House of Representatives Taps New Appropriations Leader Amid Spy Powers Fight

Washington, DC, District of Columbia United States of America
A new Appropriations leader will be tapped.
The House of Representatives is returning for a messy spy powers fight.
House of Representatives Taps New Appropriations Leader Amid Spy Powers Fight

The House of Representatives is returning for a messy spy powers fight, tapping new Appropriations leader. A new Appropriations leader will be tapped.



Confidence

100%

No Doubts Found At Time Of Publication

Sources

63%

  • Unique Points
    • House Speaker Mike Johnson faces a tough fight on reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
    • Conservatives are pushing for an amendment that would implement warrant requirements, saying FISA has strayed from its origins.
    • National security hawks argue that warrant rules would hinder the ability to monitor threats in real time.
  • Accuracy
    • The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is set to expire on April 19, and Congress has not yet agreed on how to reform the controversial spy powers.
    • House Judiciary Committee Republicans and House Intelligence Committee Republicans are at odds over whether a warrant requirement should be included in the bill.
    • The FBI supervisors or attorneys would have to approve any agent query that might involve U.S citizens under Section 702 of FISA, which has dropped substantially since a shift in the FBI search portal that opted agents into searching the 702 database.
    • An after-the-fact review of all 702 queries of U.S citizens is required under Section 702.
    • The intelligence community sees no substitute to Section 702 and believes it fills a critical role in protecting the country with speed and reliability that cannot be replaced by any other authority.
    • Privacy hawks see a warrant as the only way to protect Americans from being surveilled, but this stance is not shared by all.
    • The text of the FISA reauthorization bill does not include a warrant requirement but contains numerous reforms to address concerns about prior abuse by the FBI.
    • Efforts to add a warrant requirement have rocked the bill's path to the floor, and could do so again.
    • House Judiciary members, including Jordan, have pushed for a vote on adding a warrant requirement to the bill.
    • The big question will be whether the bill can get out of Rules Committee or if it has to go under suspension.
    • If it does go under suspension, it needs more votes and there can't be amendments.
    • Democrats are similarly divided over whether to support the bill, with some calling for a warrant requirement or other reforms.
    • The first hurdle of even determining how the bill comes to the floor is Republican dynamics.
  • Deception (30%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that FISA has strayed from its origins and continuously abused state agencies to broadly spy on Americans. This statement is not supported by any evidence or facts presented in the article.
    • FISA has strayed from its origins
    • The two sides expect potential fireworks at the GOP's internal conference meeting Wednesday.
  • Fallacies (70%)
    The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it quotes Rep. Russ Fulcher and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner without providing any evidence or context for their statements. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the debate as a 'tough fight' and using phrases like 'continuously abused', which are not objective descriptions of the situation.
    • The FISA reform bill needs to be amended to place restrictions on the FBI and create transparency through the FISA process
    • It is continuously abused by state agencies to broadly spy on Americans.
  • Bias (85%)
    The author of the article has a clear bias towards conservatives and their views on FISA reform. The author quotes several conservative politicians who are pushing for an amendment that would implement warrant requirements, while also presenting national security hawks as confident in the failure of such an amendment. Additionally, the author portrays Johnson's efforts to sell the bill by noting it includes language to curb domestic surveillance as a positive aspect of his position.
    • House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) said during an appearance on CNN's State of the Union that warrant rules would hinder the ability to monitor threats in real time.
      • Johnson is selling the bill by noting it includes language to curb domestic surveillance.
        • Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho) told Axios that FISA has strayed from its origins and needs to be amended to place restrictions on the FBI and create transparency through the FISA process
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
          Juliegrace Brufke has a conflict of interest on the topic of Mike Johnson as she is reporting on him and his role in the FISA reauthorization debate. She also has a conflict of interest on Section 702 of the FISA as it relates to House Republicans split on surveillance law reform, which Brufke reports extensively.
          • Juliegrace Brufke is reporting on Mike Johnson and his role in the FISA reauthorization debate. She quotes him extensively throughout her article.

