BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 32.3% saturation with 218 hits. Analysis detected 967 faulty-reasoning hits from 674 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.8% and a BS Rank of 43% (12,089 of 21,197 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.00% of the article peer group.

The 70th defendant has pleaded guilty to wire fraud in the $250 million fraud known as Feeding Our Future that stole money meant to feed hungry kids. 
Abdirashid Bixi Dool, 36, pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud for his role in the Feeding Our Future fraud scheme of more than $330,000. 
Dool pleaded guilty on July 13, 2026, and faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison. 
Sentencing will be scheduled at a later date. 
According to court documents, from about March 2021 through December 2021, Dool and his co-conspirators submitted fraudulent reimbursement claims to Feeding Our Future on behalf of two Minnesota nonprofit organizations, Bilaal Mosque, Inc. and Multicultural Resource Center, Inc. 
(MRC). 
Although the nonprofits claimed to be operating meal sites in Pelican Rapids and Moorhead, Minnesota, that served tens of thousands of meals to children, the actual number of meals served was only a fraction of what was reported. 
“This guilty plea is another step toward restoring integrity to programs meant to support children and families, and it highlights the importance of strong interagency cooperation to stop the fraud and seek accountability for taxpayers,” said United States Attorney Daniel N. 
Rosen. 
As part of the scheme, Dool knowingly submitted falsified meal count sheets, inflated food purchase invoices, and fabricated rosters of children purportedly served at the sites. 
On some occasions, he knowingly and falsely claimed the sites served over 40,000 meals per week. 
“Programs like the Federal Child Nutrition Program were created to help children at a time when many families were struggling just to put food on the table,” said Adam Jobes, Special Agent in Charge, IRS Criminal Investigation, Chicago Field Office. 
“Exploiting that hardship for personal gain is a betrayal of the public’s trust. 
Working shoulder to shoulder with our federal law enforcement partners, IRS Criminal Investigation will continue to follow the financial trail, expose these schemes, and hold accountable those who steal from programs meant to help our most vulnerable.” 
In total, between approximately March 2021 and February 2022, Bilaal and MRC claimed to have served over 505,000 meals to children. 
The fraudulent submissions led the Minnesota Department of Education to pay nearly $1.1 million in federal child‑nutrition funds to the two nonprofit entities. 
“The conviction of Abdirashid Dool reflects the FBI’s commitment to protecting Minnesotans and holding offenders accountable wherever they attempt to operate. 
The FBI, alongside our partners in the IRS-CI and the United States Attorney’s Office, will continue to aggressively pursue cases across the state to ensure those who misuse American taxpayer dollars are brought to justice,” said FBI Minneapolis Field Office Special Agent in Charge Christopher D. 
Dotson. 
This case is part of an ongoing federal investigation into fraud involving pandemic‑related child‑nutrition programs. 
“Today's guilty plea showcases our commitment to holding accountable the criminal actors who abused the U.S. 
Mail in an effort to commit widespread fraud and to divert funds intended for those most in need,” said Bryan Musgrove, Inspector in Charge of the U.S. 
Postal Inspection Service's Denver Division. 
“We stand ready with our law enforcement partners to investigate and prosecute those who exploit taxpayer-funded benefit programs through fraud schemes.” 
This case is the result of an investigation conducted by the FBI, U.S. 
Postal Inspection Service, IRS Criminal Investigation, and Homeland Security Investigations. 
“Financial fraud threatens the integrity of our communities, and HSI is unwavering in our commitment to confront it,” said Homeland Security Investigations St. 
Paul Special Agent in Charge Michael McCarthy. 
“By working side by side with our partners, we ensure those who commit these crimes are held accountable and justice is served.” 
Assistant United States Attorneys Rebecca E. 
Kline, Matthew C. 
Murphy, and Austin L. 
Bowyer are prosecuting the case. 
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? 
Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. 
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.1%Scott McClallen: 2.3%Townhall: 5.3%Confirmation Bias6.1%This article: 6.5%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.5%Townhall: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.4%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.3%Townhall: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 32.3%Scott McClallen: 7.4%Townhall: 11.3%Framing Effect32.3%This article: 2.1%Scott McClallen: 0.3%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion2.1%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Scott McClallen: 0.9%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias3.4%This article: 22.1%Scott McClallen: 8.4%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias22.1%This article: 1.9%Scott McClallen: 1.9%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.9%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Scott McClallen: 2.9%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias3.1%This article: 2.5%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.5%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.5%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.3%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.6%Townhall: 5.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 2.5%Scott McClallen: 0.4%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man2.5%This article: 15.4%Scott McClallen: 4.4%Townhall: 4.5%Appeal to Authority15.4%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 2.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.5%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 2.2%Townhall: 9.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.1%Scott McClallen: 0.6%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon2.1%This article: 25.8%Scott McClallen: 10.3%Townhall: 11.3%Appeal to Emotion25.8%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.1%Townhall: 2.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.4%Townhall: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.7%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.8%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 2.0%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 3.3%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.9%Scott McClallen: 5.3%Townhall: 16.2%Biased Writer Voice5.9%This article: 2.5%Scott McClallen: 3.9%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination2.5%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Scott McClallen: 5.4%Townhall: 13.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.5%This article: 6.5%Scott McClallen: 3.6%Townhall: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.5%

674 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers8.0%attributed speech620writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageUnited States Attorney Daniel N. • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Jobes, Special Agent in Charge, IRS Criminal Investigation, Chicago Field Office • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words76% of attributed speech70% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.1 ptsWriter: 7.1%United States Attorney Daniel N.: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%United States Attorney Daniel N.: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%United States Attorney Daniel N.: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -2.7 ptsWriter: 2.7%United States Attorney Daniel N.: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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