Someone’s in BIG trouble..
Credibility score: 40/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Someone’s in BIG trouble.." and rated it 40/100 for credibility (a BS score of 60/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-07-06. Its weakest claim — "Comparing current political climate to 1930s Germany and blaming 'dumb Democrats.'" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 13 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 13 claims analyzed: 4 scored under 40, 8 between 40 and 69, and 1 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Setting up news as 'good or bad' depending on perspective, then immediately framing it as 'one step closer to jail' for Hassan. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:00
Starts with 'good or bad news' but then immediately drops the hammer with 'one step closer to jail.' The neutrality lasted all of two seconds. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker uses a rhetorical device of presenting news as neutral ('good or bad') but then immediately follows with a highly negative and specific outcome ('Hassan going to jail'), effectively steering the audience's perception. This isn't neutral reporting; it's setting a specific, negative tone for the information to follow.
Original quote: “And also, uh, this is some, I don't know, good or bad news, depending on how you want to look at it. We are now one step closer to Hassan going to jail.”
Claiming a Cuban national is accused of being part of an 'influence network' that brought Hassan to Havana. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:21
Just stating the accusation as reported. No extra spin, just the facts of the charge. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker is relaying an accusation against a Cuban national, specifically that they were involved in an 'influence network' connected to Hassan's visit to Havana. This is presented as a factual report of an accusation, not an endorsement of its truth, which is a straightforward way to convey information.
Original quote: “A Cuban national accused of being part of a sprawling influence network that brought US political streamer Hassan [ __ ] to Havana. that's in Cuba. Uh has”
The 'Secretary' for 'radical leftwing extremism' declares IAP a Cuban intelligence front group. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:30
The title 'Secretary for radical leftwing extremism' is doing a lot of heavy lifting to frame this organization as inherently nefarious. — It's a whole vibe.
Why this score: The speaker is quoting a source with a highly charged, politically biased title ('Secretary for radical leftwing extremism and subversive foreign influence'). This title itself uses loaded language to pre-frame any associated entity (IAP) as dangerous and illegitimate, rather than presenting neutral evidence. It's designed to trigger an emotional response before any facts are even considered.
Original quote: “A post by the secretary decipher for radical leftwing extremism and subversive foreign influence in the United States and across our hemisphere. IAP is the Cuban regime's premier influence and intelligence front group. True. exploiting his vast network to spy on Americans, promote anti-western…”
Suggests Marco Rubio is uniquely suited to dismantle groups due to his Cuban heritage. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 2:30
Assuming a politician's heritage automatically makes them effective at a specific task is a leap of faith, not strategy. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker implies that Marco Rubio's Cuban background inherently gives him a 'unique distaste' and therefore a special ability to 'dismantle these groups.' While his background might inform his views, it doesn't automatically qualify him as the most effective person for a complex political task. It's a confident assertion based on a personal characteristic rather than policy or proven capability.
Original quote: “actually the guy to dismantle these groups because as a Cubaname, he probably has like a very unique distaste for these people.”
Comparing current political climate to 1930s Germany and blaming 'dumb Democrats.' — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 4:30
Comparing current US politics to 1930s Germany is a hell of a stretch, and then blaming 'dumb Democrats' for it? That's a double whammy of bad takes. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker uses highly inflammatory language, equating the current political situation to '1930s Germany,' which is a significant historical exaggeration. This is a false equivalence, as the conditions and political structures are vastly different. Furthermore, blaming 'dumb Democrats' for this supposed slide into fascism is a straw man argument, misdirecting blame and oversimplifying complex political dynamics.
Original quote: “We're about to hit [ __ ] 1930s Germany if we haven't already hit it. And these dumb [ __ ] are still [ __ ] complaining about. These dumb [ __ ] on the Democratic party side are still complaining about people that the Trump administration is actively targeting. That's because the people like this…”
Speaker claims the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the People (ICAP) has been a vehicle for radical left-wing extremism for decades. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 6:30
Calling ICAP a 'vehicle for radical left-wing extremism' is a strong, loaded statement without immediate evidence. That's a heavy accusation. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged language ('radical left-wing extremism,' 'subversive foreign') to describe ICAP. While ICAP is known for its pro-Cuba stance and connections to the Cuban government, framing it as a 'vehicle for extremism' is an interpretation that uses emotionally loaded terms rather than neutral, verifiable facts. This phrasing aims to evoke a specific negative reaction from the audience.
Original quote: “For decades, the Cuban Institute of Friendship with the People or IAP has been a vehicle for radical left-wing extremism and subversive foreign”
Speaker claims Destiny is instructing harassment and predicting death, using strong, accusatory language. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 8:30
Calling Destiny a 'weirdo' and then immediately jumping to 'instructing harassment' and 'someone is going to die' is pure emotional escalation. — The words are doing the heavy lifting, not the evidence. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged terms like 'weirdos,' 'instructing his audience to harass,' and 'claims someone is going to die very soon' to frame Destiny's actions in the most negative light possible. This is designed to evoke a strong emotional reaction from the audience rather than present a neutral account of events. The immediate jump to 'someone is going to die' without further context or direct quotes from Destiny's alleged instruction makes the claim feel more like an accusation than a factual report.