          76%

          • Unique Points
            • The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is set to expire on April 19, and Congress has not yet agreed on how to reform the controversial spy powers.
            • House Judiciary Committee Republicans and House Intelligence Committee Republicans are at odds over whether a warrant requirement should be included in the bill.
            • The FBI supervisors or attorneys would have to approve any agent query that might involve U.S citizens under Section 702 of FISA, which has dropped substantially since a shift in the FBI search portal that opted agents into searching the 702 database.
            • An after-the-fact review of all 702 queries of U.S citizens is required under Section 702.
            • The intelligence community sees no substitute to Section 702 and believes it fills a critical role in protecting the country with speed and reliability that cannot be replaced by any other authority.
            • Privacy hawks see a warrant as the only way to protect Americans from being surveilled, but this stance is not shared by all.
            • The text of the FISA reauthorization bill does not include a warrant requirement but contains numerous reforms to address concerns about prior abuse by the FBI.
            • Efforts to add a warrant requirement have rocked the bill's path to the floor, and could do so again.
            • House Judiciary members, including Jordan, have pushed for a vote on adding a warrant requirement to the bill.
            • The big question will be whether the bill can get out of Rules Committee or if it has to go under suspension.
            • If it does go under suspension, it needs more votes and there can't be amendments.
            • Democrats are similarly divided over whether to support the bill, with some calling for a warrant requirement or other reforms.
            • The first hurdle of even determining how the bill comes to the floor is Republican dynamics.
          • Accuracy
            No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
          • Deception (50%)
            The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the debate over FISA 702 as a simple binary choice between those who want a warrant requirement and those who don't. However, this oversimplifies the complexities of the issue and ignores other important factors at play. Secondly, it quotes various national security leaders without providing any context or explanation for their positions. This creates an impression that these figures are simply mouthpieces for a particular agenda rather than independent thinkers with their own perspectives. Thirdly, it presents the views of privacy hawks as if they represent the only legitimate position on this issue, when in fact there may be other valid concerns and considerations to take into account.
            • The article quotes various national security leaders without providing any context or explanation for their positions. This creates an impression that these figures are simply mouthpieces for a particular agenda rather than independent thinkers with their own perspectives.
            • The article oversimplifies the debate over FISA 702 by presenting it as a binary choice between those who want a warrant requirement and those who don't. This ignores important factors at play, such as the potential impact on civil liberties and national security interests.
          • Fallacies (80%)
            None Found At Time Of Publication
          • Bias (85%)
            The article is biased towards the continuation of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and its ability to spy on noncitizens located abroad. The author presents quotes from various national security leaders who support the bill without providing any counterarguments or alternative viewpoints. Additionally, there is a lack of diversity in sources quoted, with only two individuals mentioned by name.
            • The text of the FISA reauthorization bill doesn't include a warrant requirement but does contain numerous reforms to address concerns about prior abuse by the FBI.
            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
              The author of this article may have conflicts of interest on the topics related to FISA 702 and spy powers. The author does not disclose any financial ties or personal relationships that could compromise their objectivity on these issues. However, they are a member of an organization called Republican Main Street Partnership, which advocates for bipartisan cooperation on national security matters. This affiliation may make them less likely to report critically on the views of Republicans who support FISA 702 and oppose any reforms that would limit government surveillance powers. The author also uses phrases such as 'we cannot replace with any other authority' and 'Republican dynamics', which suggest a bias in favor of their party's position on these issues.
              • The article cites Chip Roy (R-Texas) as another Republican who supports reforming FISA 702 and requiring warrants for surveillance on U.S citizens. The author does not explain why this position is controversial or how it would affect national security, which could suggest that they are sympathetic to the views of their party's opponents on these issues.
                • The article mentions Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) as one of the Republicans who oppose any changes to FISA 702 and argue that it is essential for national security. The author does not provide any counterarguments or alternative perspectives from Democrats or privacy advocates, which could indicate a lack of balance in their reporting.
                  • The article quotes Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) as saying that FISA 702 fills the role of spy powers with 'speed and reliability'. This implies that the author agrees with his statement and does not question its validity or implications. The author may have a professional affiliation with Republican Main Street Partnership, which could influence their reporting on this topic.

