Raw Story⁠93%

Ivana Trump accused of helping feed Epstein's network in 'explosive' new allegations ⁠66%

By Daniel Hampton⁠75%

7/4/2026, 10:50:03 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Burden of Proof, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 45.7% saturation with 159 hits. Analysis detected 1,031 faulty-reasoning hits from 348 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠66% (7,306 of 21,164 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.50% of the article peer group.

A former beauty queen who says Donald Trump groped her at a 1993 pageant has leveled a new claim at the president's first wife, alleging Ivana Trump helped funnel young women into Jeffrey Epstein's orbit. 
Beatrice Keul, 55, a former Miss Switzerland and Miss Europe contestant, told the Daily Beast's new Punch Up Substack that she believes Ivana acted as a "madam"-style figure in Epstein's social world, on par with his convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. 
"Was Maxwell a madam or an enabler? 
However you would describe her, Ivana was the same," claimed Keul. 
Punch Up said it has not independently verified Keul's account of Ivana and has seen no evidence she knew of or took part in any crimes. 
Ivana Trump, mother to Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka and Eric, died in 2022 at age 73 and was never charged with any Epstein-related offense. 
"So in today's Substack, you make an astonishing allegation, reporting what Beatrice said about the involvement of Ivana Trump. 
Can you tell us a little bit more about that?" 
asked Joanna Coles, chief creative and content officer for The Daily Beast, of investigative reporter Tom Latchem. 
Latchem noted Ivana Trump is from Eastern Europe. 
"She was from Czechoslovakia, and a lot of the women who were trafficked were from Eastern Europe and around the world. 
They weren't just young American women, many of these complainants. 
And she says that Ivana had a role," he said. 
Keul has previously alleged that Epstein tried to recruit her at Trump's American Dream Pageant, telling her she was his intended "prey," and that Trump assaulted and threatened her before warning her to stay silent. 
She first came forward in 2024, becoming the 28th woman to accuse Trump of sexual misconduct. 
He has denied every allegation. 
The White House rejected Keul's claims, with spokeswoman Abigail Jackson saying Trump "has been totally exonerated on anything relating to Epstein" and has "done more for Epstein's victims than anyone before him." 
Maxwell is serving 20 years for recruiting and abusing girls. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.9%Daniel Hampton: 3.8%Rawstory: 7.8%Confirmation Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Daniel Hampton: 3.6%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic10.6%This article: 17.0%Daniel Hampton: 2.1%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic17.0%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: 21.0%Daniel Hampton: 11.7%Rawstory: 13.6%Framing Effect21.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.9%Daniel Hampton: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias6.9%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: 45.7%Daniel Hampton: 18.1%Rawstory: 21.9%Negativity Bias45.7%This article: 16.7%Daniel Hampton: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 1.4%Daniel Hampton: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.9%Rawstory: 2.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.9%This article: 20.7%Daniel Hampton: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect20.7%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: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%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: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.0%Daniel Hampton: 5.1%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority19.0%This article: 2.0%Daniel Hampton: 1.1%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma2.0%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: 17.5%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 12.0%Hasty Generalization17.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.6%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon4.6%This article: 17.0%Daniel Hampton: 8.7%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion17.0%This article: 2.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.5%Begging the Question2.0%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: 21.8%Daniel Hampton: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.6%Burden of Proof21.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 26.1%Daniel Hampton: 5.6%Rawstory: 4.0%Anecdotal26.1%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.5%Daniel Hampton: 2.4%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.5%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: 2.0%Daniel Hampton: 2.3%Rawstory: 5.5%Unattributed Quote2.0%This article: 10.9%Daniel Hampton: 5.1%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection10.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 7.6%Rawstory: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.6%Rawstory: 3.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 4.6%Rawstory: 7.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Hampton: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

348 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers67%attributed speech114writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageBeatrice Keul • 40 words • 0.0% coverageBeatrice Keul • 7 words • 100.0% coverageBeatrice Keul • 11 words • 0.0% coveragePunch Up • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJoanna Coles • 19 words • 100.0% coverageJoanna Coles • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageTom Latchem • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTom Latchem • 21 words • 0.0% coverageTom Latchem • 10 words • 0.0% coverageTom Latchem • 10 words • 0.0% coverageBeatrice Keul • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAbigail Jackson • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Abigail Jackson

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words14% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.5 ptsWriter: 10.5%Abigail Jackson: 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.