ABC News⁠99%

Trump won't rule out payments to Jan. 6 rioters ⁠91%

6/7/2026, 4:39:01 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 58.6% saturation with 140 hits. Analysis detected 948 faulty-reasoning hits from 239 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 84.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠91% (2,082 of 21,887 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 90.50% of the video peer group.

So, President Trump abruptly ended this sitdown interview with NBC when he was pressed for evidence on various unsubstantiated claims. 
Take a listen. >> Let's call it quits because I've had enough. 
Thank you, darling. Have a good time. 
>> Mr. President, let's please. I traveled all the way to Wisconsin. 
>> During that interview, Trump made unsubstantiated claims that last week's California elections are rigged because after several days, he says the state isn't even close to finishing the count. 
The Trump Justice Department is now sending in a federal prosecutor to investigate voter fraud allegations in California. 
But California has this notoriously slow vote counting process that's driven by its high volume of mail and ballots. 
Some don't arrive until a week after election day. 
And ballot counting can take up to 30 days after the election. 
As long as they're postmarked by election day, they're counted. 
In that interview, the president also refused to rule out taxpayer compensation to riers who attacked the capital on January 6, even those convicted of assaulting police officers. 
The president is still pushing his $ 1.8 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund to compensate those who claim they were wrongly targeted by the Justice Department during the Biden administration. 
The president making these claims despite the acting attorney general announcing that they're scrapping the fund after we saw rare revolt from Senate Republicans. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
13.8%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
10%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
44.8%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
12.1%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
58.6%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
20.1%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
11.7%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
15.1%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
24.7%
False Dilemma
16.3%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
16.3%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
25.5%
Begging the Question
20.9%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
18%
Tu Quoque
21.8%
Burden of Proof
24.3%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
22.6%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
12.1%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
4.2%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
3.8%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

239 words analyzed.

Analysis

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