Breitbart⁠81%

Jim Jordan: Jack Smith Alleged Snooping a ‘Total Separations of Powers Issue’ ⁠86%

By Jeff Poor⁠99%

7/16/2026, 8:02:16 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.6% saturation with 147 hits. Analysis detected 1,054 faulty-reasoning hits from 425 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 77.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠86% (3,162 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.60% of the article peer group.

Wednesday, during an appearance on FNC’s “Hannity,” Rep. 
Jim Jordan (R-OH) detailed how a Senate investigation revealed that alleged spying by former special counsel Jack Smith resulted in him reading texts to and from members of Congress. 
Jordan said Smith’s use of power posed constitutional questions about separation of powers. 
“Let’s get your take on this,” host Sean Hannity said. 
“Is this a violation of constitutional rights? 
“Yes,” Jordan replied. 
“It is?” 
Hannity asked. 
“Were you caught up in this?” 
Jordan said, “Oh, yeah. 
I mean, —- they got my phone logs. 
There were 44 members of the United States Congress, me, senators, members of the House, even some Democrats, a handful of Democrats were caught up in this. 
And again, this — you can’t do that. 
As Senator Hawley just said, this is a separation of powers issue. 
There’s a speech or debate clause. 
It was supposed to be filtered and screened. 
It wasn’t. 
It was just given from the National Archives to Jack Smith’s team. 
But like we always say, Sean, the one thing we get wrong when we start these investigations, the one thing we always get wrong, is that it’s always worse than we thought. 
So it wasn’t just a — and never forget the toll records issue. 
Remember, 16 days after Kevin McCarthy becomes speaker of the House, Jack Smith goes and gets his phone records from the carrier, the top Republican in government, the guy second in line to the president.” 
“Jack Smith knew who he called, who called him, when the call took place, how long the call lasted. 
He can pattern someone’s life,” he continued. 
“Who’s the speaker of the House talking to before big votes, after big votes? 
Well, that is just wrong. 
That is a total separations of powers issue that they violated and they went to another branch of government, got that information without a warrant. 
They got it and they didn’t screen it. 
And then Jack Smith under oath says, “No, no, we didn’t get any contents.” 
Well, shazam, it looks like they did. 
And it looks like he wasn’t square with us when he testified in front of our committee. 
And we will look at a referral possibility. 
We’re already looking at that. 
Do we need to refer him to the Justice Department, to Attorney General Blanche for them to go ahead and move forward with prosecution? 
We’re looking at that as we speak.” 
Follow Jeff Poor on X @jeff_poor 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 28.5%Jeff Poor: 15.1%Breitbart: 4.5%Confirmation Bias28.5%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 1.8%Breitbart: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Jeff Poor: 8.4%Breitbart: 3.9%Availability Heuristic13.4%This article: 6.4%Jeff Poor: 1.7%Breitbart: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic6.4%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Jeff Poor: 10.8%Breitbart: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias7.1%This article: 16.5%Jeff Poor: 17.4%Breitbart: 11.9%Framing Effect16.5%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Jeff Poor: 7.0%Breitbart: 1.7%Pessimism Bias10.1%This article: 34.6%Jeff Poor: 15.4%Breitbart: 9.7%Negativity Bias34.6%This article: 1.9%Jeff Poor: 2.7%Breitbart: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 1.3%Breitbart: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 3.3%Jeff Poor: 1.1%Breitbart: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 2.8%Breitbart: 4.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 5.7%Breitbart: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Jeff Poor: 2.7%Breitbart: 1.8%Recency Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.4%Breitbart: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Jeff Poor: 6.5%Breitbart: 2.9%Ad Hominem4.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 5.5%Breitbart: 1.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.1%Jeff Poor: 4.2%Breitbart: 4.2%Appeal to Authority11.1%This article: 5.6%Jeff Poor: 2.1%Breitbart: 2.5%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 6.9%Breitbart: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.8%Jeff Poor: 1.8%Breitbart: 0.3%Circular Reasoning2.8%This article: 18.4%Jeff Poor: 22.8%Breitbart: 7.9%Hasty Generalization18.4%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.9%Breitbart: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.1%Jeff Poor: 16.6%Breitbart: 8.8%Appeal to Emotion6.1%This article: 1.6%Jeff Poor: 6.8%Breitbart: 1.8%Begging the Question1.6%This article: 14.1%Jeff Poor: 6.3%Breitbart: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.1%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.7%Breitbart: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.1%Jeff Poor: 1.1%Breitbart: 1.0%Burden of Proof3.1%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 1.5%Breitbart: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.3%Jeff Poor: 4.0%Breitbart: 2.5%Anecdotal3.3%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 25.6%Jeff Poor: 5.8%Breitbart: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)25.6%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.1%Breitbart: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 1.7%Breitbart: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.3%Jeff Poor: 3.5%Breitbart: 2.8%Unattributed Quote3.3%This article: 4.9%Jeff Poor: 1.7%Breitbart: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection4.9%This article: 12.7%Jeff Poor: 5.2%Breitbart: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice12.7%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 6.4%Breitbart: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Poor: 21.1%Breitbart: 7.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Jeff Poor: 0.7%Breitbart: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.4%

425 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers93%attributed speech28writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 29 words • 100.0% coverageJim Jordan • 13 words • 0.0% coverageSean Hannity • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSean Hannity • 7 words • 100.0% coverageJim Jordan • 3 words • 0.0% coverageSean Hannity • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageSean Hannity • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 32 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 13 words • 100.0% coverageJim Jordan • 35 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 14 words • 100.0% coverageJim Jordan • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJim Jordan • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jim Jordan

95%flagged-word coverage
372 attributed words94% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.6 ptsWriter: 42.9%Jim Jordan: 11.3%11.3%Attempt to Sell a Product -21.4 ptsWriter: 21.4%Jim Jordan: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+3.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jim Jordan: 3.8%3.8%Quote-first Misdirection+3.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jim Jordan: 3.8%3.8%

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.