Original quote: “Speaking of weirdos, kick streamer
Destiny is now instructing his audience
to harass any journalist or content
creator who collaborates with Assan and
claims someone is going to die very
soon.”
Describes Destiny's rant as 'deranged' and criticizes his 'news sources' as fan accounts — loaded language and a jab. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 8:30
Calling a rant 'deranged' is a judgment, not a description. And then the jab about 'news sources' is just chef's kiss. 💅
Why this score: The use of 'deranged rant' is emotionally charged language designed to discredit Destiny's statements rather than objectively describe them. The subsequent criticism of Destiny's 'news sources' (fan accounts) is a personal attack on his credibility, using a rhetorical jab rather than a neutral assessment.
Original quote: “In a deranged rant, Destiny praises Asmin Gold and XC for having integrity while crying over. By the way, this is the person that criticizes me for my news sources, but his news sources are his own channels like his Hassan Abby Productions fan account. This is this is his source right here for…”
Accusing someone of openly admitting to supporting a 'cultish fan base' while denying it — a classic 'he said, he said' setup 🤡 — Straw Man (20/100)
At 10:30
The speaker claims the other person is 'openly admitting' to something they're simultaneously denying. It's a setup for a fight, not a fact. 🥊
Why this score: The speaker is creating a straw man by asserting the other person 'openly admits' to supporting an abusive fanbase, then immediately contradicting that by saying the person denies it. This frames the opponent as hypocritical without actually proving they made the initial admission.
Original quote: “cultish fan base of freaks and abusers he openly supports and gives credit to. >> I feel like he's just yelling at a mirror. It's It's kind of surreal how much he's like in the first half of the paragraph openly admitting that he is going to continue doing something that he's been doing already.”
Accusing someone of openly admitting something, then immediately denying it. The whiplash is real. 🎢 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 10:30
One person says he's admitting it, the other says he's not. Someone's got the wrong paragraph. 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker claims the subject is 'openly admitting' something, but then the co-host immediately contradicts this, saying 'I don't think he's been doing that.' This creates a confidence mismatch where the initial assertion is presented as fact but immediately undermined by the conversation itself.
Original quote: “cultish fan base of freaks and abusers he openly supports and gives credit to. >> I feel like he's just yelling at a mirror. It's It's kind of surreal how much he's like in the first half of the paragraph openly admitting that he is going to continue doing something that he's been doing already.”
Speaker misrepresents Destiny's statement to claim he said 'Muslims are an in people'. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 12:30
Destiny said Asmongold wins because he engages with facts, not because 'Muslims are an in people.' That's a complete fabrication. 🤡
Why this score: This is a clear straw man fallacy. The speaker attributes a statement to Destiny ('Muslims are an in people') that Destiny did not make. Destiny's actual claim was that Asmongold wins debates because he 'can engage with the facts more honestly.' The speaker distorts Destiny's argument, creating a false, easily attackable position (the 'straw man') to then criticize, rather than addressing Destiny's actual point about factual engagement.
Original quote: “I like that Destiny is saying Asmin Gold will always defeat Hassan because I agree with him that Muslims are an in people.”
Comparing online harassment to promoting terrorist groups. Wild false equivalence. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 14:30
Went from 'online harassment' to 'promoting Hezbollah/Hamas' like they're in the same league. That's a leap, not a comparison 🤡
Why this score: The speaker is drawing a direct comparison between a 'digital ground game' that involves online harassment and begging people to debate, and promoting designated terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. These two activities are not remotely equivalent in terms of severity or impact, making it a clear false equivalence to downplay the former by comparing it to the latter.
Original quote: “But even like he he designed like a whole ground game group, right? DGG, what is it? Digital ground game. And the entire thing, the entire like supposed door-nocking operation, canvasing operation is dedicated to [ __ ] posting online against Destiny's enemies and like begging them uh to kill…”
Accuses 'them' of wanting Charlie Kirk killed, based on laughter. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 16:30
Leaps from 'they laugh' to 'they want him dead' with zero evidence. That's a hell of a jump, chief. 💀
Why this score: The speaker attributes malicious intent (wanting someone killed) to an unnamed 'they' based solely on their laughter. This is a significant leap in logic, presenting a strong accusation without any supporting evidence or even a clear connection between the laughter and the alleged desire for violence. It's pure speculation presented as fact.
Original quote: “Oh man. And he's the one calling me gay. You believe that? So, no, they and the reason why they laugh about it is because they wanted people like Charlie Kirk to get killed. I think that they do. Uh, at the very end of it, I think they do.”
See the full analysis with timestamps →