Pirro Reveals Reflecting Pool Indictment of U.S. Olympian Is a Sham 67%

By Hafiz Rashid69%

7/2/2026, 8:54:44 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 47.8% saturation with 174 hits. Analysis detected 1,361 faulty-reasoning hits from 364 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.7% and a BS Rank of 67% (6,915 of 20,515 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.30% of the article peer group.

U.S. 
Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announced Thursday that a grand jury had indicted former Olympic canoeist David Hearn on charges of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. 
The indictment seems rather flawed, as Hearn, 67, maintains that all he did was dip his hand into the pool and touch a piece of peeling paint. 
“I didn’t vandalize anything,” Hearn told The Washington Post the day after his arrest last month. 
“I didn’t destroy or break or peel anything. 
By the time I realized what was going on, I was being put in handcuffs.” 
At a press conference Thursday, a reporter asked Pirro why Hearn was being charged with a felony over something so small, and she struggled to explain. 
“There was an effort, a violent effort, to rip up the sealant from the pool, and irrespective of whether or not we think that there is some situation that preceded it, we can state, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that he caused damage, and that damage is worth over a thousand dollars,” Pirro said. 
When asked how she could prove that, Pirro said, “With an expert,” and urged the reporter who asked the question to come to the trial. 
The reporter incredulously asked if Hearn used his bare hands, to which Pirro affirmed yes, both hands. 
The reporter then asked if the pool wasn’t already damaged before. 
“Oh, he damaged it. 
He damaged the pool. 
He damaged this pool,” Pirro repeated. 
When the reporter brought up videos showing that the pool’s paint was already peeling, Pirro said, “Well, good. 
I’m glad you got that evidence. 
Come on in the grand jury and you can testify.” 
It all seems nuts, as the poor state of the pool, from algae growth to peeling paint, had been documented for quite some time before Hearn visited it. 
The paint had been peeling because hydrogen peroxide was dumped into the pool in a vain effort to kill algae growth. 
Hearn is clearly being made a scapegoat to satisfy President Donald Trump, who is blaming nonexistent vandals rather than admit he messed up the pool. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 47.8%Hafiz Rashid: 7.3%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias47.8%This article: 3.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias3.0%This article: 4.7%Hafiz Rashid: 4.3%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic4.7%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.7%Hafiz Rashid: 0.9%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias7.7%This article: 17.9%Hafiz Rashid: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias17.9%This article: 3.0%Hafiz Rashid: 11.3%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.6%Hafiz Rashid: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias1.6%This article: 6.9%Hafiz Rashid: 2.8%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias6.9%This article: 34.9%Hafiz Rashid: 16.8%newrepublic.com: 13.0%Negativity Bias34.9%This article: 17.6%Hafiz Rashid: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias17.6%This article: 6.9%Hafiz Rashid: 3.2%newrepublic.com: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error6.9%This article: 7.1%Hafiz Rashid: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Hafiz Rashid: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 3.6%newrepublic.com: 3.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.0%Hafiz Rashid: 4.3%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority22.0%This article: 6.9%Hafiz Rashid: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma6.9%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.9%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 22.0%Hafiz Rashid: 8.4%newrepublic.com: 7.9%Hasty Generalization22.0%This article: 4.9%Hafiz Rashid: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring4.9%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.4%Hafiz Rashid: 6.0%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion7.4%This article: 1.1%Hafiz Rashid: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question1.1%This article: 17.6%Hafiz Rashid: 3.2%newrepublic.com: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.6%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 33.0%Hafiz Rashid: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Burden of Proof33.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.4%Hafiz Rashid: 3.6%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal7.4%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.8%Hafiz Rashid: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.8%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 11.8%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Personal Incredulity11.8%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.2%Hafiz Rashid: 4.2%newrepublic.com: 2.2%Unattributed Quote8.2%This article: 1.9%Hafiz Rashid: 3.3%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection1.9%This article: 42.6%Hafiz Rashid: 15.1%newrepublic.com: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice42.6%This article: 6.9%Hafiz Rashid: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination6.9%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 6.6%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Hafiz Rashid: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

364 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers54%attributed speech167writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJeanine Pirro • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageDavid Hearn • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Hearn • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Hearn • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageJeanine Pirro • 55 words • 0.0% coverageJeanine Pirro • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJeanine Pirro • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJeanine Pirro • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJeanine Pirro • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJeanine Pirro • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJeanine Pirro • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJeanine Pirro • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jeanine Pirro

100%flagged-word coverage
158 attributed words80% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%47.5%95.0%Biased Writer Voice-92.8 ptsWriter: 92.8%Jeanine Pirro: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+19.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jeanine Pirro: 19.0%19.0%Indoctrination-15.0 ptsWriter: 15.0%Jeanine Pirro: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -15.0 ptsWriter: 15.0%Jeanine Pirro: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.2 ptsWriter: 4.2%Jeanine Pirro: 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.