RedState⁠91%

Marjorie Taylor Greene Posts (Then Deletes) Attack on Alleged Platner Rape Victim ⁠87%

By Rusty Weiss⁠90%

7/7/2026, 12:15:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Tu Quoque, and Ad Hominem, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 58.4% saturation with 340 hits. Analysis detected 1,992 faulty-reasoning hits from 582 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (2,947 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.50% of the article peer group.

Former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene caught some well-earned heat after she posted — and quickly deleted — a sharp attack on the woman accusing Maine Democratic Senate nominee Graham Platner of rape. 
In the since-removed post, Greene questioned why the accuser, Jenny Racicot, waited years to go public and suggested she was turning past consensual encounters into “rape for politics.” 
The timing is more than a little ironic, coming from the same congresswoman who had spent months positioning herself as the loudest voice for Epstein survivors, pushing hard for a full release of the files, and ripping President Trump for allegedly slow-walking accountability for the elite. 
"If you are raped or sexually assaulted, report it immediately," she insisted in her phantom post. 
"Don’t wait for years later until the man runs for office to go to news outlets to tell your story." 
"And if you had consensual sex with him years ago, don’t turn it into rape for politics with conflicting stories." 
READ MORE: Graham Platner Was Already Disgusting — These Latest Unearthed Posts Make It Much Worse 
Watch: Dem Rep Melts Down and Slaps Reporter’s Phone Over Mundane Graham Platner Question 
What makes Greene’s deleted post even worse is that she didn’t stop there. 
She followed it up by pivoting straight into conspiracy territory, essentially suggesting the rape allegations against Platner were somehow tied to Israel. 
"I do find it interesting that Platner is hated by AIPAC and rape accusations show up years later from a woman who dated him," she said in defense of her new Nazi-tattooed friend. 
"I certainly hope any woman who is raped or sexually assaulted is safe and gets justice, that’s why it’s so important to report immediately and not wait years." 
"I’m not taking sides, just making observations," she said, clearly taking sides and making insinuations. 
To top it all off, Greene was quote-tweeting a Polymarket betting ad on whether Platner would drop out of the Senate race while taking shots at the accuser. 
MTG deletes her original post excusing allegations that Graham Platner raped someone, to then make it about Israel. 
Who is paying her for this? 
All of this is odd, considering MTG spent months burnishing her image as this fierce advocate for Epstein survivors, hailing their courage for coming forward years after the abuse, and blasting anyone who stood in the way of information being released. 
That included the President. 
She preened in front of cameras day after day with her buddy, Democrat Rep. 
Ro Khanna (CA-17), and her muse, Republican soon-to-be former Rep. 
Thomas Massie (KY-4), talking about the bravery of survivors. 
Racicot must not be the right kind of survivor for her tastes. 
Now, because the woman is accusing Platner of "absolutely" raping her, it's nothing more than "rape for politics." 
JAKE TAPPER: Did Graham Platner rape you? 
JENNY RACICOT: By definition? 
Yes, absolutely. 
The same woman who once said, “These women have fought the most horrific fight that no woman should have to fight, and they did it by banding together and never giving up,” wasted no time attacking Platner’s accuser. 
Until she realized just how bad it looked. 
What a raging hypocrite. 
Editor's Note: It’s America’s 250th birthday! 
Help RedState celebrate the greatest nation in history by honoring its past, defending its present, and preserving its future with reporting you can trust. 
Join RedState VIP and use promo code AMERICA250 to receive 74% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.7%Rusty Weiss: 9.6%RedState: 7.0%Confirmation Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.7%RedState: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 3.9%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.8%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 16.3%Rusty Weiss: 0.8%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias16.3%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 1.2%RedState: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Rusty Weiss: 13.0%RedState: 9.2%Framing Effect4.8%This article: 2.4%Rusty Weiss: 0.5%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion2.4%This article: 7.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.4%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Rusty Weiss: 0.4%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias4.1%This article: 4.5%Rusty Weiss: 2.0%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias4.5%This article: 50.3%Rusty Weiss: 19.8%RedState: 13.9%Negativity Bias50.3%This article: 7.0%Rusty Weiss: 1.9%RedState: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias7.0%This article: 2.1%Rusty Weiss: 2.2%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error2.1%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 4.5%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Rusty Weiss: 2.5%RedState: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.7%This article: 1.5%Rusty Weiss: 1.0%RedState: 2.0%Halo Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.8%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.8%Rusty Weiss: 1.5%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias4.8%This article: 10.7%Rusty Weiss: 0.9%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect10.7%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 20.8%Rusty Weiss: 10.0%RedState: 6.9%Ad Hominem20.8%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 2.3%RedState: 2.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.1%Rusty Weiss: 3.4%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority4.1%This article: 11.3%Rusty Weiss: 2.7%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma11.3%This article: 6.5%Rusty Weiss: 1.9%RedState: 1.4%Slippery Slope6.5%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.3%Rusty Weiss: 9.6%RedState: 10.1%Hasty Generalization14.3%This article: 4.8%Rusty Weiss: 1.3%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring4.8%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 1.5%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.3%Rusty Weiss: 9.3%RedState: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion9.3%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 2.1%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.8%Rusty Weiss: 4.9%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.8%This article: 25.6%Rusty Weiss: 3.1%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque25.6%This article: 6.7%Rusty Weiss: 2.5%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof6.7%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.4%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.5%Rusty Weiss: 2.0%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal6.5%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.5%Rusty Weiss: 1.8%RedState: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.5%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.1%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.3%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 4.8%Rusty Weiss: 0.7%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy4.8%This article: 8.4%Rusty Weiss: 3.8%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote8.4%This article: 2.7%Rusty Weiss: 2.3%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.7%This article: 58.4%Rusty Weiss: 24.5%RedState: 21.5%Biased Writer Voice58.4%This article: 4.1%Rusty Weiss: 4.5%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination4.1%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 0.3%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rusty Weiss: 14.5%RedState: 15.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Rusty Weiss: 4.2%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.5%

582 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers31%attributed speech399writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 16 words • 100.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 20 words • 0.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 33 words • 100.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMarjorie Taylor Greene • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageJake Tapper • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJenny Racicot • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJenny Racicot • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageRedState • 24 words • 100.0% coverageRedState • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

RedState

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words21% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%RedState: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-73.2 ptsWriter: 73.2%RedState: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+63.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%RedState: 63.2%63.2%

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.