Fox News89%

Indicted Democrat Rep Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick one step closer to expulsion 45%

By Adam Pack37%

3/27/2026, 1:59:50 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 43.8% saturation with 330 hits. Analysis detected 1,718 faulty-reasoning hits from 753 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.4% and a BS Rank of 45% (12,197 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.70% of the article peer group.

A bipartisan panel of House lawmakers voted to kickstart a process that could lead to the expulsion of a congressional Democrat accused of laundering millions of disaster relief funds into her campaign account. 
A House Ethics investigative subcommittee approved a motion for summary judgment, effectively finding Rep. 
Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., guilty of nearly all alleged violations outlined by the committee earlier this year. 
The verdict came after a rare public ethics hearing on Thursday  the first since 2010  that lasted more than six hours as lawmakers from both parties grilled Cherfilus-McCormick’s counsel. 
The eight-member adjudicatory subcommittee, helmed by Rep. 
Michael Guest, R-Miss., announced its decision in a written statement Friday morning. 
"After careful deliberation that lasted until well past midnight, the adjudicatory subcommittee found that Counts 1-15 and 17-26 of the SAV [statement of alleged violations] had been proven," committee leaders said in a statement. 
The panel’s myriad charges against Cherfilus-McCormick, who is facing a separate federal criminal indictment, ranged from using ineligible funds to finance her campaign to repeatedly filing false financial disclosure forms and seeking "special favors" with recipients of earmark funding requests. 
The panel will meet after the Easter recess to determine its recommended punishment, which could be as severe as expulsion. 
Rep. 
Greg Steube, R-Fla., has vowed to move forward with his resolution that would expel Cherfilus-McCormick regardless of the outcome. 
Under House rules, two-thirds of lawmakers have to agree to expel a member, meaning Steube’s resolution would need the support of some Democrats. 
House Democratic leadership has largely stood by Cherfilus-McCormick so far, though some congressional Democrats are signaling their discomfort with the allegations against their indicted colleague. 
"The allegations before us are extremely serious," Rep. 
Mark Desaulnier, D-Calif., said at the start of the hearing Thursday. 
"They not only concern an individual member’s conduct, they also implicate the public’s confidence in the House’s integrity as an institution." 
Cherfilus-McCormick, who first won election to Congress in 2021, is accused of stealing more than $5 million in disaster relief funds that were improperly paid to her family’s healthcare company, among other criminal allegations. 
She and her siblings allegedly used the illicit funds to jumpstart her congressional campaign and for personal use, including the purchase of a large diamond ring that Cherfilus-McCormick appeared to have worn in her official congressional portrait. 
Cherfilus-McCormick has pleaded not guilty to the stunning federal charges brought in 2025. 
If convicted in federal court, Cherfilus-McCormick, 47, faces up to 53 years in prison. 
The House ethics panel’s investigation into Cherfilus-McCormick preceded the 2025 federal criminal indictment by more than two years. 
During that time, Cherfilus-McCormick shifted between four different attorneys while largely refusing to cooperate with the bipartisan panel. 
On Thursday, Cherfilus-McCormick sought to use the fact of her new legal representation to further delay the committee’s proceedings until June  a request the eight-member panel promptly denied in a closed-door session. 
Her new attorney, William Barzee, repeatedly claimed a violation of Cherfilus-McCormick’s due process rights while maintaining her innocence. 
"For you to sit here and make the claim that we, the committee, is trying to trample upon the rights of your client. 
I take offense to that," Guest told Barzee in a combative exchange. 
"For two years we've tried to get documents from your client. 
Not only have we requested documents, but we have subpoenaed those documents. 
Those documents were not provided for two years." 
"I'm personally offended because I know the work that this committee goes to protect all members and to make sure that we go above and beyond," Guest continued. 
Members of both parties appeared unconvinced by Barzee’s argument, attempting to claim that Cherfilus-McCormick was entitled to the millions of dollars she accepted from her family’s company that stemmed from the FEMA overpayments. 
When he claimed that an undated chart was evidence of a "profit-sharing agreement" showing her legal title to the money, the bipartisan panel appeared visibly perturbed. 
"I did a lot of business transaction law for a number of years before I came to Congress. 
I drafted a lot of profit-sharing agreements. 
Never saw one that was just a chart that was unsigned," Rep. 
Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas, told Barzee. 
Later in the hearing, Barzee argued that because Cherfilus-McCormick is of Haitian descent, it was not atypical to have a "handshake agreement" to divvy up millions of dollars between her and her family instead of a formal legal document. 
Cherfilus-McCormick faces an upcoming federal criminal trial this summer. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.5%Adam Pack: 1.7%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Adam Pack: 2.0%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic4.1%This article: 5.2%Adam Pack: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.2%This article: 2.1%Adam Pack: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias2.1%This article: 1.6%Adam Pack: 1.5%Fox Nation: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias1.6%This article: 1.3%Adam Pack: 8.8%Fox Nation: 11.9%Framing Effect1.3%This article: 1.9%Adam Pack: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion1.9%This article: 3.1%Adam Pack: 0.9%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 1.2%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Adam Pack: 1.4%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias4.5%This article: 38.9%Adam Pack: 8.9%Fox Nation: 10.8%Negativity Bias38.9%This article: 4.4%Adam Pack: 0.8%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias4.4%This article: 2.4%Adam Pack: 0.3%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error2.4%This article: 3.5%Adam Pack: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias3.5%This article: 8.5%Adam Pack: 1.2%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias8.5%This article: 5.2%Adam Pack: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 1.1%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Adam Pack: 1.1%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias2.3%This article: 1.7%Adam Pack: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Adam Pack: 3.7%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem1.6%This article: 4.4%Adam Pack: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man4.4%This article: 11.6%Adam Pack: 2.7%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority11.6%This article: 2.5%Adam Pack: 1.5%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.5%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.6%Adam Pack: 4.1%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization1.6%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.5%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.0%Adam Pack: 4.2%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion10.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.4%Adam Pack: 2.9%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.4%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.2%Adam Pack: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 5.2%Adam Pack: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature5.2%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.9%Adam Pack: 1.2%Fox Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal4.9%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.4%Adam Pack: 0.7%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.4%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.6%Adam Pack: 0.6%Fox Nation: 1.8%Unattributed Quote5.6%This article: 10.2%Adam Pack: 1.4%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection10.2%This article: 43.8%Adam Pack: 4.3%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice43.8%This article: 9.7%Adam Pack: 1.1%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination9.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.6%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Pack: 0.3%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

753 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers20%attributed speech601writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMark Desaulnier, D-Calif. • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam Barzee • 23 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Guest, R-Miss. • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Guest, R-Miss. • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Guest, R-Miss. • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Guest, R-Miss. • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Guest, R-Miss. • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageNathaniel Moran, R-Texas • 18 words • 0.0% coverageNathaniel Moran, R-Texas • 7 words • 0.0% coverageNathaniel Moran, R-Texas • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
68%flagged-word coverage
71 attributed words47% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Biased Writer Voice-54.9 ptsWriter: 54.9%Michael Guest, R-Miss.: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-12.1 ptsWriter: 12.1%Michael Guest, R-Miss.: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.0 ptsWriter: 9.0%Michael Guest, R-Miss.: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Michael Guest, R-Miss.: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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