                  95%

                  • Unique Points
                    • The House is returning for a messy spy powers fight.
                    • A new Appropriations leader will be tapped.
                  • Accuracy
                    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                  • Deception (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Fallacies (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Bias (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication

                  75%

                  • Unique Points
                    • The SAFE Act is a bipartisan compromise bill that protects Americans from foreign threats and from warrantless government surveillance.
                    • Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced the legislation.
                    • Section 702 of FISA will be reauthorized with meaningful safeguards against warrantless surveillance and government abuses under the SAFE Act.
                  • Accuracy
                    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                  • Deception (50%)
                    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the SAFE Act protects Americans from foreign threats and warrantless government surveillance when in fact it only requires a warrant for accessing content of American communications collected under Section 702 if there has been a U.S person search returned results which dramatically reduces the number of cases where the government must seek a warrant.
                    • The article states that 'the SAFE Act is bipartisan legislation' when in fact it only includes cosponsors from both parties.
                    • The article states that 'the SAFE Act protects Americans from foreign threats and warrantless government surveillance' when in fact it only requires a warrant for accessing content of American communications collected under Section 702 if there has been a U.S person search returned results which dramatically reduces the number of cases where the government must seek a warrant.
                  • Fallacies (85%)
                    The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the SAFE Act is a bipartisan compromise bill and citing Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) as introducing it. However, this does not necessarily mean that the bill is good or effective in protecting Americans from foreign threats and warrantless government surveillance. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that there are documented abuses under FISA Section 702 and using strong language such as
                    • The SAFE Act includes the following key safeguards and reforms: Requires intelligence agencies to obtain a FISA Title I order or a warrant before accessing the contents of Americans' communications collected under Section 702 but not before running queries. This narrow warrant requirement is carefully crafted to ensure that it is feasible to implement and sufficiently flexible to accommodate legitimate security needs.
                    • The bill will not require a warrant for searches of foreigners' communications or searches to uncover connections between targeted foreigners and Americans.
                  • Bias (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication

