Fox News98%

'DISASTER!': Former Dem megadonor delivers SCATHING party assessment 25%

5/22/2026, 1:00:05 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Slippery Slope, and Overconfidence Bias, with Representativeness Heuristic as the most egregious example at 7.7% saturation with 53 hits. Analysis detected 393 faulty-reasoning hits from 688 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.6% and a BS Rank of 25% (15,285 of 20,246 videos). This video is better (less manipulative) than 75.50% of the video peer group.

Democrats took control of the Congress. 
I think that uh and let's say took control of the country. 
Uh I think that this country's finished. 
These people are sick. 
They suffer from Trump derangement syndrome. 
But really they they they have bad policy. 
They have horrible policy. 
>> John Morgan is a former major Democrat donor. 
John, you were a mega donor to Democrats in 2024. 
I read you gave more than a million dollars. 
What do you think of the way your money was spent now that you've got this 192 page autopsy? 
>> Well, I didn't give a penny once Kamla got in. 
I that was it for me. 
So, but look, I don't know what they spent on this autopsy, but they could have given me nothing and I could have done it in a few seconds. 
One, DEI is D E A D. 
Two, woke needs to be put to sleep. 
Three, transgender swimmers don't get to swim against girls. 
It's unfair. 
Four, you need to seal the border tight. 
And five, anything to do with Kamla or her staff. 
They had as the Biden campaign manager Caesar Chavez's granddaughter running the campaign and she came from Kla Harris's office. 
That's the autopsy. 
Period. 
End of story. 
Get rid of all that and you don't need to have an autopsy. 
I just gave it to you. 
>> I I mean, I think that's spot on. 
Exactly what you just said. 
But here we are 18 months out from the election. 
You know, we're getting close to the two-year mark here. 
And yet, Democrats still, and I know you left the party, but they have a 72% approval rating with voters. 
Yes, they're poised to do well in the midterms historically, but that's not a good number. 
So, in your estimation, as a former Democrat, what do you see that they're doing wrong? 
>> What they always do wrong is they find a way to lose instead of trying to find a way to win. 
If you want to find a way to win as a Democrat, believe it or not, the Democrats got a deep bench right now. 
Pretty good bench. 
If you go with a guy like Andy Basher or Pritsker or uh Rahm Emanuel, you have a chance, but they may find a way to lose because if you go with anybody with socialist at the end of Democrat, you are going to lose because socialism is the first cousin to communism. 
And we always know how it goes. 
Socialism, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Russia. 
Socialism is the precursor to communism. 
I don't know why they insist on putting it behind their names, democratic socialists. 
But if they do that, they will lose. 
Again, >> one thing I found interesting in this report is the covering for Kamla. 
It it really reads as a document that maybe she herself pinned because there's not a lot of self-reflection there. 
In fact, they say the White House did not position or prepare the vice president. 
Do you think Biden and the White House could have fixed Kamla? 
>> No. 
I think what happened Kamla is a disaster. 
I mean, Kamla should just go away. 
Here's what happened with Kamla. 
Biden got pushed out. 
He had guys that were going to make a lot of money doing ads and working for him that kept him in. 
He stayed in too long. 
Biden got very pissed off about being pushed out and he said, "F you" to Pelosi and picked Kamla. 
And when he did that, he nailed the coffin shut. 
It didn't matter if she had the 1.7 billion or 2.7 billion. 
I'm from Kentucky and that dog won't hunt no matter how many billions. 
Kamla will not hunt in America. 
Yeah, Kamla will not hunt and yet she may be hunting for a new presidential bid. 
Uh, wow. 
We will see. 
John Morgan, thank you. 
Be sure to like and subscribe for all the Fox News latest on YouTube and catch full shows streaming now on Fox 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.7%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic7.7%This article: 3.2%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias3.2%This article: 6.0%Fox Nation: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias6.0%This article: 3.8%Fox Nation: 12.0%Framing Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias1.0%This article: 2.3%Fox Nation: 10.9%Negativity Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias0.9%This article: 0.6%Fox Nation: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.6%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem1.5%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.2%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority4.2%This article: 7.7%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma7.7%This article: 7.7%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope7.7%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.4%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization5.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.3%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion3.3%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.9%Fox Nation: 2.3%Anecdotal1.9%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

688 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker63%attributed speech256writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 53 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Morgan • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

John Morgan

43%flagged-word coverage
432 attributed words100% of attributed speech3.1% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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