Fox News89%

Minnesota AG Ellison lashes out when grilled on fraud scandal: 'I’m done talking to you' 61%

By Hannah Brennan0%

6/20/2026, 8:00:18 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Ad Hominem, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 39.3% saturation with 187 hits. Analysis detected 1,073 faulty-reasoning hits from 476 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.8% and a BS Rank of 61% (8,567 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.90% of the article peer group.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison lashed out when asked about his handling of the Minnesota fraud scandal following Vice President JD Vance's threat to refer him to the Justice Department, while pushing back on a widely cited $8 billion figure as only mentioned by those "aligned with the Trump Administration." 
"That is a false number," Ellison said. 
"The fact is, is that fraud is always wrong." 
"Why don't you give me a break, man?" 
he continued. 
The comments come as Vance, the head of the Trump administration’s new anti-fraud task force, threatened to press the Justice Department to open an investigation into Ellison’s alleged knowledge of the widespread fraud scheme in Minnesota. 
VANCE REFERS TIM WALZ, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DOJ FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OVER STATE'S ALLEGED FRAUD 
When asked about the common estimate of Minnesota fraud ballooning to about $8 billion, Ellison grew visibly frustrated with the reporter and ended the interview, claiming the number is only used by those of a certain political affiliation. 
"If you ask the newspapers for a forensic accounting, the number you mentioned is tightly identified with people of a very unique political persuasion aligned with the Trump administration," Ellison told Fox News Digital. 
"So, I’m done talking to you. 
Bye-bye," he said as he began walking away. 
MAGNITUDE ‘CANNOT BE OVERSTATED’: FEDS SAY MINNESOTA FRAUD MAY BE MORE THAN $9B 
When the reporter stated he had wanted Ellison to clear up the number and was citing a variety of reports, Ellison continued to question the claimed biases of his reporting. 
"It's wrong though. 
And if you're a real reporter, you should know that," he said, pointing to the Fox News Digital reporter. 
The estimate has been widely cited by both the House Oversight Committee and First Assistant U.S. 
Attorney Joe Thompson, who have argued that potentially billions of dollars were lost to fraud in Minnesota's public assistance programs. 
DEM-APPOINTED EDUCATION OFFICIALS FACE NEW SCRUTINY AS FEEDING OUR FUTURE SCANDAL WIDENS, TRUMP TARGETS FRAUD 
Thompson said investigators have reason to believe that roughly half of the $18 billion paid through 14 Medicaid programs since 2018 could have been part of a major fraud scheme. 
The scandal drew national attention through congressional investigations and a series of high-profile fraud cases involving federally funded nutrition, education and Medicaid-related programs. 
Prosecutors have alleged that multiple nonprofit organizations diverted millions of taxpayer dollars through fraudulent schemes, many of which expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic. 
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP 
Several of the most prominent cases, including the Feeding Our Future fraud scheme, were connected to Minnesota's Somali community. 
House Oversight Committee investigators have also argued that Ellison was aware of fraud concerns years before the scandal surfaced, citing interviews with education, human services and executive-office officials. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.3%Hannah Brennan: 1.3%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.2%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Hannah Brennan: 1.6%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 1.0%Fox Nation: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 24.4%Hannah Brennan: 5.0%Fox Nation: 11.9%Framing Effect24.4%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.6%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.7%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Hannah Brennan: 0.6%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias4.8%This article: 39.3%Hannah Brennan: 7.2%Fox Nation: 10.8%Negativity Bias39.3%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.4%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Hannah Brennan: 1.0%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias15.1%This article: 11.1%Hannah Brennan: 0.5%Fox Nation: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias11.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 1.4%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.8%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 19.1%Hannah Brennan: 2.7%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem19.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.1%Hannah Brennan: 2.6%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority18.1%This article: 8.0%Hannah Brennan: 1.3%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma8.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.2%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.3%Hannah Brennan: 3.5%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization6.3%This article: 6.3%Hannah Brennan: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring6.3%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.7%Hannah Brennan: 3.6%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion1.7%This article: 1.9%Hannah Brennan: 0.5%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question1.9%This article: 12.4%Hannah Brennan: 2.7%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.4%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.3%Hannah Brennan: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof1.3%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division4.0%This article: 1.9%Hannah Brennan: 0.9%Fox Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal1.9%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.1%Hannah Brennan: 0.5%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 7.1%Hannah Brennan: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy7.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.2%Hannah Brennan: 1.2%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection3.2%This article: 18.5%Hannah Brennan: 1.5%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice18.5%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Brennan: 0.8%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Hannah Brennan: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.7%

476 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers36%attributed speech304writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 100.0% coverageKeith Ellison • 7 words • 0.0% coverageKeith Ellison • 9 words • 0.0% coverageKeith Ellison • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageKeith Ellison • 34 words • 0.0% coverageKeith Ellison • 6 words • 0.0% coverageKeith Ellison • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageKeith Ellison • 3 words • 0.0% coverageKeith Ellison • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Thompson • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Thompson • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageHouse Oversight Committee • 28 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Keith Ellison

100%flagged-word coverage
94 attributed words55% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-28.9 ptsWriter: 28.9%Keith Ellison: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%Keith Ellison: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%Keith Ellison: 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.