Fox News89%

Ex-Dem insider reveals she will expose Democrats who covered up Biden's cognitive decline in new book 81%

By Leo Briceno0%

6/22/2026, 9:30:11 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Anecdotal, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Burden of Proof as the most egregious example at 38.9% saturation with 243 hits. Analysis detected 2,441 faulty-reasoning hits from 624 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.4% and a BS Rank of 81% (4,240 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.60% of the article peer group.

Lindy Li, a former Democratic fundraiser who switched party affiliation over unheeded warning signs about President Joe Biden’s decline in the 2024 election, is revealing new details about the red flags the party blew by. 
"Whatever was out there, it wasn’t the truth. 
They wanted him to go, and also in my book, I will be telling people exactly who was aware of Biden’s cognitive decline but pretended otherwise," Li told Fox News Digital during a phone interview. 
Li, who is publishing a new book titled "Unburdened" later this year, adds to the picture of the internal discussions, the research, and the panic behind the scenes of the Democratic Party, indicating that Biden enjoyed only shaky support even among his own camp long before he ultimately dropped out of the 2024 election. 
Above all, Li said she was shocked by some of the party's leading figures who expressed reservations behind the scenes about Biden’s decline, but remained staunch defenders of the president in public. 
"I remember getting a text from Schiff," Li said, referring to Adam Schiff, D-Calif., then a Democratic candidate for Senate and top Democrat in the House of Representatives. 
"I have it in my book. 
Basically, Adam Schiff was  I can’t remember what he said on TV, but I’m telling you right now that behind the scenes he very much wanted [Biden] to go." 
A spokesperson for Schiff responded to Li's claims, noting that the Senator had made his doubts about Biden known publicly after a 2024 debate where the president stumbled over his words, lost his train of thought and spoke in a whispery voice that, at times, was difficult to understand. 
He eventually called for Biden to step aside that July 
"The Senator’s concerns and call on President Biden to not run was very public, so none of this is news," the spokesperson said. 
But even beyond Schiff, Li, who ran a formidable fundraising operation for the party and was connected with a wide swath of its figures, said that many figures who were hesitant about Biden’s cognitive abilities were afraid of putting themselves in the path of his political momentum. 
"They didn’t want to get ostracized by the party. 
It’s like the axiom: you come at the king; you better not miss. 
Everyone would have missed," Li said. 
Li said that fear was bolstered by internal research the party had done, indicating that no one else in the party had the capital to challenge Biden. 
"There are many candidates who polled themselves against Biden and then realized that they couldn’t beat him in a primary. 
It wasn’t a matter so much of anti-Trumpism. 
It was self-interest," Li said. 
"I’ve seen the polling data, and I also include that in my book  polling no one has seen before." 
Li said that internal discussion had also revealed that Harris wasn’t considered a particularly strong candidate to take on Biden’s mantle. 
"She was the weakest candidate in the field," Li said. 
"I also have polling data right before Kamala ascended. 
We stacked her against Buttigieg, Newsom, Shapiro, Whitmer  all of them," Li said, referring to a handful of other key figures in the Democratic Party. 
Along with fears about going after Biden and coming up short, Li said she believes the Bidens  particularly Joe Biden  inspired a sense of loyalty in the people around him that was hard to shake. 
"He had decades of loyalty  his bond with people like James Clyburn," Li explained, referring to the chief Biden ally who had helped steer the party for decades. 
"There’s something about Joe Biden. 
He was incredibly kind," Li said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 26.9%Leo Briceno: 1.7%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias26.9%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.3%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.2%Leo Briceno: 1.7%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic20.2%This article: 4.2%Leo Briceno: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.2%This article: 10.3%Leo Briceno: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias10.3%This article: 9.0%Leo Briceno: 1.0%Fox Nation: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias9.0%This article: 22.4%Leo Briceno: 6.1%Fox Nation: 11.9%Framing Effect22.4%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.7%Leo Briceno: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.0%Leo Briceno: 0.9%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias1.0%This article: 14.6%Leo Briceno: 0.5%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias14.6%This article: 22.8%Leo Briceno: 7.5%Fox Nation: 10.8%Negativity Bias22.8%This article: 6.4%Leo Briceno: 0.7%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias6.4%This article: 7.4%Leo Briceno: 0.7%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error7.4%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Leo Briceno: 1.4%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.6%Fox Nation: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Leo Briceno: 1.8%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect12.3%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%Leo Briceno: 0.6%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias3.4%This article: 2.6%Leo Briceno: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 4.0%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.1%Leo Briceno: 3.1%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority15.1%This article: 5.8%Leo Briceno: 1.5%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma5.8%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.2%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 30.9%Leo Briceno: 3.9%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization30.9%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.0%Leo Briceno: 4.8%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion9.0%This article: 3.8%Leo Briceno: 0.7%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question3.8%This article: 13.0%Leo Briceno: 2.0%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.0%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 38.9%Leo Briceno: 0.6%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof38.9%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.6%Leo Briceno: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division4.6%This article: 29.2%Leo Briceno: 1.0%Fox Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal29.2%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 29.2%Leo Briceno: 0.8%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)29.2%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.1%Leo Briceno: 1.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection6.1%This article: 8.7%Leo Briceno: 2.6%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice8.7%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.7%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Leo Briceno: 2.5%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 22.4%Leo Briceno: 1.3%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…22.4%

624 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers83%attributed speech105writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 8 words • 100.0% coverageLindy Li • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 54 words • 100.0% coverageLindy Li • 32 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 28 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 6 words • 100.0% coverageLindy Li • 30 words • 100.0% coverageSchiff spokesperson • 49 words • 0.0% coverageSchiff spokesperson • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSchiff spokesperson • 23 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 47 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 9 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 13 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 6 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 27 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 20 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 8 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 5 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 20 words • 100.0% coverageLindy Li • 21 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 10 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 9 words • 100.0% coverageLindy Li • 26 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 37 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 29 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 5 words • 0.0% coverageLindy Li • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lindy Li

100%flagged-word coverage
437 attributed words84% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -50.6 ptsWriter: 66.7%Lindy Li: 16.0%16.0%Biased Writer Voice-51.4 ptsWriter: 51.4%Lindy Li: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+8.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lindy Li: 8.7%8.7%

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.