Trump: This Fund Isn't For Me, It's For The People Obama And Biden 'Destroyed' ⁠81%

By Conover Kennard⁠88%

8/1/2026, 5:22:24 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 64% saturation with 238 hits. Analysis detected 1,424 faulty-reasoning hits from 372 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (5,258 of 26,693 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.30% of the article peer group.

Donald J. 
Trump is once again pushing the assertion that he and his allies were unfairly targeted by the Justice Department under Presidents Obama and Biden — and this time, he's arguing that no group of people, "most likely," has ever been treated worse. 
Sure thing, buddy. 
Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6th to stop the peaceful transition of power at his direction. 
We've seen it on video. 
But he knows the gullibility of his base. 
His supporters spread feces on the walls of the Capitol, but Trump will blame Biden and/or Obama for that, too. 
"I'm talking about weaponization against large numbers of people in our country by the Biden administration and by Obama, but by the Biden administration in particular in this case," Trump said. 
"But large numbers of people, their lives have been ruined. 
They've been destroyed. 
Their families have been, you know, decimated. 
They've gone to prison for no reason whatsoever." 
After that came the comparison: "There's never been a group of people, most likely, I mean, I can think of a couple that was treated pretty badly, groups, but there's essentially never been a group of people treated so badly as these people." 
Trump added that a fund set up in connection with all this "was not for me" — it was, he claimed, for the people who have supposedly suffered this unprecedented mistreatment. 
It's a remarkable claim on its face — that a group of Trump allies who ran afoul of federal investigators ranks among the most persecuted in history — and one that Trump delivered with his characteristic hedge ("most likely," "I can think of a couple") before doubling down anyway. 
Look at this crybaby: 
This follows Trump's fit on Truth Social where he appeared to be scripting an exit strategy for Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, a nominee he can't actually get confirmed. 
A DOJ order signed by Blanche barred the IRS from auditing Trump (a notorious tax cheat), his family, and his businesses for past tax returns. 
That didn't play out well with a judge, though. 
So, when he said it's not about him, unsurprisingly, he lied. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 29.3%Conover Kennard: 11.2%Crooks and Liars: 6.8%Confirmation Bias29.3%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 1.3%Crooks and Liars: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Conover Kennard: 5.7%Crooks and Liars: 3.0%Availability Heuristic8.1%This article: 11.6%Conover Kennard: 2.6%Crooks and Liars: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic11.6%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.9%Crooks and Liars: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Conover Kennard: 2.8%Crooks and Liars: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias11.6%This article: 12.1%Conover Kennard: 15.3%Crooks and Liars: 6.9%Framing Effect12.1%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.7%Crooks and Liars: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.7%Crooks and Liars: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Conover Kennard: 0.5%Crooks and Liars: 2.1%Pessimism Bias3.0%This article: 26.1%Conover Kennard: 15.4%Crooks and Liars: 17.1%Negativity Bias26.1%This article: 31.5%Conover Kennard: 7.9%Crooks and Liars: 3.6%Self-Serving Bias31.5%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.3%Crooks and Liars: 1.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 7.8%Conover Kennard: 0.9%Crooks and Liars: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias7.8%This article: 2.2%Conover Kennard: 0.3%Crooks and Liars: 1.8%In-Group Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.5%Crooks and Liars: 1.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 2.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 21.0%Conover Kennard: 2.5%Crooks and Liars: 1.2%Recency Bias21.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.3%Crooks and Liars: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Conover Kennard: 0.3%Crooks and Liars: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.2%This article: 12.4%Conover Kennard: 4.6%Crooks and Liars: 11.3%Ad Hominem12.4%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.7%Crooks and Liars: 1.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.7%Conover Kennard: 2.3%Crooks and Liars: 3.1%Appeal to Authority6.7%This article: 2.2%Conover Kennard: 2.5%Crooks and Liars: 2.0%False Dilemma2.2%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 27.4%Conover Kennard: 14.3%Crooks and Liars: 9.6%Hasty Generalization27.4%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 1.9%Crooks and Liars: 1.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.9%Conover Kennard: 7.7%Crooks and Liars: 8.6%Appeal to Emotion5.9%This article: 13.4%Conover Kennard: 3.6%Crooks and Liars: 1.5%Begging the Question13.4%This article: 7.8%Conover Kennard: 1.2%Crooks and Liars: 1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.8%This article: 5.4%Conover Kennard: 0.7%Crooks and Liars: 1.4%Tu Quoque5.4%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.8%Crooks and Liars: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.8%Conover Kennard: 3.3%Crooks and Liars: 1.3%Anecdotal4.8%This article: 11.6%Conover Kennard: 2.6%Crooks and Liars: 0.7%No True Scotsman11.6%This article: 23.9%Conover Kennard: 3.2%Crooks and Liars: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)23.9%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 1.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.3%Conover Kennard: 3.1%Crooks and Liars: 2.8%Unattributed Quote11.3%This article: 7.8%Conover Kennard: 0.9%Crooks and Liars: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection7.8%This article: 64.0%Conover Kennard: 30.0%Crooks and Liars: 22.6%Biased Writer Voice64.0%This article: 5.4%Conover Kennard: 0.7%Crooks and Liars: 1.4%Indoctrination5.4%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 9.6%Crooks and Liars: 9.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Conover Kennard: 0.8%Crooks and Liars: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

372 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker27%attributed speech270writer words
Selected voice

Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
102 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%45.0%90.0%Biased Writer Voice-88.1 ptsWriter: 88.1%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+26.3 ptsWriter: 4.1%Trump: 30.4%30.4%Quote-first Misdirection-10.7 ptsWriter: 10.7%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -9.3 ptsWriter: 9.3%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-7.4 ptsWriter: 7.4%Trump: 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.