RedState⁠91%

Jennifer 'First Partner' Newsom's Brain Short-Circuits When Reminded of DOJ Probe's Actual Timeline ⁠98%

By Bob Hoge⁠90%

7/18/2026, 6:15:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Ad Hominem, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 68.9% saturation with 503 hits. Analysis detected 3,045 faulty-reasoning hits from 730 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 95.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠98% (632 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 97.10% of the article peer group.

California Gov. 
Gavin Newsom found the perfect person to be his “First Partner,” someone who, like him, seems to have been created by an AI bot. 
They both speak in important-sounding but usually meaningless word salads that seem to come straight out of the Manual of Woke, they both have the generic good looks of daytime soap stars, and they both seem to think extremely highly of themselves despite constantly being embroiled in ugly controversies. 
Her name is Jennifer Siebel Newsom, and as with almost every recent public appearance she’s made lately, she turned the cringe factor up to 11 on Friday when she sat for an interview with the equally insufferable and self-satisfied newsperson, Stephanie Ruhle of the comedy network recently rebranded as MS NOW. 
Siebel Newsom went on and on about how Donald Trump is going on a “fishing investigation,” trying to bring down her and her hubby with a Department of Justice investigation into their highly questionable financial exploits. 
One thing she seemed to forget, however: the DOJ started looking into the couple during the Biden administration. 
Oops. 
I almost expected to see smoke coming out of her ears as her brain circuits overloaded: 
Suddenly, this supposed champion of women decided to play the stereotypical dumb blonde. 
“I don’t know the details,” she flustered. 
Wait, I thought you were supposed to be the First Partner, a presumed co-equal to the governor? 
What an embarrassment. 
Does he “know the details,” at least? 
One would hope. 
Not exactly a Mensa candidate here, folks. 
MORE: Gavin Newsom's Achilles Heel Might Just End Up Being His Gaffetastic 'First Partner' (VIP) 
Newsom Lawyers Up As Missing Tax Returns Fuel More Questions About Federal Probe 
There are numerous questions about the pair’s tax filings, charitable organizations, and more, but it wasn’t Donald Trump who started to wonder if there was some fire amidst all that smoke. 
The more recent probe wasn’t even started by higher-ups in the administration — it originated as a response to claims from whistleblowers on the local level, according to the Sacramento Bee (hardly a conservative outlet): 
Oh. 
You mean Trump didn’t walk into the DOJ and shout, “Get the Newsoms?” 
Interesting. 
But Rodham — oops, I meant Siebel — Newsom wasn’t done embarrassing herself. 
The self-described women’s advocate, who slut shamed her husband’s onetime paramour and who says nothing as he allows males to compete against and beat young girls in official sports events, embarrassed herself even further. 
She claims that she and the governor, who has driven the state into the ground, aren’t all that concerned about a potential presidential run because they have such deep feels about the formerly Golden State. 
“It's really exciting to be in California, diversity is our secret sauce,” she concluded. 
Of course, diversity of thought is strongly discouraged in her state, but that will never be a concern of hers. 
The Cheshire cat-grinning Ruhle looked like she had the famous "thrill up the leg" during this entire mindless monologue. 
Of course, Newsom's virtue-signalling string of words was preposterous because Gavin has clearly been campaigning for the Democrat nomination for at least the last two years, is constantly jetting off to red states to get attention, even showing up at international forums like the World Economic Forum in Davos (where his speech was scrubbed because he was not even part of the official delegation), and trolling Republicans like Trump and Florida Gov. 
Ron DeSantis, who smoked him in their 2023 debate and has run his state infinitely better than Newsom has his. 
What neither Gavin Newsom nor his wife has done is improve the lives of Californians, as evidenced by the huge number of them leaving. 
While he regularly produces so many cringe-worthy moments that they should come with a warning label, she is arguably even more wince-inducing. 
I don’t think it’s going to go well for her when the national audience starts paying attention. 
That does not make me sad. 
Editor’s Note: Gavin Newsom wants to turn America into one big version of California - a failed, overtaxed, dystopian nightmare. 
Help RedState continue to tell the truth about the Golden State and work to stop his presidential campaign before it even officially starts. 
Join RedState’s VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership today. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.5%Bob Hoge: 7.1%RedState: 7.0%Confirmation Bias18.5%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.2%RedState: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Bob Hoge: 2.9%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic1.8%This article: 3.3%Bob Hoge: 0.7%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic3.3%This article: 2.5%Bob Hoge: 1.2%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 2.2%RedState: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Bob Hoge: 10.7%RedState: 9.2%Framing Effect6.7%This article: 3.3%Bob Hoge: 0.6%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion3.3%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: 0.4%Bob Hoge: 1.1%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.4%This article: 5.1%Bob Hoge: 2.4%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias5.1%This article: 68.9%Bob Hoge: 19.0%RedState: 13.9%Negativity Bias68.9%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 1.5%RedState: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Bob Hoge: 2.0%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error4.8%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: 4.7%Bob Hoge: 4.7%RedState: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.7%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: 9.3%Bob Hoge: 1.7%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.7%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 32.7%Bob Hoge: 9.1%RedState: 6.9%Ad Hominem32.7%This article: 1.8%Bob Hoge: 4.8%RedState: 2.6%Straw Man1.8%This article: 4.8%Bob Hoge: 2.6%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority4.8%This article: 1.0%Bob Hoge: 2.8%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma1.0%This article: 3.2%Bob Hoge: 2.1%RedState: 1.4%Slippery Slope3.2%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 30.0%Bob Hoge: 13.3%RedState: 10.1%Hasty Generalization30.0%This article: 9.0%Bob Hoge: 0.9%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring9.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 1.0%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 24.9%Bob Hoge: 12.8%RedState: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion24.9%This article: 5.1%Bob Hoge: 1.7%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question5.1%This article: 17.4%Bob Hoge: 2.5%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.4%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.5%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.6%Bob Hoge: 1.1%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof6.6%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.3%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.9%Bob Hoge: 2.3%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal7.9%This article: 1.8%Bob Hoge: 0.2%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman1.8%This article: 10.8%Bob Hoge: 1.7%RedState: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.8%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: 4.9%Bob Hoge: 2.7%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote4.9%This article: 4.9%Bob Hoge: 3.0%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection4.9%This article: 58.6%Bob Hoge: 31.7%RedState: 21.5%Biased Writer Voice58.6%This article: 19.5%Bob Hoge: 5.8%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination19.5%This article: 0.0%Bob Hoge: 0.2%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 27.0%Bob Hoge: 21.9%RedState: 15.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias27.0%This article: 16.0%Bob Hoge: 4.1%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…16.0%

730 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers8.1%attributed speech671writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageJennifer Siebel Newsom • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageJennifer Siebel Newsom • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 72 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 23 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 15 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

RedState

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words64% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +88.2 ptsWriter: 11.8%RedState: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-63.8 ptsWriter: 63.8%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+42.8 ptsWriter: 17.7%RedState: 60.5%60.5%Politically Right Leaning -29.4 ptsWriter: 29.4%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.4 ptsWriter: 5.4%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.4 ptsWriter: 5.4%RedState: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.