Fox News98%

MASS SCHEME: California’s election ‘REGIME’ SLAMMED by GOP senator 69%

6/5/2026, 12:30:24 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 39 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 33.2% saturation with 263 hits. Analysis detected 2,227 faulty-reasoning hits from 791 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.6% and a BS Rank of 69% (6,544 of 21,097 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 69.00% of the video peer group.

Here to break it all down, what Congresscould actually do here to fix this mess, 
Missouri Senator Eric Schmidt of theSenate Judiciary Committee and KentuckyCongressman James Comr, chair of theHouse Oversight Committee. 
Both of you,thank you very much for appearingtogether. 
I know you don't often do that, but uh I'll start with you,Senator. 
Could the Judiciary Committeetake some control here, appoint a special master, do a real investigationof this California process under theguarantee clause? 
Yeah, it's Congress'srole. 
In fact, in the Bordon case,the Supreme Court was very clear thatCongress is the one to guarantee that 
you have that Republican form ofgovernment. And you look at what'shappening in California. Their electionregime now is destroying trust in ourelection system. 
They can't ask for a a 
vot ID. 
They have this mass mail andballoting scheme. 
A dog named Maya uhactually voted a couple years ago andthe person finally turned themselves in 
on it even though the state ofCalifornia didn't do anything to catchit. 
Uh, and of course the ballots arebeing counted days and weeks after theelection. 
And and Laura, I'll just makethis point too. 
This didn't used to be apartisan issue. 
Um, the uh there was abipartisan commission 20 years ago, thethe um the Carter Baker Commission thatsaid, "Hey, here are the 10 things youcan do to make sure our elections aresecure." 
California is violating almostall of those now out of raw power play. 
And uh we should do something about itand certainly something I'm going tofight for. 
I chair the subcommittee onthe Constitution and the JudiciaryCommittee, and we're gonna look intothis. 
All right, Congressman Comr. Uhwhether it's the oversight committee orjudiciary over in the House, same typeof analysis applies. 
The LA Times isreporting, by the way, that last month,the Humbult County Office of Electionsdiscovered a stack of 596 sealed ballotsfrom the most recent election left atthe bottom of a locked voting dropbox. 
The office discovered that the ballotswere uncounted because of a staff error. 
When the workers checked the dropbox,there was a miscommunication aboutwhether it had been fully emptied. 
>> Yeah. 
>> This I mean, I'd say you can't make itup, but this is California. Congressman, 
what can the House do here? 
>> Well, we've already had hearings in theoversight committee pertaining to mailinballots. We had them last year, and wehad the postmaster general. Uh, we askedhim, "How long should it take for a 
ballot? How long should a a voter assumeit's going to take for the post office to deliver that ballot?" and he said at 
least seven days. So most states say youhave to have the ballots in obviously byelection day, but they encourage you to 
mail them no later than than seven daysout. 
And with the dropboxes, I've alwayssaid the dropboxes should be eliminated 
because a lot of times in Kentucky, ifsomeone is arrested and and convictedfor voter fraud, it's always uh italways pertains to absentee ballots and 
and one of the charges they get on them ismail-in fraud. 
So if you just have dropdrop boxes, you you take out a tool inthe toolbox to hold people accountablefor cheating. 
Uh these people inCalifornia know that they know all thetricks of the trade just like what we'reseeing with these fraudsters in thewelfare fraud and all these blue states 
and it's despicable and I hope thatCongress can do something about it. 
>> Yeah. Well, as as I was saying, you ahearing on on mailin ballots, you know, 
as a general matter, that's one thing, 
but I'm talking about this process inCalifornia, Senator, which is perverse. 
The fact that we don't know who's thereare tanches of voters uh votes arriving 
tomorrow, we're told, like we don'tknow, I guess, what Orange County'scurrent ballot count is right now. 
Wouldn't anybody like to know that? Iwould like to know that. You know, we're 
seeing the registar, you know, countyclerk uh video now, but we don't knowhow many Republicans are there, how many 
observers are there. Should the JusticeDepartment send observers? I I don'tknow. I don't know how this can work, 
but something's got to change. 
>> Well, I do think there needs to be aninvestigation. 
When you see these manyirregularities, 
uh the broader context of it, Laura, isit destroys Americans faith in ourelections and in in a republic, we relyon that that people have to believe thattheir vote actually matters, that onlypeople who are registered to vote, whoare can vote are voting and that thosevotes are being counted. 
And so what 
California is doing here again in thiscrazy Democrat scheme uh to to sort ofrig the elections here in you know and I don't know what else you call it like I don't know what else you call it when you have a system where people can't 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.6%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias6.6%This article: 1.9%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias1.9%This article: 15.2%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic15.2%This article: 8.8%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.8%This article: 0.9%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.9%This article: 0.4%Fox Nation: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias0.4%This article: 3.4%Fox Nation: 12.0%Framing Effect3.4%This article: 8.6%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion8.6%This article: 0.9%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias1.8%This article: 2.5%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias2.5%This article: 30.0%Fox Nation: 10.9%Negativity Bias30.0%This article: 3.2%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 3.2%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error3.2%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias8.6%This article: 8.7%Fox Nation: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias4.0%This article: 7.2%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect7.2%This article: 2.3%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.3%This article: 3.5%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem3.5%This article: 5.8%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man5.8%This article: 25.4%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority25.4%This article: 3.3%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 9.7%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope9.7%This article: 3.9%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning3.9%This article: 33.2%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization33.2%This article: 1.5%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring1.5%This article: 3.0%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon3.0%This article: 25.4%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion25.4%This article: 2.8%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 4.0%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 13.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof13.0%This article: 1.6%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature1.6%This article: 8.3%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division8.3%This article: 6.2%Fox Nation: 2.3%Anecdotal6.2%This article: 0.9%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.9%This article: 9.4%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.9%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.9%This article: 1.4%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity1.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

791 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers5.7%attributed speech746writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageLA Times • 33 words • 0.0% coverageHumbult County Office of Elections • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

LA Times

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words73% of attributed speech92% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.