Trump Unwilling to Sacrifice Slush Fund for Blanche 79%

By Klaus Marre97%

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 79% (5,649 of 26,807 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.90% 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 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.6%Klaus Marre: 10.3%WhoWhatWhy: 6.2%Confirmation Bias19.6%This article: 4.8%Klaus Marre: 0.7%WhoWhatWhy: 0.6%Anchoring Bias4.8%This article: 4.8%Klaus Marre: 2.8%WhoWhatWhy: 2.6%Availability Heuristic4.8%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.8%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 1.3%WhoWhatWhy: 1.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Klaus Marre: 1.7%WhoWhatWhy: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias5.4%This article: 14.6%Klaus Marre: 6.2%WhoWhatWhy: 4.4%Framing Effect14.6%This article: 6.4%Klaus Marre: 0.4%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Loss Aversion6.4%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.8%WhoWhatWhy: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.8%WhoWhatWhy: 2.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.0%Klaus Marre: 3.9%WhoWhatWhy: 2.9%Pessimism Bias22.0%This article: 46.5%Klaus Marre: 23.5%WhoWhatWhy: 13.9%Negativity Bias46.5%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 1.4%WhoWhatWhy: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Klaus Marre: 4.7%WhoWhatWhy: 2.3%Fundamental Attribution Error8.2%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 2.0%WhoWhatWhy: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 3.1%WhoWhatWhy: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.3%WhoWhatWhy: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 1.4%WhoWhatWhy: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 1.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.4%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.1%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Klaus Marre: 11.4%WhoWhatWhy: 5.2%Ad Hominem5.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 1.2%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 1.5%WhoWhatWhy: 2.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 3.0%WhoWhatWhy: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 5.0%Klaus Marre: 4.9%WhoWhatWhy: 2.1%Slippery Slope5.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.3%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.8%Klaus Marre: 16.6%WhoWhatWhy: 9.6%Hasty Generalization13.8%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.2%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.9%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 22.2%Klaus Marre: 9.4%WhoWhatWhy: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion22.2%This article: 9.4%Klaus Marre: 3.2%WhoWhatWhy: 1.3%Begging the Question9.4%This article: 10.2%Klaus Marre: 2.3%WhoWhatWhy: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.2%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.2%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 1.4%WhoWhatWhy: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.6%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.0%Klaus Marre: 2.7%WhoWhatWhy: 3.0%Anecdotal8.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.2%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.2%Klaus Marre: 1.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.2%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.3%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.5%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.0%Klaus Marre: 1.2%WhoWhatWhy: 0.4%Special Pleading4.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.2%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.6%Klaus Marre: 2.2%WhoWhatWhy: 2.4%Unattributed Quote5.6%This article: 5.6%Klaus Marre: 1.4%WhoWhatWhy: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection5.6%This article: 41.9%Klaus Marre: 37.9%WhoWhatWhy: 17.1%Biased Writer Voice41.9%This article: 9.4%Klaus Marre: 4.4%WhoWhatWhy: 2.8%Indoctrination9.4%This article: 17.6%Klaus Marre: 23.7%WhoWhatWhy: 9.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias17.6%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.2%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Klaus Marre: 0.5%WhoWhatWhy: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

499 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker12%attributed speech439writer words
Selected voice

Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
60 attributed words100% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-47.6 ptsWriter: 47.6%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+46.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 46.7%46.7%Quote-first Misdirection+46.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 46.7%46.7%Politically Left Leaning B-20.0 ptsWriter: 20.0%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-10.7 ptsWriter: 10.7%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.