The Next Time Someone Says You Voted For A “34-Time Convicted Felon” Send Them This:
Credibility score: 39/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "The Next Time Someone Says You Voted For A “34-Time Convicted Felon” Send Them This:" and rated it 39/100 for credibility (a BS score of 61/100 — low credibility), on 2026-07-28. Its weakest claim — "Two misdemeanors magically equal a felony via statute-of-limitations trick" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 17 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Claims analyzed
Promises one clip kills the '34 felonies' line — overstates the fix. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Says one video will erase the felony count — hasn't shown the video yet.
Misdemeanor upgraded to felony only by hiding another crime — Missing Context (45/100)
Leaves out that concealment itself is the separate crime — the upgrade isn't a loophole, it's the point.
Indictment and instructions never named the exact underlying crime — Missing Context (45/100)
NY law lets them charge 'other crimes' without naming each one — that's standard, not a secret trial.
Two misdemeanors magically equal a felony via statute-of-limitations trick — False Equivalence (20/100)
The math is cute, but the felony isn't two misdemeanors added together — it's one crime (falsifying records) committed to conceal another crime.
Statute of limitations might be questionable due to time out of state — Missing Context (45/100)
NY tolled the clock for time spent out of state — same rule the Weinstein appeals court just upheld. Not a Trump-specific workaround.
Claims Trump never knew the elements of the crimes until jury instructions — Missing Context (45/100)
Presents discovery rules like they were invented for Trump — standard federal procedure, not a Trump exception.
Claims jury may not have been unanimous on the underlying crimes because three options were given — Missing Context (45/100)
Ignores that New York law treats the three underlying crimes as alternative legal theories, not separate counts requiring separate verdicts.
'None of them describe criminal activity' — reframes legal findings as mere allegations — Missing Context (45/100)
Conviction on 34 felony counts exists — this swaps outcome for process.
Calls the charges 'not crimes' — legal conclusion presented as fact — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Declares the charges contain 'no elements of any crime' like the legal question is settled — it's the exact issue on appeal.
'Very little doubt' it gets reversed — confidence without case law — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Strong prediction offered with no precedent or pending appeal cited.
Labels the case 'a scam' and calls for the judge and prosecutor to be prosecuted — Emotional Button (45/100)
Calls the prosecution a 'scam' and demands the judge and DA be prosecuted — weaponizing the verdict without waiting for the appeal.
'Scam' and 'witch hunt' — emotional labels replacing legal argument — Loaded Language (45/100)
Calls the case a scam and demands prosecution of officials without citing misconduct findings.
One case equals 'America is a failing nation' — False Equivalence (20/100)
Turns one prosecution into proof the entire country is collapsing — classic overreach.
'Most influential person on the planet' — hyperbolic status to imply unfair targeting — Emotional Button (45/100)
Inflates Trump's global status to frame prosecution as uniquely outrageous.
Claims half the country 'wanted him thrown in jail' for something 'bogus' — Straw Man (20/100)
Flattens millions of voters into cartoon villains who demanded jail time over 'bogus' charges — easy target, not real argument.
'They hid the charges' — accuses secret indictment without evidence — Straw Man (20/100)
Indictment and charges were public; the claim invents concealment that didn't occur.
'Most Americans won't know the truth' — media conspiracy framing — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
Blames unnamed media for public ignorance with zero viewership data.
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →