CBS News98%
Watch: Blanche refuses to put end of "anti-weaponization" fund in writing 42%
6/2/2026, 6:32:54 PM
BS Summary: This video contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, and Availability Heuristic, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 47.8% saturation with 366 hits. Analysis detected 2,359 faulty-reasoning hits from 766 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.9% and a BS Rank of 42% (12,838 of 21,887 videos). This video is better (less manipulative) than 58.70% of the video peer group.
Mr. Attorney General, I wanted to ask a few questions about the anti-weaponization fund. We know that the department has agreed to pause this effort until at least June 12th.
I wanted to ask what your plans were for the fund after June 12th.
>> So, thank you. So, look, we're not moving forward with the fund.
You're right that there's a date that in the case in the Eastern District of Virginia in June, but we are not moving forward with the fund, period.
We we the reasons for the fund is something that President Trump talked about for a long time, which is the the fact that there were a lot of people in this country who had their government weaponized against them.
The reasons for the fund I think were remain as important as they were before, but we are not moving forward with the fund.
>> Not moving forward ever?
>> Correct.
>> Oh, there's no more fund then.
>> Well, to the extent there was a fund, remember the fund wasn't set up yet.
There were no commissioners made name, there was no no claimants brought anything in front of there was no claims made yet.
So, yes, we're not moving forward with the fund.
>> You and Associate Attorney General Woodward signed earlier documents regarding the settlement and this fund.
Would both of you now sign and release documents reversing the DOJ's position on the fund?
>> I'm not we're not moving forward with the fund. I'm not sure what that means to sign documents reversing. There's nothing to reverse. We're not moving forward with the fund.
>> We know about the court case, the decision when we've heard press reports obviously, but is there any way that you could put this in writing?
I don't know if there are other ways that you could use another vehicle to move forward with a similar fund or similar intention and we just want to reassure the American public. We've heard from both Republicans and Democrats constituents and Americans across the country about this fund.
And I think they would love to be reassured that this fund will not progress.
>> I'm I'm telling you it's not. I I don't I don't I I guess I'm not sure.
I'm not I'm not trying to be flippant with you. I'm just saying I'm telling you it's not. I'm not I'm not
that there's a we put out a statement yesterday. There's been a an injunction, a temporary injunction filed in EDVA. There's litigation in DC. There's litigation in the Southern District of Florida. But notwithstanding what we do in those litigations and then defending our rights and making sure our rights are protected, we're not moving forward the fund.
>> Okay. Yeah, the statement I thought was just about until June 12th.
So if it won't progress after June 12th, that's great to hear and we hope to to see this in writing.
>> I mean, I think there'll be a transcript to what I say here. So that that will be in [laughter] writing.
>> Okay. Well, we will work with you and hold you to it. Thank you very much.
>> Mr. Attorney General, I want to thank you for verbally committing to not moving forward with the so-called anti-weaponization fund. I just want to make sure are you going to issue a new memo in writing rescinding that May 18th memo?
>> I I I'm not committing to putting anything in writing. I've said it over and over again. I mean, I I don't know what the purpose of a putting something in writing. I'm telling you what we're doing. Meaning like what's the Why do I need to put something in writing if I'm telling you what we're doing?
>> You you you started it. You established it in writing. So it just makes sense to rescind it in writing.
I think a lot of Americans, both sides of the aisle, are concerned about it and it would restore a lot of trust about this issue.
>> Okay. I'm I'm not committing to doing anything in writing. No.
>> Okay.
>> I mean, I'll take it under advisement.
>> I'm just concerned cuz you're not under oath and I want to trust you and I want to believe you. We we all do.
But putting it in writing would would settle that issue.
Um,
I have 1 minute left.
Still want to ask uh, in writing, but,
um,
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.