92 Q88%

Trump Ordered To Pay Up $5M Settlement To E. Jean Carroll 54%

By 92q Staff0% Zack Linly78%

7/8/2026, 1:25:03 PM

Keywords: Politics

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Ad Hominem, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 50.7% saturation with 355 hits. Analysis detected 1,926 faulty-reasoning hits from 700 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.2% and a BS Rank of 54% (10,164 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.60% of the article peer group.

Now that President Donald Trump has pretty much exhausted every legal avenue his team of attorneys could think of to get him out of the civil judgment against him for the sexual assault of magazine columnist E. 
Jean Carroll, a judge has ruled that it’s time for the president to pay up , regarding the $5 million he owes her for assaulting her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. 
According to the New York Times , Judge Lewis A. 
Kaplan of Manhattan federal court cited the Supreme Court’s June 29 order , which denied Trump’s request for the court to review the case. 
Kaplan ruled that the decision officially cleared the way for funds Trump had already deposited with the court to be released to Carroll. 
NBC News reported that the money will be released from a court escrow account and will include the interest that has accrued since the judgment was awarded to Carroll in 2023. 
The move came after Trump’s attorneys sought to delay the payment for what would have been at least several more months, asking the judge to give them more time before releasing the money while they ask the high court to reconsider its decision. 
Asked about Kaplan’s order, a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said in a statement, “The American people stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes.” 
If Trump and his people are good at nothing else, it’s packing as many MAGA platitudes, talking points, and buzzphrases into a single statement as possible. 
So, even after trying and failing numerous times to get the sexual assault verdict against him tossed  which included a shameless DOJ investigation that was launched against Carroll in a transparent attempt by the president to intimidate his victim  Trump’s attorneys tried to delay the release of the funds while they lobbed a last-ditch effort, urging the court to review the case once again. 
Apparently, it’s not just the president who doesn’t understand that no means no ; his legal team doesn’t seem to get it either. 
Anyway, it’s worth the reminder that Trump also owes Carroll a whopping $83 million judgment as a result of her defamation case against him. 
Trump has also tried to get that judgment overturned, but a federal appeals court panel affirmed those damages last September, finding the judgment “reasonable in light of the extraordinary and egregious facts.” 
In fact, Trump’s attorneys argued that another pending challenge to that decision is why the Supreme Court should reconsider its decision regarding the sexual assault case. 
They argue that the jury was improperly shown Trump’s statements blasting Carroll from when he was president in 2019, statements they contend in the other case were protected by presidential immunity and therefore should not have been shown to the jury. 
They said they didn’t raise the issue earlier because the precedent they’re relying on  the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling which gave Trump some presidential immunity in his federal election interference case  came down too late for their appeal. 
Carroll’s attorneys said in a court filing last week that Trump appeared to be trying “to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying Plaintiff.” 
Look, considering that it was recently reported that Trump has gotten $2 billion richer off of his cryptocurrency venture since he’s been in office, maybe he should just take some of that fortune and quietly pay Carroll what he owes her, instead of drawing so much attention to the fact that voters elected an adjudicated rapist to the highest office in the nation. 
SCOTUS Upholds E. 
Jean Carroll’s $5M Verdict Against Trump Again 
E. 
Jean Carroll’s $83M Judgment Against President Trump Upheld 
DOJ Launches Criminal Investigation Into E. 
Jean Carroll, Who Trump Was Found Liable For Sexually Assaulting 
DOJ Appeals To SCOTUS In Attempt Free Trump Of E. 
Jean Carroll Verdict 
Trump Ordered To Pay Up $5M Settlement To E. 
Jean Carroll 
was originally published on 
We care about your data. 
See our privacy policy . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.4%92q Staff: 4.7%92 Q: 7.6%Confirmation Bias9.4%This article: 3.4%92q Staff: 1.7%92 Q: 1.6%Anchoring Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 2.3%92 Q: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%92q Staff: 6.5%92 Q: 5.6%Framing Effect10.0%This article: 9.0%92q Staff: 2.3%92 Q: 3.5%Loss Aversion9.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%92q Staff: 1.5%92 Q: 0.5%Sunk Cost Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 50.7%92q Staff: 30.4%92 Q: 23.7%Negativity Bias50.7%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 1.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%92q Staff: 2.9%92 Q: 1.5%In-Group Bias5.9%This article: 3.7%92q Staff: 0.9%92 Q: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 1.8%92 Q: 4.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.0%92q Staff: 0.3%92 Q: 1.2%Recency Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 16.4%92q Staff: 19.0%92 Q: 9.7%Ad Hominem16.4%This article: 3.7%92q Staff: 2.4%92 Q: 1.4%Straw Man3.7%This article: 8.0%92q Staff: 2.0%92 Q: 3.5%Appeal to Authority8.0%This article: 3.3%92q Staff: 0.8%92 Q: 2.7%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.3%92q Staff: 7.1%92 Q: 8.5%Hasty Generalization14.3%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 2.3%92 Q: 2.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 1.5%92 Q: 1.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 24.3%92q Staff: 14.4%92 Q: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion24.3%This article: 4.6%92q Staff: 5.0%92 Q: 4.3%Begging the Question4.6%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 7.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.9%92q Staff: 1.5%92 Q: 3.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.9%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.5%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 5.7%92q Staff: 1.4%92 Q: 0.8%Special Pleading5.7%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 0.0%92 Q: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.4%92q Staff: 4.1%92 Q: 3.3%Unattributed Quote10.4%This article: 10.4%92q Staff: 2.6%92 Q: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection10.4%This article: 40.0%92q Staff: 35.8%92 Q: 31.9%Biased Writer Voice40.0%This article: 12.7%92q Staff: 9.9%92 Q: 8.7%Indoctrination12.7%This article: 14.7%92q Staff: 17.8%92 Q: 15.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias14.7%This article: 0.0%92q Staff: 1.5%92 Q: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%92q Staff: 0.4%92 Q: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.4%

700 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers10%attributed speech627writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageNew York Times • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageNBC News • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 66 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageCarroll’s attorneys • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 63 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Carroll’s attorneys

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words44% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+93.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%Carroll’s attorneys: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+93.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%Carroll’s attorneys: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-44.7 ptsWriter: 44.7%Carroll’s attorneys: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-16.4 ptsWriter: 16.4%Carroll’s attorneys: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-14.2 ptsWriter: 14.2%Carroll’s attorneys: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.6 ptsWriter: 1.6%Carroll’s attorneys: 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.