ABC News99%

Former officers attacked on Jan. 6 sue administration over $1.8B fund 92%

5/21/2026, 12:10:00 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 42.3% saturation with 233 hits. Analysis detected 1,469 faulty-reasoning hits from 551 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 87.3% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,622 of 20,248 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 92.00% of the video peer group.

Two police officers who defended the capital against a violent mob on January 6th now suing to stop the Justice Department from giving payouts to the rioters who attacked them. 
Their lawsuit calling the president's new $1.8 billion fund a taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name. 
One of the officers suing, Daniel Hodges, seen here crying out as he's crushed in a doorframe. 
What message do you think it sends? 
It sends that if you commit violence in Donald Trump's name that you will be protected legally, you will be rewarded financially, and that is his way of keeping these people on retainer for the next time he wants to influence the course of history with mass violence. 
Hodges is among the roughly 140 officers injured that day. 
Harry Dunn was also assaulted as he fought to protect the capital. 
He too is suing and tells me this new fund is a slap in the face. 
This is taxpayer money that is being used and taxpayers don't want to pay for this. 
They damn sure don't want to reward the people that were responsible for one of the darkest days in American history, and that's what Donald Trump is doing, essentially rewarding them. 
But the president says the fund is needed to pay people he claims were mistreated by the Biden Justice Department. 
Roughly 600 people were charged with obstruction or assaulting police officers in connection with January 6th. 
At least 170 pleaded guilty and dozens others were found guilty by juries. 
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche brushing off concerns that people who were convicted of hurting police may get a taxpayer payout. 
Just to be clear, people that hurt police get money all the time. 
But on Capitol Hill, a growing number of Republicans outraged. 
>> I'm a supporter. 
I think it's a You can't do that. 
If someone is damaged by the federal government right now, there is already a process in place to be able to get restitution for that. 
So, yeah, we we've got a lot of questions. >> it's irresponsible. 
It sends a signal, "Hey, go breach the Capitol, destroy the building, assault police officers. 
You may even get compensated for someday." 
That's absurd. 
And one of the president's long-time allies is already trying to benefit from this fund. 
Former Trump official Michael Caputo filing the first known claim. 
He's requesting 2.7 million dollars claiming he was targeted by the FBI's probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, George. 
>> And Mary, this deal also protects the president's family from paying for any tax violations by them. 
But at the same time, we have new polling showing that more Americans than ever are worried about how the president is handling the economy and their financial situation. 
Yeah, exactly, George. 
And in fact, the president's approval rating for his handling of the economy is now at the lowest point of either of his terms, according to a new Quinnipiac poll with 33% approving and 64% disapproving. 
And when it comes to those rising gas prices, 55% of voters said they blame the president a lot for the pain at the pump, George. 
Mary, Bruce, thanks. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 29.2%ABC News: 2.2%Confirmation Bias29.2%This article: 6.5%ABC News: 0.6%Anchoring Bias6.5%This article: 25.4%ABC News: 3.1%Availability Heuristic25.4%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.4%ABC News: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.4%This article: 42.3%ABC News: 6.8%Framing Effect42.3%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.5%ABC News: 0.4%Status Quo Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 1.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 33.4%ABC News: 7.7%Negativity Bias33.4%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%ABC News: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error8.7%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%ABC News: 0.8%In-Group Bias6.7%This article: 1.8%ABC News: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%ABC News: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 3.3%ABC News: 0.1%Straw Man3.3%This article: 3.6%ABC News: 3.4%Appeal to Authority3.6%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 10.0%ABC News: 0.2%Slippery Slope10.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.4%ABC News: 2.8%Hasty Generalization21.4%This article: 4.5%ABC News: 0.3%Red Herring4.5%This article: 14.7%ABC News: 0.5%Bandwagon14.7%This article: 21.1%ABC News: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion21.1%This article: 1.5%ABC News: 0.7%Begging the Question1.5%This article: 5.6%ABC News: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.6%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.0%ABC News: 1.2%Anecdotal6.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 3.8%ABC News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy3.8%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 1.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.0%ABC News: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice2.0%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 6.0%ABC News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.0%This article: 1.8%ABC News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%ABC News: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

551 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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