Fox News89%

Joy Behar invokes Nazi Nuremberg trials in warning to service members following 'illegal orders'0%

By Marc Tamasco0%

11/26/2025, 9:36:32 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Availability Heuristic, and Appeal to Emotion, with Slippery Slope as the most egregious example at 15.1% saturation with 72 hits. Analysis detected 769 faulty-reasoning hits from 478 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

"The View" co-host Joy Behar invoked the Nazi Nuremberg trials on Tuesday in her warning to service members who may be following "illegal orders" from the Trump administration. 
While discussing the Pentagon's investigation into the members of Congress featured in the video, Behar recommended the audience watch a recently released film called "Nuremberg," a movie based on the Allied trials of Nazi leaders after World War II. 
"It's about the Nuremberg trials of the Nazis after World War II  and following orders is not a defense. 
So these soldiers have to pay attention," she warned. 
Before delivering her warning to service members about "following orders," Behar played a clip of Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., one of the six members of Congress featured in the "illegal orders" video, explaining why lawmakers decided to release it. 
"These are the things that [Slotkin's] talking about. 
Carrying out military strikes on boats in the Caribbean without congressional approval. 
That's an illegal order," Behar noted of the senator's explanation. 
Behar also referenced former Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper's claim that President Donald Trump inquired about shooting protesters in the legs during the George Floyd protests in 2020. 
Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin pushed back on Behar's comments, arguing that the military carrying out drone strikes in the Caribbean and the hypothetical scenario of Trump ordering service members to shoot protesters should not be conflated. 
"But these are things that could be potentially construed as illegal orders. 
Using major American cities as a training ground for the military," Behar responded. 
Griffin once again pushed back on Behar, arguing that there would be a "major problem" at the Pentagon if rank and file members of the military were to begin questioning the orders of their superiors. 
"I think that this is actually a much broader conversation about congressional authorization, because there have been many military strikes under many presidents that have not gone through congressional authorization. 
And you would have a major problem at the Pentagon if you had rank and files raising their hands saying, 'I don't know if this got congressional authorization,'" Griffin, who had previously worked at the Pentagon, contended. 
Co-host Ana Navarro pointed to U.S. Navy Admiral Alvin Holsey  formerly in charge of military operations in the Caribbean  as an example of a military leader who chose to resign rather than carry out orders he believed were unlawful. 
"But guys, we've droned people abroad without due process," Griffin responded to Navarro's point. 
"Like there's things  America has bigger issues that are bigger than Donald Trump. 
I'd be very careful about saying the U.S. Military should stand up and defy orders from their generals. 
They should pay attention to the clear unlawful orders." 
"You know when an order is outside of the Constitution," she added. 
The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 1.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 2.6%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.0%Marc Tamasco: 2.8%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic14.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Marc Tamasco: 12.8%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.5%Marc Tamasco: 23.3%Fox Nation: 11.9%Framing Effect11.5%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 7.7%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 6.6%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 2.3%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 3.2%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Marc Tamasco: 11.8%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias8.2%This article: 3.8%Marc Tamasco: 1.2%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.8%This article: 11.7%Marc Tamasco: 23.2%Fox Nation: 10.8%Negativity Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 3.4%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 8.8%Fox Nation: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Marc Tamasco: 3.7%Fox Nation: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 4.0%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 0.8%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 0.1%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Marc Tamasco: 1.5%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.2%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 8.4%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Marc Tamasco: 3.6%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 13.1%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 4.4%Marc Tamasco: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.4%This article: 14.4%Marc Tamasco: 5.6%Fox Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal14.4%This article: 7.7%Marc Tamasco: 8.8%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority7.7%This article: 12.3%Marc Tamasco: 13.7%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion12.3%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 0.5%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.3%Marc Tamasco: 1.4%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon6.3%This article: 4.6%Marc Tamasco: 2.7%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question4.6%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.2%Marc Tamasco: 3.6%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma4.2%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 5.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 5.2%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 1.6%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 4.6%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 5.9%Marc Tamasco: 1.2%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring5.9%This article: 15.1%Marc Tamasco: 5.8%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope15.1%This article: 0.0%Marc Tamasco: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 3.8%Marc Tamasco: 6.8%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man3.8%This article: 9.2%Marc Tamasco: 0.6%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque9.2%

478 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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