RedState⁠95%

Uh-Oh: Fauci's Worst Nightmare May Have Just Landed in the Hands of Senate Republicans ⁠76%

By Teri Christoph⁠94%

8/5/2026, 1:50:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Politically Right Leaning Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 30.6% saturation with 110 hits. Analysis detected 926 faulty-reasoning hits from 360 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠76% (7,064 of 28,818 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.50% of the article peer group.

Some blockbuster news is dropping Wednesday night as pertains to the ongoing congressional investigations into Anthony Fauci: a copy of the diminutive doctor's COVID-era phone has landed in the hands of the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which is chaired by Sen. 
Ron Johnson (R-WI). 
According to an exclusive report in the Wall Street Journal, the phone was handed over by the Department of Health and Human Services, and is likely to contain additional records about Fauci's conduct during the pandemic. 
This comes a week after Sen. 
Rand Paul (R-KY) publicly released an archive of documents related to Fauci's handling of COVID, including his diaries. 
Per the Journal's reporting: "The phone was provided to the subcommittee by HHS, according to a spokeswoman for Johnson, the subcommittee’s chairman. 
HHS is led by Secretary Robert F. 
Kennedy Jr., a fierce Fauci critic who wrote a 2021 book accusing the doctor of close ties to pharmaceutical companies and a disregard for civil liberties. 
The phone could be part of more public document dumps on the way: Paul and Johnson have received millions of additional Fauci-related pages from government servers, people familiar with the matter said, and are still pressing for more. 
And at least four Republican-led states have meanwhile launched their own investigations into Fauci." 
Independent journalist Catherine Herridge confirmed the subcommittee was indeed in possession of the phone, observing it's a "critical development" following a looming contempt vote in the Senate and new probe by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier into possible criminal activity by Fauci. 
Sen. 
Paul will be leading a markup of criminal contempt charges against Fauci at a Thursday meeting of the full Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. 
The fun begins at 8:30 AM ET. 
Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at RedState, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical Left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve. 
Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. 
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 27.8%Teri Christoph: 5.5%RedState: 6.4%Confirmation Bias27.8%This article: 6.1%Teri Christoph: 0.1%RedState: 0.7%Anchoring Bias6.1%This article: 16.1%Teri Christoph: 2.8%RedState: 3.3%Availability Heuristic16.1%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.2%RedState: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.3%RedState: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 1.1%RedState: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Teri Christoph: 9.3%RedState: 8.6%Framing Effect11.1%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.2%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.7%RedState: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.6%Teri Christoph: 1.2%RedState: 1.5%Optimism Bias10.6%This article: 3.9%Teri Christoph: 1.7%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias3.9%This article: 30.6%Teri Christoph: 13.8%RedState: 13.0%Negativity Bias30.6%This article: 3.9%Teri Christoph: 1.9%RedState: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 3.2%RedState: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.5%RedState: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Teri Christoph: 7.5%RedState: 4.1%In-Group Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 3.3%RedState: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Teri Christoph: 1.1%RedState: 1.8%Halo Effect7.2%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.6%RedState: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 16.7%Teri Christoph: 0.8%RedState: 1.1%Recency Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.3%RedState: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Teri Christoph: 8.1%RedState: 6.0%Ad Hominem7.2%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 3.2%RedState: 2.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.9%Teri Christoph: 1.7%RedState: 2.9%Appeal to Authority3.9%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 1.3%RedState: 2.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.5%RedState: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.2%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 6.9%RedState: 9.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.1%RedState: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 11.7%Teri Christoph: 0.7%RedState: 0.8%Bandwagon11.7%This article: 19.4%Teri Christoph: 9.1%RedState: 7.7%Appeal to Emotion19.4%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 2.2%RedState: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.9%RedState: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.0%RedState: 0.7%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.7%RedState: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.5%RedState: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 1.6%RedState: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.4%RedState: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.8%RedState: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.0%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.2%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.7%Teri Christoph: 2.8%RedState: 2.3%Unattributed Quote11.7%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 1.4%RedState: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.6%Teri Christoph: 20.8%RedState: 19.3%Biased Writer Voice15.6%This article: 7.8%Teri Christoph: 4.8%RedState: 4.3%Indoctrination7.8%This article: 0.0%Teri Christoph: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 22.8%Teri Christoph: 14.0%RedState: 14.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias22.8%This article: 15.6%Teri Christoph: 5.0%RedState: 3.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…15.6%

360 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers19%attributed speech293writer words
Selected voice

Catherine Herridge

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words63% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Catherine Herridge: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning -28.0 ptsWriter: 28.0%Catherine Herridge: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-19.1 ptsWriter: 19.1%Catherine Herridge: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -19.1 ptsWriter: 19.1%Catherine Herridge: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-9.6 ptsWriter: 9.6%Catherine Herridge: 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.