential offensive began on Saturday , but two days later, at a White House event, Trump told reporters , “I was disappointed with Jeanine Pirro, really disappointed with Jeanine Pirro. 
… She folded like an umbrella, and people get away with things and it’s a disgrace.” 
He went on to say, “Frankly, I think she choked.” 
When MS NOW’s Jake Traylor asked about Pirro’s future, the president snapped , “Don’t ever talk to me again,” but the underlying question still needed an answer. 
During a brief Q&A on an airport tarmac on Tuesday night, a reporter again asked whether he was considering removing the prosecutor from her post. 
Q: Is Pirro safe? 
Are you going to keep her in her position? 
TRUMP: Uh, I haven't made a determination 
“I haven’t made a determination,” Trump replied, offering the first public confirmation that Pirro’s job is in jeopardy. 
During the same gaggle, the president again emphasized his belief that Pirro was “totally wrong,” adding , “Everybody saw the vandalism. 
All you have to do is look at the tape.” 
(The existence of such a “tape” is unclear.) 
He added, “I told her I was not happy.” 
This comment was a reference to a Monday afternoon meeting at the White House between the president and the prosecutor, and while the discussion unfolded behind closed doors, The New York Times reported on behind-the-scenes details of Pirro’s efforts to save her job. 
The article, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, pointed to what was effectively a two-pronged strategy. 
First, Pirro redirected blame for the fiasco to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, telling Trump that it was the South Dakotan and his department who screwed up the Reflecting Pool project and misled the president. 
Second, the U.S. attorney brought boxes full of documents in the apparent hope of convincing Trump that the facts are on her side. 
The latter tactic appeared pointless — if Trump could be swayed by evidence, he wouldn’t keep droning on about election conspiracy theories — but the former at least offered the president an alternative scapegoat. 
The meeting apparently bought Pirro some time, though her fate clearly remains uncertain. 
Watch this space. 
The post ‘I haven’t made a determination’: Trump hedges on Jeanine Pirro’s fate appeared first on MS NOW . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.9%Steve Benen: 9.8%MS NOW: 7.1%Confirmation Bias5.9%This article: 1.5%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 1.1%Anchoring Bias1.5%This article: 9.0%Steve Benen: 3.5%MS NOW: 3.6%Availability Heuristic9.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.7%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Steve Benen: 20.3%MS NOW: 14.4%Framing Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.2%MS NOW: 2.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.6%Steve Benen: 2.9%MS NOW: 3.1%Pessimism Bias13.6%This article: 16.6%Steve Benen: 26.5%MS NOW: 18.1%Negativity Bias16.6%This article: 7.1%Steve Benen: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.3%Self-Serving Bias7.1%This article: 13.6%Steve Benen: 4.4%MS NOW: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error13.6%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.9%MS NOW: 3.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.8%MS NOW: 2.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.8%MS NOW: 1.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.2%Steve Benen: 2.8%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 7.0%MS NOW: 4.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.0%Steve Benen: 5.7%MS NOW: 5.0%Appeal to Authority9.0%This article: 7.1%Steve Benen: 1.5%MS NOW: 2.1%False Dilemma7.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.1%Steve Benen: 8.1%MS NOW: 7.6%Hasty Generalization7.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.4%Steve Benen: 10.2%MS NOW: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion3.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.2%MS NOW: 2.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.1%Steve Benen: 3.0%MS NOW: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.1%Steve Benen: 1.3%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof2.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.1%Steve Benen: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.5%Anecdotal2.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 26.8%Steve Benen: 1.8%MS NOW: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)26.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.7%Steve Benen: 4.0%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote5.7%This article: 6.5%Steve Benen: 2.5%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection6.5%This article: 15.5%Steve Benen: 21.7%MS NOW: 13.5%Biased Writer Voice15.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 8.4%MS NOW: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

477 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker22%attributed speech373writer words
Selected voice

Trump

91%flagged-word coverage
104 attributed words100% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Quote-first Misdirection+29.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 29.8%29.8%Biased Writer Voice-19.8 ptsWriter: 19.8%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Trump: 0.0%0.0%

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.