Fox News98%

White House, Israel deny BOMBSHELL new spying report 63%

6/7/2026, 4:30:23 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Hasty Generalization, and Politically Right Leaning Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 26.7% saturation with 236 hits. Analysis detected 2,033 faulty-reasoning hits from 883 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.1% and a BS Rank of 63% (8,113 of 21,887 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 62.90% of the video peer group.

Welcome back. 
Tensions flaring outside the Turning Point USA Women's Leadership Summit in San Antonio. 
Protesters, you see here, clashing with police and encouraging obnoxious behavior. 
Watch this. 
>> Be as loud as you can. 
Be as obnoxious as you can. 
Make these people hate us. 
Make sure they know you hate them. 
>> San Antonio is a place OF COMMUNITY AND HEART. 
THIS IS NO PLACE FOR Turning Point USA. 
THIS IS NO PLACE FOR their hateful values. 
>> Joining me now, Turning Point USA contributor and veteran Navy 
intelligence officer, Jack Pacobic. 
Jack, this is not new, but it keeps happening. 
What do you make of what happened yesterday? 
And what why are they doing this? 
>> Well, Gre, thanks so much for having me on and and again, this is what they do. 
Uh when they tell you who you are, when people tell you who they are, believe them. 
The left isn't out there feeling sorry for the murder of Charlie Kirk. 
They're not apologizing for it. They're out there celebrating it. 
There was even an individual outside of our event last night in San Antonio who was dressed as Charlie recreating and reenacting his heinous murder just 9 months ago. 
We're coming up on the one-year anniversary of it. 
And ultimately, what is it? 
This is resentment. 
They hate the fact that Turning Point USA is out there showing young people specifically a different path forward. 
Not from hating their country, from hating men, from hating women, from hating capitalism, from hating innovation to actually loving their country, building loving families. 
And that's exactly why they're attacking Erica and our entire team that's there. 
>> Yeah. And you know, Charlie obviously was the leading voice on free speech. 
Turning Point put a statement out. 
I want to show our viewers. 
They said it's a free country. 
If a few protesters want to waste their weekend shouting vile obscinities and making fools of themselves outside of an event with 3,000 young, positive, patriotic women, they can have at it. 
It's just further proof TPUSA is over the target. 
So maybe, you know, they're highlighting the fact that this is they're fighting for those protesters rights to do just that sort of idiotic stuff. 
Well, look, Charlie lived, breathed, and in fact died for the right to free speech, to free debate, to free discussion in the open public square. 
Of course, on a college campus, this is the public forum. 
This is the bedrock freedom on which our entire system uh lives and survives and was created. 
It's all rested on that idea that we don't solve things through violence. 
We solve things through debate. 
We solve them through discussion and then whenever California can get their ballots voted eventually sometimes we have an election. 
>> Let's change gears for a second Jack because you were a Navy intelligence officer serving our country and we have this Pentagon this report first in NBC now in New York Times the Pentagon saying that Israel may be spying on the US. 
The Israeli embassy to the US is denying it saying Israel does not gather intelligence on American entities let alone US government officials. 
Israel intelligence collection efforts are aimed at its enemies, not its allies. 
The White House also pushing back, saying this entire story is false and sourced to someone who doesn't have any knowledge of what's going on. 
But in these reports, this is allegedly coming from a DIA report. 
What's your take? 
>> Well, yeah. So, uh, there's always going to be an official denial of espionage activities from both sides. 
That's nothing new. 
But this is also something that I remember back when I served that when you're dealing with a partner force nation, whether it's Israel, whether it's uh any country in Asia, when it's anywhere in the world, you're always going to be looking at a situation where if I'm conducting operations, if I'm working on the intel side, if I'm working on that picture, are they looking over my shoulder? 
Are they trying to figure out what I'm doing in the other room? 
And in fact, that's obviously the case here. 
And this was the case with Israel back when I served as well, that there were always questions that they seemed to know more about our operations than we had told them. 
And there would be times, of course, where people had found evidence uh directly speaking to these that raised that critical threat um in terms of these reports when operations were ongoing. 
And of course, this comes at a time where President Trump is working hard to create what we believe is one of the best deals we've ever seen with Iran. 
Certainly far better than the Obama deal. 
>> Jack Pobic, great insight as always. 
We'll continue to watch this. 
It's an interesting report because we are obviously working handinand with Israel with the war in Iran, but yet they apparently would apparently be trying to learn more about our position. 
Pacific, thank you very much. 
>> God bless. 
Be sure to like and subscribe for all the Fox News latest on YouTube and catch full shows streaming now on Fox 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.2%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias10.2%This article: 1.2%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias1.2%This article: 17.7%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic17.7%This article: 1.4%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic1.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Fox Nation: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias8.8%This article: 8.5%Fox Nation: 11.9%Framing Effect8.5%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.4%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Fox Nation: 10.8%Negativity Bias10.5%This article: 1.5%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias1.5%This article: 2.3%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error2.3%This article: 0.8%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.8%This article: 8.6%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias8.6%This article: 5.8%Fox Nation: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.8%This article: 6.5%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect6.5%This article: 0.9%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.9%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias2.0%This article: 1.9%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem3.6%This article: 7.9%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man7.9%This article: 26.7%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority26.7%This article: 2.8%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma2.8%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.0%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization17.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.1%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion10.1%This article: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question0.9%This article: 3.5%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.5%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.8%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof2.8%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.8%Fox Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal14.8%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.5%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity1.5%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.7%Fox Nation: 1.8%Unattributed Quote12.7%This article: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.9%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice6.9%This article: 1.5%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination1.5%This article: 0.9%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.9%This article: 16.6%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias16.6%This article: 2.5%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.5%

883 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker38%attributed speech545writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 13 words • 100.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 29 words • 100.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 19 words • 100.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 25 words • 100.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 70 words • 0.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 32 words • 0.0% coverageJack Pacobic • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jack Pacobic

92%flagged-word coverage
338 attributed words100% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Politically Right Leaning +0.4 ptsWriter: 16.5%Jack Pacobic: 16.9%16.9%Unattributed Quote-6.6 ptsWriter: 15.2%Jack Pacobic: 8.6%8.6%Biased Writer Voice-11.2 ptsWriter: 11.2%Jack Pacobic: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Jack Pacobic: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%Jack Pacobic: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%Jack Pacobic: 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.