Reason Article Rating

Trump would have been convicted for election interference, says Jack Smith

  • Bias Rating

    88% Very Conservative

  • Reliability

    95% ReliableExcellent

  • Policy Leaning

    100% Very Conservative

  • Politician Portrayal

    -50% Negative

Bias Score Analysis

The A.I. bias rating includes policy and politician portrayal leanings based on the author’s tone found in the article using machine learning. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral.

Sentiments

Overall Sentiment

-22% Negative

  •   Conservative
SentenceSentimentBias
Unlock this feature by upgrading to the Pro plan.

Bias Meter

Extremely
Liberal

Very
Liberal

Moderately
Liberal

Somewhat Liberal

Center

Somewhat Conservative

Moderately
Conservative

Very
Conservative

Extremely
Conservative

-100%
Liberal

100%
Conservative

Bias Meter

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

45% : In that scenario, Trump was not attempting to steal an election, he was merely "restoring faith and confidence in American elections," as he said in a lengthy Facebook video after the election.
41% : Smith's report is unsparing in its determination that Trump knew what he was doing all along.
40% : Given that Trump will soon be in charge of the Department of Justice, Smith ended both cases in November.
40% : Besides, the report notes, Trump appealed "only to state legislators and executives who shared his political affiliation and were his political supporters, and only in states that he had lost.
40% : After the report's release, Trump lashed out on social media.
39% : Indeed, Trump has repeatedly pledged to pardon the rioters when back in office.
33% : In his final report, Smith does not mince words on Trump's criminal culpability, finding that Trump "willfully caused others to attempt to obstruct the certification proceeding on January 6.""But for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the Presidency," Smith concluded, "the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.
33% : "Even if Trump did somehow believe the nonsense he was saying, the report finds, his own words undermined his case: "Mr. Trump and co-conspirators could not have believed the specific fraud claims that they were making because the numbers they touted -- for instance, of dead voters in a particular state -- frequently vacillated wildly from day to day or were objectively impossible.
32% : In the time between his two presidential administrations, Donald Trump was famously the subject of four separate criminal indictments, two of which were spearheaded by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
30% : These efforts came to a head on January 6, 2021, when hundreds of supporters -- fired up by Trump at a rally near the White House -- stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election for Joe Biden.
29% : In 2023, Smith empaneled a grand jury and secured an indictment against Trump on four federal charges related to obstructing an official proceeding.
20% : "Truly, while the report includes little new information, the case it paints is damning, both in how Trump ignored evidence contradicting his viewpoint and how little effort he expended toward quelling violence committed on his behalf.
20% : "Smith also notes that Trump "continu[es] to support and ally himself with the people who attacked the Capitol."
19% : Within hours of the polls closing in 2020, Trump cried foul, insisting he had won the election outright and that any further vote counting was evidence of fraud.
15% : "When Trump reached out to state officials about interfering on his behalf, several of them also "rebuffed him and informed him that his fraud claims were wrong, both privately and through public statements."

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.

Copy link