Donald Trump Scolds an Anchor on 60 Minutes | What Happened Yesterday (W.H.Y) with Joshua Doss

Añadido: 2026-05-05

[00:00:00]Okay, so what happened yesterday?

[00:00:02]Usually I try to go over a couple of different topics, but there was one big thing that happened yesterday that I think was interesting enough that we probably should just only talk about it.

[00:00:12]And it was that a gunman tried to rush the White House correspondents dinner that Donald Trump was at, which is interesting cuz Donald Trump usually doesn't come to the White House correspondents dinners. And you've probably already heard everything you need to hear about the gunman and all the conspiracies. What I actually wanted to talk about was the 60 Minutes interview that happened after that event. Donald Trump went on 60 Minutes and was really flustered. Got asked some questions that he did not like uh and responded in a way that was really interesting. His answers were rife with logical fallacies. And as I was saying over on TikTok, if you know how to if you know how to pick apart logical fallacies, you can pick apart pretty much any uh argument against you. So, I'm just going to kind of take this video and talk about all the logical fallacies that were in his debate, argument, conversation on 60 Minutes.

[00:01:04]Donald Trump put on a masterclass of logical fallacies minutes >> called manifesto is a stunning thing to read. Mr. President, he appears to reference a motive. In it, he writes this quote, "Aministration officials, they are targets." And he also wrote this. I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes. What's your reaction to that?

[00:01:28]>> Well, I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would because you're you're horrible people. Horrible people.

[00:01:35]Yeah, he did write that.

[00:01:36]>> Okay, stop right there. The first step in winning an argument is actually hearing what the other person said about you. So, she's reading the letter, the manifesto that came from the man who attempted to assassinate Donald Trump.

[00:01:48]And the letter says, quote, "I'm no longer willing to let a pedophile coat my hands with crimes." And Trump responds saying, "I knew you were going to read that because you are horrible people." This logical fallacy is called an ad homonym. It's when somebody attacks the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The attack creates doubt about the person's trustworthiness, which can make the audience dismiss the claim as a whole, even if the claim is still valid. So, your girl says, "I saw you was texting Kesha last night." And you respond saying, "You love to argue, bro. This why your friends probably stop kicking it with you." It becomes a personal attack. Now, we talking about something else.

[00:02:26]>> That uh I'm I'm not a rapist. I didn't rape anybody.

[00:02:30]>> Okay, stop right there. What did we say?

[00:02:31]The first rule of winning an argument is actually hearing what the person said about you. The manifesto said, "The administration are targets and I'll no longer let rapists coat my hands with crimes." He never called Donald Trump a rapist. You have to listen.

[00:02:45]Uh, >> oh, you think you think he was referring to you?

[00:02:48]>> He never called Donald Trump a rapist, to be clear, but >> a judge did. A jury found that Donald Trump was found liable for sexually abusing Eugene Carol, including forced sexual penetration. Under New York's narrow legal definition, rape requires a specific form of penile penetration, which the jury said was not was not proven. But in the ordinary language like people like you and me, many people use the word rape to describe non-consensual sexual penetration.

[00:03:18]Right? Trump was found liable for non-consensual sexual penetration. That is why Judge Lewis Kaplan clarified that the verdict does not mean that the conduct was not rape. It just didn't meet the legal specific category in New York penal law. your friends on the other side of the plate are the ones that were involved with let's say Epstein or other things. Okay. Now, this one has two logical fallacies. The first is called a red herring. Red herrings introduce a separate issue so that you can pull attention away from what's actually being asked. The topic was his shooters manifesto. Then he moves the conversation on to his political opponent's misconduct. So, your girl says, "Why were you flirting with that girl at dinner?" And then you say back, "It's funny because your ex is still liking all your pictures." Now, the original issue disappears into a larger fight. This could also be considered what aboutism. Okay. He also says, "I was totally exonerated." This fallacy is called bare assertion. It's when people state a conclusion as if the conclusion itself proves the conclusion. Like somebody saying, "I didn't do anything wrong in the story." I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would because you're you're horrible people. You're a disgrace. But go ahead.

[00:04:32]Let's finish the edit.

[00:04:33]>> I was waiting for you to read that because I knew you would. This one's interesting. Depending on when you say this, it could be considered a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.

[00:04:43]That's when you try to delegitimize the person that you're talking to, debating with before they even say anything. And then lastly, he says you should be ashamed of yourself. This one can be appeal to emotion or appeal to outrage.

[00:04:58]It's also just when somebody is not engaging with your actual argument, but trying to engage with the emotion around your argument. That is not to say that emotions have no place in arguments.

[00:05:07]They absolutely do. But when emotions replace logic in arguments, that's what makes them a fallacy. If you made it all the way here, please like, comment, and subscribe. Look, man, I'm doing this [ __ ] for free. So, you know, if you subscribe or you like like it or you comment or something, I'll keep going, you know, uh if you share it with people and they I'll keep going. If not, you know, I'm just probably like I'm do some other stuff, you know. So, please with your like and your comment and subscribe subscribing, let me know that you want me to continue these videos. The last thing I'll say is Donald Trump said that he was completely exonerated. Um, I just don't want people to forget that we still are missing three million Epstein files. And these files could exonerate the president of the United States if he so chose to exonerate himself. Right? We wouldn't have questions around whether or not President Trump um was connected with uh the country's most notorious pedophile if he would just give us access to the information. It's under his DOJ. The access that they have given us has been highly redacted and it leads us to kind of I think it leads a lot of people to thinking that you know when there's smoke there's fire. Some of the stuff happened yesterday. I don't have the energy to go over it though because that was like the big thing that happened. So that's what happened yesterday. I'll see you guys tomorrow for the next one.