Trump Tries to Ignore Supreme Court on E. Jean Carroll 9%

By Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling62%

7/1/2026, 1:30:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 15.9% saturation with 54 hits. Analysis detected 312 faulty-reasoning hits from 340 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 26% and a BS Rank of 9% (19,927 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.00% of the article peer group.

Donald Trump is still trying to stiff E. 
Jean Carroll, according to the columnist’s attorney. 
Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s lawyer, wrote in a court filing Tuesday that Trump’s legal representative had called her the day prior asking for another delay to the $5 million sum Trump owes the writer. 
Later Monday, Kaplan said she informed Trump’s team that “Carroll does not consent,” and asked whether Trump would comply with the immediate disbursement of funds. 
Carroll has a long and unfortunate history with the president. 
Trump was found liable by a jury in May 2023 for having sexually assaulted Carroll in the mid-1990s, for which she was awarded $5 million in damages. 
He subsequently lost his defamation case against her the following January, when a judge ruled that Trump had continued to defame the advice columnist by denying the assault on the basis that she wasn’t his “type,” and by accusing her of making up the allegations against him for the benefit of her book. 
A jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in that case. 
But Carroll hasn’t yet seen a dime from either case. 
In May, a federal appeals court allowed Trump to continue staving off his payments until the Supreme Court decided whether or not to pick up the case. 
The court made their decision Monday, rejecting Trump’s challenge and allowing the verdict to stand. 
In a separate filing Tuesday, Kaplan asked a judge to implement an expedited payment schedule for the sum that Trump owes Carroll. 
She referred to a June 2023 filing in which both parties agreed that Carroll could collect if the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. 
Kaplan added that, by this point, the $5 million sum had accrued an additional $779,783 in interest, raising Trump’s initial debt to nearly $5.8 million. 
Nonetheless, Trump has continued to make a target out of Carroll. 
In May, the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the writer, probing whether Carroll committed perjury in her previous cases against Trump. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.6%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 4.3%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias15.6%This article: 7.4%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.9%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.9%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 9.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect15.9%This article: 2.9%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion2.9%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.8%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 17.8%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias13.8%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.6%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 4.1%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.9%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 5.5%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization2.9%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.9%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 8.1%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.8%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 4.1%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.8%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.6%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.6%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.1%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.6%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote2.1%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.8%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 17.6%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice13.8%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 8.8%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

340 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker38%attributed speech210writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageRoberta Kaplan • 33 words • 0.0% coverageRoberta Kaplan • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageRoberta Kaplan • 22 words • 0.0% coverageRoberta Kaplan • 25 words • 0.0% coverageRoberta Kaplan • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Roberta Kaplan

19%flagged-word coverage
130 attributed words100% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.4 ptsWriter: 22.4%Roberta Kaplan: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Roberta Kaplan: 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.