RedState⁠91%

Good News, Bad News for Ruben Gallego — Senate Clears Him in Ethics Probe, but DOJ Investigating ⁠73%

By Bob Hoge⁠91%

6/29/2026, 7:59:42 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 41.3% saturation with 229 hits. Analysis detected 1,743 faulty-reasoning hits from 555 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠73% (5,728 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.00% of the article peer group.

It’s been a topsy-turvy Monday for former Rep. 
Eric Swalwell’s buddy, Sen. 
Ruben Gallego (D-AZ). 
He was cleared of wrongdoing by the Senate Ethics Committee, which was investigating him over allegations of sexual misconduct and campaign finance violations that were referred by GOP Rep. 
Anna Paulina Luna (FL-13) — but then Axios dropped a report saying that he is now under investigation by the feds. 
It’s the latest controversy involving the first-term lawmaker: 
The investigation could cast a shadow over Gallego's political future as the freshman senator eyes a potential 2028 run for president. 
* The Justice Department's probe comes after the Senate Ethics Committee closed its inquiry into allegations of sexual misconduct and campaign finance violations after finding no evidence that Gallego violated Senate rules or applicable law, according to a letter released by his office Monday. 
According to the report, a whistleblower alleges he was having a grand time using other people’s money: 
The DOJ investigation stems from a "whistleblower complaint" out of Southern California, according to a source familiar with the probe. 
* Gallego used a political committee's PAC to fund excursions to Miami, Chicago, Disneyland and Disney World with his family, Politico first reported. 
Gallego’s head might be spinning a bit because at first it looked like it was going to be vindication day: 
Then, not so much: 
Although Gallego turned his back on Swalwell following multiple allegations of sexual misconduct and assault against the former disgraced California congressman, RedState’s Ben Smith earlier in June reported that the ghost of their friendship continues to haunt the embattled senator: 
Politico reported Sunday that the Arizona Democrat used campaign and leadership PAC funds for family travel, child care expenses, and a Super Bowl fundraiser tied to his longtime friend, former Rep. 
Eric Swalwell (D-CA). 
A review of campaign finance records found that Gallego used donor-funded accounts to cover trips involving his family, reimburse child care costs, and help finance a Super Bowl LVII event in Arizona through a joint committee he operated with Swalwell. 
Gallego is drawing attention as a possible presidential contender and traveled to South Carolina recently for Democratic Party events, adding to speculation that he is testing the waters for a national campaign. 
Gallego continues to insist he’s squeaky clean, and said through a spokesman that the Department of Justice’s reported probe is just a right-wing hit job: 
President Donald Trump is "targeting Sen. 
Gallego while the most weaponized Department of Justice in history is turning a blind eye to Trump's unprecedented corruption," the spokesperson told Axios. 
"It's the least surprising news of the week that this comes immediately after the Senate Ethics Committee cleared Sen. 
Gallego of right-wing smears pushed by the administration," the spokesperson added. 
We’ll find out if his claims of innocence hold up. 
Even if he is cleared by the DOJ, however, he’s still guilty of bad judgment for hanging out with someone like Swalwell, whose reputation was an open secret. 
Whether or not there turns out to be any fire, there certainly has been plenty of smoke in Gallego's young Senate career. 
Editor’s Note: Help us continue to report the truth about corrupt politicians. 
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 26.1%Bob Hoge: 7.1%RedState: 7.1%Confirmation Bias26.1%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.2%RedState: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Bob Hoge: 2.9%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic3.1%This article: 7.2%Bob Hoge: 0.7%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 1.2%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 2.2%RedState: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 25.4%Bob Hoge: 10.7%RedState: 9.3%Framing Effect25.4%This article: 1.8%Bob Hoge: 0.6%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion1.8%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.2%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.2%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 1.1%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Bob Hoge: 2.4%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias12.4%This article: 36.2%Bob Hoge: 19.0%RedState: 14.1%Negativity Bias36.2%This article: 4.5%Bob Hoge: 1.5%RedState: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 2.0%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.3%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 6.6%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 4.7%RedState: 3.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 1.0%RedState: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 1.9%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.0%Bob Hoge: 1.7%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias11.0%This article: 5.2%Bob Hoge: 0.7%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Bob Hoge: 9.1%RedState: 7.0%Ad Hominem13.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 4.8%RedState: 2.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 2.6%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 2.8%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 3.8%Bob Hoge: 2.1%RedState: 1.4%Slippery Slope3.8%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.6%Bob Hoge: 13.3%RedState: 10.2%Hasty Generalization19.6%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.9%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 1.0%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.3%Bob Hoge: 12.8%RedState: 8.7%Appeal to Emotion6.3%This article: 6.5%Bob Hoge: 1.7%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question6.5%This article: 3.8%Bob Hoge: 2.5%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.8%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.5%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 15.5%Bob Hoge: 1.1%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof15.5%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.3%RedState: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.7%Bob Hoge: 2.3%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal6.7%This article: 5.0%Bob Hoge: 0.2%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman5.0%This article: 19.1%Bob Hoge: 1.7%RedState: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.1%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.3%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 26.3%Bob Hoge: 2.7%RedState: 2.5%Unattributed Quote26.3%This article: 4.9%Bob Hoge: 3.0%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection4.9%This article: 41.3%Bob Hoge: 31.7%RedState: 22.0%Biased Writer Voice41.3%This article: 4.7%Bob Hoge: 5.8%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination4.7%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.2%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 21.9%RedState: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Bob Hoge: 4.1%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.7%

555 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.5%attributed speech541writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

RedState

100%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+97.8 ptsWriter: 2.2%RedState: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +97.8 ptsWriter: 2.2%RedState: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-42.3 ptsWriter: 42.3%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-27.0 ptsWriter: 27.0%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%RedState: 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.