Clarence Thomas Pal Harlan Crow Maxed Out Donations to John Fetterman 92%

By Robert McCoy94%

7/16/2026, 4:48:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 71.6% saturation with 212 hits. Analysis detected 1,209 faulty-reasoning hits from 296 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86.9% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,751 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.00% of the article peer group.

Harlan Crow, the billionaire patron of Republican-aligned causes, groups, and politicians, has found a new beneficiary in rightward-shifting Democratic Senator John Fetterman. 
Crow, who is also a known Nazi memorabilia collector, has long heaped money on conservatives, most notably lavishing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with extensive gifts and favors for years, all of which Thomas failed to disclose and were only revealed thanks to a ProPublica investigation. 
On June 30, Crow gave $7,000—the maximum allowed donation—to Fetterman’s campaign, according to a Federal Election Commission filing reported Wednesday by The Intercept. 
Elected in 2022, Fetterman flipped a red seat after projecting a progressive image that quickly faded once he assumed office. 
He has taken a staunchly pro-Israel stance that borders on monomaniacal; this week, he stated he has “no plans” to leave the Democratic Party but would do so if it becomes “the anti-Israel party.” 
His unbridled support for Israel, and increasing alignment with President Donald Trump on other issues, led his staffers to jump ship en masse last year. 
This metamorphosis has apparently attracted conservative donors other than Crow. 
As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported earlier this year, Fetterman’s war chest has been lined by donors such as billionaire Ed Glazer and investor Matthew Ocko. 
And while Crow usually wields his financial largesse in service of right-wingers, he has also given occasionally to corporate-friendly Democrats, such as Representatives Josh Gottheimer and Henry Cuellar, as well as former Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, according to the Revolving Door Project. 
Numerous Pennsylvania Democrats are reportedly considering challenging Fetterman in 2028. 
A remarkable Quinnipiac University poll of registered Pennsylvania voters, released Wednesday, has his approval rating at 77 percent among Republicans and just 19 percent among Democrats. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.5%Robert McCoy: 9.2%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias15.5%This article: 7.8%Robert McCoy: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias7.8%This article: 18.9%Robert McCoy: 8.0%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic18.9%This article: 8.8%Robert McCoy: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic8.8%This article: 6.8%Robert McCoy: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 40.9%Robert McCoy: 19.0%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect40.9%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 3.7%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 62.2%Robert McCoy: 34.2%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias62.2%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 22.6%Robert McCoy: 5.1%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error22.6%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 14.9%Robert McCoy: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias14.9%This article: 14.9%Robert McCoy: 5.2%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias14.9%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 2.2%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%Robert McCoy: 8.4%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem15.5%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 3.0%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.0%Robert McCoy: 8.3%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority24.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 3.0%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.1%Robert McCoy: 5.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization10.1%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.8%Robert McCoy: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon8.8%This article: 3.7%Robert McCoy: 13.3%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion3.7%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.9%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.4%Robert McCoy: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.4%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 4.2%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.5%Robert McCoy: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.5%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.9%Robert McCoy: 6.2%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote14.9%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 7.4%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 71.6%Robert McCoy: 48.8%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice71.6%This article: 11.5%Robert McCoy: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination11.5%This article: 0.0%Robert McCoy: 14.8%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Robert McCoy: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.4%This article: 7.8%Robert McCoy: 1.6%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.8%

296 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers32%attributed speech201writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coveragePittsburgh Post-Gazette • 25 words • 0.0% coverageRevolving Door Project • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageQuinnipiac University • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
44 attributed words46% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+16.4 ptsWriter: 83.6%Revolving Door Project: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-21.9 ptsWriter: 21.9%Revolving Door Project: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-16.9 ptsWriter: 16.9%Revolving Door Project: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -11.4 ptsWriter: 11.4%Revolving Door Project: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -10.9 ptsWriter: 10.9%Revolving Door Project: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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