Top Republicans say they spoke with Mitch McConnell while still in the hospital 22%

By Molly Parks21% David Sivak0%

7/7/2026, 11:33:53 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Optimism Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 23.4% saturation with 137 hits. Analysis detected 807 faulty-reasoning hits from 585 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.7% and a BS Rank of 22% (17,113 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.20% of the article peer group.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Sen. 
John Barrasso (R-WY), and Kentucky-born political commentator Scott Jennings say they all spoke with Sen. 
Mitch McConnell as the senior senator remains in the hospital, where he has been for several weeks. 
“Leader Thune spoke with Sen. 
McConnell yesterday by phone,” a Thune spokesperson told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday. 
“They had a lengthy and substantive conversation that covered a variety of topics, including national security.” 
McConnell, 84, was admitted to a Washington, D.C. hospital on June 14 and has remained in the facility since. 
His office has not disclosed why McConnell was hospitalized or clarified what exact state he is in, leaving social media personalities and pundits to speculate about his condition. 
In an initial statement in June, McConnell’s office confirmed his hospitalization and told reporters that the senator was “receiving excellent care.” 
“Their phone call lasted roughly 20 minutes,” Noyes said. 
“They caught up about the latest news impacting Senate races, the Graham Platner scandal, and the recent Supreme Court ruling on coordinated spending limits. 
They also discussed the Senate’s July work period, including the need to pass the NDAA and confirm President Trump’s nominee for director of National Intelligence. 
Senator McConnell was fully engaged and is eager to get back to the Senate.” 
Jennings also said he had a near 20-minute conversation with McConnell on Tuesday. 
“I spoke to my old friend Mitch McConnell this morning, the senior Senator from Kentucky,” Jennings wrote on X. 
“He’s still recovering in the hospital. 
We talked for just shy of 20 minutes  about IRAN, UKRAINE, the unfolding situation in MAINE, my visit to the TR Presidential Library, and even a little bit of Senate history.” 
Jennings, who has both worked for McConnell and been his friend for decades, released the statement on X, where much of the social media speculation on McConnell’s health has taken place. 
“I told him we want to see him back at work as soon as possible,” Jennings said. 
McConnell’s office has released several updated statements in late June and early July, without getting into the specifics of his condition. 
McConnell’s spokespeople confirmed he would be missing votes in late June and said he is “still working closely with staff on Senate business and Kentucky matters as he continues his recovery.” 
In early July, the office released a similar statement saying McConnell appreciates the support he has received and “continues to improve, and is working closely with his staff on Kentucky and Senate matters while the Senate is out of session.” 
Emergency dispatch audio reported by multiple outlets indicated that first responders with an advanced life support team were called to his home on June 14 for an unconscious patient, referencing “cardiac arrest” as the emergency, but McConnell’s office has not confirmed those details or verified the 911 audio. 
Conservative social media commentator Laura Loomer had claimed on social media on Monday that an unidentified source told her McConnell was “brain dead” with “machines keeping him alive,” providing no additional evidence to support her claims. 
McConnell’s office has not publicly commented on Loomer’s claim, but Thune, Barrasso, and Jennings’ statements all directly contradict Loomer’s account. 
The seven-term senator has dealt with numerous health issues over the past few years, suffering a concussion and a broken rib after a fall in 2023 and experienced two public freezing episodes that year. 
This year, McConnell was also hospitalized in February with flu-like symptoms. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.4%Molly Parks: 2.2%Washington Examiner: 5.3%Confirmation Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 23.4%Molly Parks: 3.1%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Availability Heuristic23.4%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.4%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 7.1%Washington Examiner: 8.6%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Molly Parks: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion2.9%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.5%Molly Parks: 2.3%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Optimism Bias14.5%This article: 3.6%Molly Parks: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias3.6%This article: 23.1%Molly Parks: 7.1%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Negativity Bias23.1%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 4.1%Washington Examiner: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Molly Parks: 3.1%Washington Examiner: 2.2%In-Group Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Molly Parks: 2.7%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Halo Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 4.2%Washington Examiner: 4.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.1%Washington Examiner: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.2%Washington Examiner: 8.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.4%Molly Parks: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Bandwagon3.4%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 7.9%Washington Examiner: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.3%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.8%Molly Parks: 2.7%Washington Examiner: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.8%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.2%Molly Parks: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Burden of Proof6.2%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.6%Molly Parks: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Anecdotal11.6%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.2%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.3%Molly Parks: 4.0%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Unattributed Quote17.3%This article: 6.2%Molly Parks: 2.7%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection6.2%This article: 8.9%Molly Parks: 3.7%Washington Examiner: 11.5%Biased Writer Voice8.9%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.8%Washington Examiner: 3.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.8%Washington Examiner: 4.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

585 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker15%attributed speech498writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageScott Jennings • 13 words • 0.0% coverageScott Jennings • 19 words • 0.0% coverageScott Jennings • 6 words • 0.0% coverageScott Jennings • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageScott Jennings • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Scott Jennings

56%flagged-word coverage
87 attributed words100% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote-20.3 ptsWriter: 20.3%Scott Jennings: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-10.4 ptsWriter: 10.4%Scott Jennings: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Scott Jennings: 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.