True but does not matter. Those statements, that fit into the descriptive/normative categories are the key ones of any text, the rest is either allusion or up for the courts to decide. IMO phrasing like "looks like there might be voter fraud" would not have let to the storm of the capitol.
>"I think all <insert group> are criminals"? Note that the "I think" was implicit in your phrasing
The difference of normative/descriptive statements is the same as subjective/objective ones. "I think ..." already started subjectively and can only have a descriptive component, if its backed up with a statement like "because X is ...".
>"Donald Trump is a criminal."
>The US approach to this is to generally try to avoid having the government be the arbiter of truth
But courts decide who is a criminal or not. And when such a decision is made, you could legally call Trump a criminal. Experts are frequently heard in court to distinguish it, so why not extend it? It does not have to the ministry of truth (political) but we all require the authority, that tells us the way things are, hopefully in an unbiased way.