Raw Story⁠93%

'Dreadful copout': Susan Collins rebuked for 'shameful' defense of Trump nominee ⁠95%

By Matthew Chapman⁠86%

7/16/2026, 5:43:44 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 55.7% saturation with 215 hits. Analysis detected 1,334 faulty-reasoning hits from 386 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 90.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠95% (1,302 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 94.10% of the article peer group.

Sen. 
Susan Collins (R-ME) stuck her neck out for Jay Clayton , President Donald Trump's nominee to be Director of National Intelligence, when confronted about his refusal to definitively refute Trump's election conspiracy theories. 
Clayton, now the U.S. 
Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said that President Joe Biden was "certified" as president in 2020, but refused after repeatedly being pressed to say that he "won" the election — leading Democrats to accuse him of toeing the line so as not to upset his boss. 
But Collins, speaking to CNN's Manu Raju, denied there was any issue, and scolded Democrats for being bent out of shape. 
“[DNI] does not certify elections, and he made very clear over and over again that Joe Biden had been certified as the winner of the election. 
I'm not sure what my colleagues were seeking further,” said Collins, who is facing a tough re-election battle this November. 
This response drew further outrage from commenters on social media. 
"Coward," wrote former Biden strategist Chris D. 
Jackson. 
"Shameful," wrote CNN political commentator Karen Finney. 
"A dreadful copout," wrote House staffer Aaron Fritschner. 
"The current DNI and his predecessor have been central to Trump's attempts to undermine past election results and cheat in future elections, leading up to tonight's speech. 
Susan Collins knows that." 
"I’ll take a swing," wrote pollster Adam Carlson. 
"Your colleagues are seeking for Jay Clayton to say that Trump lost the 2020 election and show a willingness to recognize basic realities — some would say an important attribute for the next Director of National Intelligence to have." 
"I'm a Collins fan, but this is bad," wrote former GOP Senate staffer and Society for the Rule of Law executive director Gregg Nunziata. 
"It's a disgrace that so many powerful people, members of a great political party, need to contort and debase themselves to humor the ravings of an insecure, power-abusing president." 
"This gaslighting will not work," wrote political strategist and former Democratic Senate staffer Lauren Henson. 
"She may think we're all stupid, but we all heard what he said and refused to say it with our own ears. 
Tired of this fake moderate schtick when she's repeatedly voted for extremists to occupy the highest levels of our government." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 25.6%Matthew Chapman: 7.5%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias25.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Matthew Chapman: 4.1%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic8.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 26.9%Matthew Chapman: 17.2%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect26.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Matthew Chapman: 2.9%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias5.2%This article: 55.7%Matthew Chapman: 22.8%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias55.7%This article: 5.2%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias5.2%This article: 1.0%Matthew Chapman: 3.4%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error1.0%This article: 12.7%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias12.7%This article: 13.7%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias13.7%This article: 12.7%Matthew Chapman: 1.4%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.2%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 21.8%Matthew Chapman: 6.5%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem21.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.1%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority10.1%This article: 10.1%Matthew Chapman: 3.9%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma10.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.2%Matthew Chapman: 10.2%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization12.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.6%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon2.6%This article: 35.8%Matthew Chapman: 7.9%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion35.8%This article: 4.9%Matthew Chapman: 2.1%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question4.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 3.5%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.2%Matthew Chapman: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof5.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.7%Matthew Chapman: 4.0%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal5.7%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.7%Matthew Chapman: 3.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.7%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 26.4%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote26.4%This article: 2.8%Matthew Chapman: 4.4%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.8%This article: 29.0%Matthew Chapman: 16.7%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice29.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.9%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.5%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

386 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers76%attributed speech91writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageJay Clayton • 49 words • 100.0% coverageSusan Collins • 21 words • 100.0% coverageSusan Collins • 26 words • 100.0% coverageSusan Collins • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageChris D. Jackson • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageKaren Finney • 7 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Fritschner • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Carlson • 8 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Carlson • 39 words • 0.0% coverageGregg Nunziata • 24 words • 0.0% coverageGregg Nunziata • 29 words • 0.0% coverageLauren Henson • 15 words • 0.0% coverageLauren Henson • 22 words • 0.0% coverageLauren Henson • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lauren Henson

100%flagged-word coverage
57 attributed words19% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Biased Writer Voice-78.0 ptsWriter: 78.0%Lauren Henson: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-22.0 ptsWriter: 22.0%Lauren Henson: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-12.1 ptsWriter: 12.1%Lauren Henson: 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.