Bush has spent nearly $780,000 on these expenses since 2019.
Rep. Cori Bush is under investigation by multiple government agencies for her campaign spending on security services.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Election Commission (FEC), and House Committee on Ethics are all reportedly reviewing her expenditures related to personal security.
Rep. Cori Bush, a member of the progressive 'Squad' in Congress, is under investigation by multiple government agencies for her campaign spending on security services. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Election Commission (FEC), and House Committee on Ethics are all reportedly reviewing her expenditures related to personal security. Bush has spent nearly $780,000 on these expenses since 2019, including paying thousands of dollars for services from the DC Peace Team and an unlicensed bodyguard named Nathaniel Davis who spreads anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
The Justice Department is investigating Democratic Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri for misuse of funds.
Bush has spent more than $500,0 on her own private security while publicly advocating for the defund the police movement.
Accuracy
The investigation is targeting Bush, who is the subject of a corruption probe.
Bush has spent more than $500,00 on her own private security while publicly advocating for the defund the police movement.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that a senior congressional source and two law enforcement sources have confirmed that the Justice Department is investigating Cori Bush for misuse of funds. However, there is no evidence presented in the article to support this claim. Secondly, the author commits a fallacy of dichotomy when they state that
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts the subject as extreme or unreasonable by saying 'white supremacists online celebrated' and 'verified accounts on X and major far-right influencers on platforms like Telegram were celebrating'. This is an example of disproportionate number of quotations reflecting a specific position. The author also uses language that depicts the subject as having misused funds, which could be seen as monetary bias.
verified accounts on X and major far-right influencers on platforms like Telegram were celebrating
white supremacists online celebrated
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The authors of the article have a conflict of interest on several topics related to their reporting. The Justice Department is investigating Democratic Rep. Cori Bush for misuse of funds and there are allegations that she may be involved in corruption probe. Additionally, the House Sergeant at Arms has been accused of security services mismanagement.
The article mentions that the Justice Department is investigating Democratic Rep. Cori Bush for misuse of funds, which could indicate a conflict of interest if there are financial ties between her and the department.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of funds misuse investigation as they are investigating Democratic Rep. Cori Bush for it.
The Justice Department is investigating Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., over alleged misuse of government funds intended to pay for her security.
Bush has spent more than $500,00 on her own private security while publicly advocating for the defund the police movement.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article implies that Cori Bush is under investigation for misusing security funds when there are no specific allegations made against her. Secondly, the author states that a subpoena was read on the House floor Monday related to an investigation into Bush but does not provide any details about what exactly is being investigated. Thirdly, FACT executive director Kendra Arnold claims that Rep. Cori Bush changed the language on her disclosure describing continuing payments to her husband from 'security' to 'wage expenses', which at a minimum contradicts the purpose of campaign finance laws and clearly describes purposes of campaign expenditures. Fourthly, there is no mention in the article about any other investigations into this matter by House Committee on Ethics or Federal Election Commission.
The title implies that Cori Bush is under investigation for misusing security funds when there are no specific allegations made against her.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses the phrase 'right-wing organizations' to describe those who are investigating Rep. Cori Bush, which is an example of a slippery slope fallacy as it implies that these groups will continue to investigate her for other reasons without providing evidence.
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies.
Bias
(85%)
The article reports that the Justice Department is investigating Rep. Cori Bush over alleged misuse of government funds intended to pay for her security. The author cites sources who say a subpoena was read on the House floor Monday and that it was related to an investigation into Bush's use of federal funds for personal security services. The article also reports that the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) filed an official complaint with the Federal Election Commission in 2023 regarding details of repeated payments Bush made to a man who is now her current husband, citing concerns about his lack of a license to provide those services. The article also reports that FACT changed its language on Bush's disclosure describing continuing payments to her husband from 'security' to 'wage expenses', which at least contradicts the purpose of the law and clearly describes campaign expenditures.
A subpoena announcement was read on the House floor Monday, and sources said it was related to the investigation into Bush
FACT changed its language on Bush's disclosure describing continuing payments to her husband from 'security' to 'wage expenses'
The Justice Department is investigating Rep. Cori Bush over alleged misuse of government funds intended to pay for her security
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Cori Bush's campaign spending on security services. The article mentions that the House Sergeant at Arms subpoenaed documents related to this investigation and it is not clear if any other members or organizations have been involved in this matter.
The article mentions that the House Sergeant at Arms subpoenaed documents related to Cori Bush's campaign spending on security services.
Rep. Cori Bush is under investigation by the Department of Justice, Federal Election Commission and House Committee on Ethics for her campaign spending.
The focus of the investigations is on her substantial security expenses.
Bush has spent nearly $780,000 on personal security since 2019.
Nathaniel Davis, an unlicensed bodyguard who spreads antisemitic conspiracy theories and claims to be 109 trillion years old with the power to summon tornadoes is a top contractor for Bush.
Bush has paid thousands of dollars to DC Peace Team for security services.
Bush also allocated at least some money from her taxpayer-funded official budget for security services.
Accuracy
Bush has spent nearly $780,000 on personal security since 2019.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author's statement that Bush has been under fire for her campaign spending on security services is misleading as it implies that there have been investigations into this matter before. However, according to the article itself, there was only one investigation by an independent body which cleared her of wrongdoing last October. Secondly, the author's statement that Bush has always paid her husband at or below a fair market rate for personal security services is also misleading as it implies that she does not pay him above what he deserves to do this work. However, according to federal campaigns and committees cannot accept below-market rates for services without triggering an in-kind contribution reporting requirement which means that Bush must have paid her husband more than a fair market rate. Thirdly, the author's statement that there is scant publicly available information about who provided security for Bush beyond her husband is also misleading as it implies that no other entity has been involved in providing security services to her campaign. However, according to the article itself, several entities have been paid by Bush's campaign for security services including Nathaniel Davis and PEACE Security.
The author's statement that Bush has always paid her husband at or below a fair market rate for personal security services is misleading as it implies that she does not pay him above what he deserves to do this work. However, according to federal campaigns and committees cannot accept below-market rates for services without triggering an in-kind contribution reporting requirement which means that Bush must have paid her husband more than a fair market rate.
The author's statement that there is scant publicly available information about who provided security for Bush beyond her husband is also misleading as it implies that no other entity has been involved in providing security services to her campaign. However, according to the article itself, several entities have been paid by Bush's campaign for security services including Nathaniel Davis and PEACE Security.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses loaded language such as 'relentless threats' and 'frivolous complaints', which implies that the investigations into Rep. Cori Bush's security spending are politically motivated rather than legitimate concerns about her use of campaign funds for personal protection.
The article repeatedly refers to the investigation as a probe, implying that it is an invasive and unwarranted action by law enforcement agencies.
, The author uses loaded language such as 'relentless threats' and 'frivolous complaints', which implies that the investigations into Rep. Cori Bush's security spending are politically motivated rather than legitimate concerns about her use of campaign funds for personal protection.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Rep. Cori Bush's security spending as they are reporting on an ongoing investigation into her personal security spending by multiple government agencies including the Department of Justice and Federal Election Commission.
