Trump Unwilling to Sacrifice Slush Fund for Blanche 73%

By Klaus Marre89%

7/30/2026, 12:44:08 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 46.5% saturation with 232 hits. Analysis detected 1,490 faulty-reasoning hits from 499 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.4% and a BS Rank of 73% (6,206 of 22,363 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.30% of the article peer group.

How much does Donald Trump want to use nearly $2 billion in taxpayer money to reward the people who committed crimes on his behalf? 
Apparently enough to torpedo the nomination of his former personal lawyer as attorney general. 
While Todd Blanche has served in that role in an acting capacity, the Senate Judiciary Committee was slated to confirm him permanently for the position on Thursday. 
However, that vote was postponed when it became clear that two Republicans on the panel  Sens. 
John Cornyn (TX) and Thom Tillis (NC)  were unwilling to advance the nomination to the Senate because of their concerns over Trump’s slush fund and an immunity agreement that shields the president, his family, and his businesses from IRS audits. 
While Blanche has assured lawmakers that the so-called “anti-weaponization fund” is dead, he seems unwilling to put that in writing. 
A written assurance, however, is what it will take to earn the support of the two senators. 
Now, Trump is apparently fed up with the two  and unwilling to give up on the phony sweetheart deal that his Department of Justice brokered with his IRS after the president filed a frivolous lawsuit against his own administration. 
In a social media post in which he pointed out that he ended their political careers, he blasted the pair for “refusing to vote for this Great Nominee.” 
He added that he has “no objection to temporarily withdrawing Todd’s name, if they do not do the right thing, and putting him back after Cornyn and Tillis are out of office.” 
On the one hand, the downside for Trump is somewhat limited since Blanche can remain the acting attorney general and continue to do his bidding instead of that of the American people, for example, when it comes to the Epstein files. 
There is, however, a small problem with his plan: At the rate things are going, the Democrats may be in the majority come next year. 
At the very least, the GOP is on track to lose a couple of seats and may not have the votes to confirm Blanche in January either. 
Trump’s tantrum shows that his hammerlock on Senate Republicans is slipping a bit  in large part because he has attacked so many of them. 
Above all, however, the president is making it quite clear that he is unwilling to give up on the idea that American taxpayers should compensate those of his supporters who stormed the Capitol and attacked law enforcement officers in their attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss. 
While their pardon on the first day of his second term in office already proved that misdeeds committed on his behalf will go unpunished, the slush fund is meant to show that they will be richly rewarded. 
That’s certainly a powerful message to send ahead of midterms that Republicans are on track to lose. 
Trump Unwilling to Sacrifice Slush Fund for Blanche originally appeared on WhoWhatWhy 
Confirmation Bias
19.6%
Anchoring Bias
4.8%
Availability Heuristic
4.8%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
5.4%
Framing Effect
14.6%
Loss Aversion
6.4%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
22%
Negativity Bias
46.5%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
8.2%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
5%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
5%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
13.8%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
22.2%
Begging the Question
9.4%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
10.2%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
8%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
8.2%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
4%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
5.6%
Quote-first Misdirection
5.6%
Biased Writer Voice
41.9%
Indoctrination
9.4%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
17.6%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

499 words analyzed.

Analysis

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