Billionaire Leon Black Subpoenaed After Dodging Epstein Questions ⁠59%

By Edith Olmsted⁠0%

6/26/2026, 6:54:22 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Anchoring Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.3% saturation with 60 hits. Analysis detected 308 faulty-reasoning hits from 295 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠59% (8,452 of 20,516 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.80% of the article peer group.

Billionaire investor Leon Black received two subpoenas Friday after he refused to answer questions about NDAs he’d allegedly signed with women in Jeffrey Epstein’s orbit. 
“I have never abused a woman. 
I have never been with an underage woman. 
I have never engaged in sex trafficking,” Black began in the House Oversight Committee during his closed-door testimony. 
“I have never paid Epstein for access to women. 
I was never blackmailed by Epstein. 
I was not involved with, and had no knowledge of, any of Epstein’s heinous conduct.” 
The proceedings were derailed when House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer subpoenaed Black after he and his lawyer insisted he could not discuss the terms and contents of certain nondisclosure agreements, according to MSNOW. 
Prior to the interview, Comer said he was “pretty confident” that Black had allegedly signed NDAs with survivors of Epstein’s abuse. 
The chair issued two subpoenas, one compelling Black to appear for a deposition on July 16, and another requiring him to produce the NDAs. 
Black left the interview after only an hour. 
The billionaire former CEO of Apollo Global Management departed from his role in 2021 after an internal review discovered he’d made $158 million in payments to Epstein for financial advice between 2012 and 2017. 
In 2023, Black was accused of raping a 16-year-old at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse two decades earlier. 
Black defended his choice to do business with Epstein after he became a convicted sex offender. 
“Five years after his conviction, I gave Epstein a second chance, as did many others. 
I wish I had not,” Black said. 
(Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008.) 
Still, Black insisted he knew nothing of Epstein’s heinous sexual misconduct. 
“I knew Jekyll. 
I didn’t know Hyde,” said Black. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.3%Edith Olmsted: 4.9%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias15.3%This article: 11.5%Edith Olmsted: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias11.5%This article: 1.7%Edith Olmsted: 3.8%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic1.7%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Edith Olmsted: 2.5%newrepublic.com: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias7.1%This article: 2.7%Edith Olmsted: 12.5%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 3.8%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.3%Edith Olmsted: 21.6%newrepublic.com: 13.0%Negativity Bias20.3%This article: 10.2%Edith Olmsted: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias10.2%This article: 5.4%Edith Olmsted: 2.9%newrepublic.com: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error5.4%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.6%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 6.5%newrepublic.com: 3.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.1%Edith Olmsted: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority7.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 9.8%newrepublic.com: 7.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 8.2%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 6.2%newrepublic.com: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.7%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.5%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.1%Edith Olmsted: 2.6%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.5%Edith Olmsted: 2.2%newrepublic.com: 2.2%Unattributed Quote11.5%This article: 2.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 6.4%Edith Olmsted: 27.9%newrepublic.com: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice6.4%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 13.1%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

295 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers39%attributed speech181writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageLeon Black • 6 words • 100.0% coverageLeon Black • 8 words • 0.0% coverageLeon Black • 18 words • 0.0% coverageLeon Black • 9 words • 100.0% coverageLeon Black • 6 words • 0.0% coverageLeon Black • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageJames Comer • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageLeon Black • 15 words • 0.0% coverageLeon Black • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageLeon Black • 3 words • 100.0% coverageLeon Black • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

James Comer

100%flagged-word coverage
21 attributed words18% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote-13.8 ptsWriter: 13.8%James Comer: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.8 ptsWriter: 8.8%James Comer: 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.