Raw Story93%

Kash Patel's girlfriend mercilessly mocked for 'murdering' National Anthem at Trump's fair 68%

By Daniel Hampton74%

6/25/2026, 11:50:21 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Quote-first Misdirection, and Framing Effect, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 26.6% saturation with 122 hits. Analysis detected 912 faulty-reasoning hits from 458 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.4% and a BS Rank of 68% (6,845 of 20,957 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.30% of the article peer group.

Kash Patel's girlfriend drew a torrent of mockery online after singing the national anthem at President Donald Trump's Great American State Fair on Wednesday night, with one viewer asking police to investigate a "murder" of the Star-Spangled Banner. 
Alexis Wilkins, 27, a Nashville-based aspiring country singer who began dating the 46-year-old FBI director in early 2023, performed the anthem before a sparse crowd on the National Mall, according to The Daily Beast. 
She announced the gig just one day before the event, and her top track on Spotify has about 520,000 streams, per Newsweek. 
The crowd on the ground wasn't exactly buzzing. 
"Oh, no… country music?" 
one attendee told CNN when asked if she was looking forward to the set. 
"Well, I think the Army band, and the choirs, they're gonna be really good," the woman added. 
Online, the verdict was harsher. 
"She sounds like A DEAD CAT!!!!!" 
one commenter wrote, according to the. 
"Hello, D.C. police. 
I'd like to report a murder," another posted. 
"Yes, someone has viciously murdered the national anthem." 
A fifth commenter invoked the lip-sync duo that bailed on the fair days earlier: "Wasn't Milli Vanilli available?" 
Milli Vanilli's Fab Morvan told CNN on June 1 that he was withdrawing because the event had "turned into a circus." 
Nepotism accusations ensued. 
"Does having the FBI director's girlfriend getting paid by the taxpayers to perform violate federal ethics laws?" 
right-wing reporter Sara Higdon posted. 
Wilkins fired back in a lengthy social media post, insisting she had been "invited to sing this anthem on my own accord" and was not "accepting payment for this great honor." 
She also rejected the taxpayer-funded framing. 
Veteran national security journalist Marcy Wheeler, who runs the independent site emptywheel.net, was less diplomatic. 
"BREAKING: Because Trump can't get real stars, the FBI Director's side piece gets a slot!!! 
Goddess Bless America!" 
she posted on X. 
Matthew Sitman, co-host of the Know Your Enemy podcast and an associate editor at Commonweal, offered a more deadpan take, writing on X: "When I heard Vanilla Ice wouldn't be participating, I had my fingers crossed she'd step in! 
It's a July 4 miracle"  a jab at the threadbare lineup Trump has been left with after the wave of dropouts. 
NOTUS has reported that the National Park Foundation, the legal home of Trump's Freedom 250 organization, has received nearly $80 million in federal grants tied to the 250th celebration. 
The bipartisan America250 commission established by Congress, by contrast, has told lawmakers it faces a $100 million funding shortfall. 
CNN's Donie O'Sullivan, reporting live from the Mall, offered a more charitable take, telling Anderson Cooper that Wilkins' performance "seemed to go down pretty well here." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.3%Daniel Hampton: 3.8%Rawstory: 7.7%Confirmation Bias1.3%This article: 4.8%Daniel Hampton: 1.6%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias4.8%This article: 10.9%Daniel Hampton: 3.6%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 7.4%Daniel Hampton: 2.1%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic7.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Daniel Hampton: 11.7%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect18.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.1%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 25.8%Daniel Hampton: 18.1%Rawstory: 21.8%Negativity Bias25.8%This article: 6.8%Daniel Hampton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Daniel Hampton: 0.9%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Daniel Hampton: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect9.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.6%Daniel Hampton: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem7.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.3%Daniel Hampton: 5.1%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority6.3%This article: 3.7%Daniel Hampton: 1.1%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.8%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 11.9%Hasty Generalization2.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.0%Daniel Hampton: 8.7%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion9.0%This article: 3.7%Daniel Hampton: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question3.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 5.0%Rawstory: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.7%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.1%Daniel Hampton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division4.1%This article: 26.6%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal26.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.6%Daniel Hampton: 2.4%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 2.3%Rawstory: 5.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 19.9%Daniel Hampton: 5.1%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection19.9%This article: 5.0%Daniel Hampton: 7.6%Rawstory: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice5.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.6%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 4.6%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias4.8%This article: 6.8%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.8%

458 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers32%attributed speech312writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageFab Morvan • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageSara Higdon • 17 words • 100.0% coverageSara Higdon • 5 words • 100.0% coverageAlexis Wilkins • 31 words • 100.0% coverageAlexis Wilkins • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMarcy Wheeler • 15 words • 100.0% coverageMarcy Wheeler • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageMatthew Sitman • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageDonie O'Sullivan • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sara Higdon

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words15% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sara Higdon: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-24.4 ptsWriter: 24.4%Sara Higdon: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.4 ptsWriter: 7.4%Sara Higdon: 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.