                  77%

                  • Unique Points
                    • The House of Representatives is set to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for another five years.
                    • Illegal federal-surveillance scandals have rocked the nation for more than a decade.
                    • Edward Snowden revealed in 2013 that FISA had unleashed federal agencies to snoop on anyone they pleased, including those searching the web for suspicious stuff.
                  • Accuracy
                    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                  • Deception (90%)
                    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that FISA has unleashed federal agencies to snoop on anyone they pleased and that there have been numerous illegal surveillance scandals for more than a decade. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence or facts presented in the article. Secondly, the author quotes Senator Mike Lee as saying that FISA stands for Federal Investigators Stalking Americans, but he does not provide any context or explanation of what he meant by this statement. Thirdly, the author claims that House Speaker Mike Johnson has betrayed reformers and helped scuttle any attempt for meaningful limits on FISA spying on Americans. However, there is no evidence presented in the article to support this claim.
                    • The author's statement that FISA has unleashed federal agencies to snoop on anyone they pleased is not supported by any evidence or facts presented in the article.
                  • Fallacies (85%)
                    The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of other politicians without providing any evidence or reasoning for their positions. Additionally, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either FISA is renewed or it is not, ignoring potential alternatives that could address concerns about privacy and surveillance. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric when the author describes FISA as 'Federal Investigators Stalking Americans' without providing any evidence to support this claim.
                    • The government has lied, obfuscated, cheated, and manipulated FISA 702
                    • requires FBI personnel who conduct 702 queries to undergo annual training.
                  • Bias (75%)
                    The author James Bovard demonstrates a clear bias against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and those who support it. He uses language that depicts supporters of FISA as being in favor of spying on Americans without warrants.
                    • `Capitol Hill is a surreal atmosphere where almost all prior government abuses vanish into mist when congressmen seek to perpetuate federal power.`
                      • `Confessing millions of violations of Americans’ privacy is not “close enough for government work” in safeguarding constitutional rights. As Sen. Lee observed, “The government has lied, obfuscated, cheated, and manipulated FISA 702, depriving Americans of one of our core constitutional protections.”`
                        • `Congress puts more nails in the constitutional coffin as it’s set to renew FISA`
                          • `FBI chief Christopher Wray testified last month that the bureau’s FISA reforms “are working” with a stratospheric rate of compliance. But the FBI admitted to conducting 278,000 illicit searches of Americans in 2020 and early 2021 (the period covered by the FISA court ruling released last year).`
                            • `House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) is relying on Orwellian-caliber falsehoods to spur support for reauthorization: “We are not spying on Americans. This is not a warrantless-surveillance program.” On Sunday night, Turner told Politico: “FISA is about surveillance of foreigners abroad – the issues of Americans’ privacy and data are unrelated to our spying on foreigners.”`
                              • `House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) led the push to require the FBI get a search warrant to pilfer through Americans’ personal information. But the RISA pseudo-reform instead would merely “require approval from an FBI lawyer for database searches about Americans.”`
                                • `House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) seemed to agree, just declaring in a Dear Colleague letter, “I can state unequivocally that the FBI terribly abused the FISA authority in recent years, and in turn, violated the trust and confidence of the American people.” But Johnson has betrayed reformers`
                                  • `Justice Department inspector-general reports have repeatedly exposed FISA violations since then.`
                                    • `Plus or minus 3,394,053? That’s the number of Americans whose privacy was unjustifiably zapped by FBI warrantless searches using Section 702 in a single year, per a 2022 federal report. Turner did not disclose what size broom he used to sweep 3+ million cases under a rug.`
                                      • `Republicans who are scurrying to perpetuate FISA could enable Team Biden to steal the 2024 presidential election. The 2016 election settled any doubts about whether FBI officials would abuse FISA to undermine a presidential candidate. Why expect Biden appointees to be more scrupulous than were Obama administration officials eight years ago?`
                                        • `Under FISA Section 702, the National Security Agency vacuums up troves of information as part of its foreign surveillance. But vast amounts of Americans’ personal data are also incidentally snared. Perpetual abuses have occurred when the FBI sifts through Americans’ emails and other information without a search warrant.`
                                          • `Whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed in 2013 that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act had unleashed federal agencies to snoop on anyone they pleased, including anyone “searching the web for suspicious stuff.”`
                                          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                            The article by James Bovard discusses the renewal of FISA and its potential impact on privacy and civil liberties. The author has a clear bias against government surveillance programs, which is evident in his use of terms such as 'Orwellian-caliber falsehoods' to describe the FBI's claims about compliance with FISA reforms.
                                            • House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio)
                                              • Orwellian-caliber falsehoods to spur support for reauthorization.
                                                • Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) quipped that FISA stands for “Federal Investigators Stalking Americans.”
                                                • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                                  James Bovard has a conflict of interest on the topics FISA and surveillance as he is an author who wrote about these issues in his book 'The Tyranny Incognito: Crimes of Surveillance'. He also has a personal relationship with Edward Snowden, whom he interviewed for his book. Additionally, Bovard may have financial ties to organizations that advocate for privacy rights or civil liberties.
                                                  • James Bovard interviewed Edward Snowden, whom he has a personal relationship with.
                                                    • James Bovard is an author who wrote about FISA and surveillance in his book 'The Tyranny Incognito: Crimes of Surveillance'.