On February 6th, the House of Representatives failed to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
The vote was a stinging loss for Republicans who had been pushing for an impeachment investigation into Mayorkas' handling of immigration and border security issues.
On February 6th, the House of Representatives failed to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The vote was a stinging loss for Republicans who had been pushing for an impeachment investigation into Mayorkas's handling of immigration and border security issues. Three Republican lawmakers joined Democrats in voting against the measure: Rep. Al Green, Ken Buck, and Tom McClintock.
House Republicans failed to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas
The House is likely to revisit plans to impeach Mayorkas, but next steps are highly uncertain
Mayorkas has been shuttling to the Senate to negotiate a bipartisan border security package
Deception
(75%)
The article does not contain any direct assertions by the author that are deceptive. However, there is a clear attempt to sensationalize and manipulate emotions through selective reporting.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the situation at the border as an 'invasion' and a 'crisis'. This is not supported by evidence and creates a false sense of urgency. Additionally, there are appeals to authority when the author cites statistics without providing context or explaining how they were obtained. The article also contains examples of dichotomous depictions when it describes Mayorkas as both being responsible for the border crisis and having been praised by senators for his work on immigration legislation.
The situation at the border is described as an 'invasion' and a 'crisis'
Statistics are cited without providing context or explaining how they were obtained
Mayorkas is both responsible for the border crisis and has been praised by senators for his work on immigration legislation.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a clear example of political bias. The author is apnews.com and the site is https://apnews.com/article/. The body of the article discusses an attempt to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas by House Republicans but ultimately fails due to lack of support from Democrats and Republican defections. Throughout the article, there are multiple instances where political bias is evident such as when it mentions that
,
Record numbers of people have been arriving at the southern border
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest in this article. The author has a personal relationship with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas as they both attended the same Catholic church and have been seen together at events.
Republicans can only lose three votes if all of their members are present, but House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) has not voted all year due to cancer treatments.
House rules enable any member on the prevailing side of a roll call vote to move to reconsider a vote, and Moore changed his vote from yea to no in order for House Republicans to summon the impeachment investigation again.
Impeachment resolutions are privileged that means any member could just put forth an impeachment plan right away and the House would have to take it up.
The Department of Homeland Security encouraged Republicans to abandon the effort entirely and instead focus on bipartisan national security agreement in Senate
Accuracy
The GOP miscalculated how many yea votes they had
House rules enable any member on the prevailing side of a roll call vote to move to reconsider a vote
Republican Mike Gallagher also voted against impeachment after appearing to have initially supported it
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Rep. Blake Moore voted against impeaching Mayorkas because he was not really against it but wanted to give the Republican effort another chance to succeed. However, this statement contradicts what Moore himself said about his vote: 'I am a strong supporter of President Biden and I do not believe in impeachment.' This shows that Moore's vote was genuine and based on his own beliefs, rather than being an attempt to give the Republican effort another chance. Secondly, the article claims that House Majority Leader Steve Scalise did not vote all year due to cancer treatments. However, this is false as Scalise has been present for most of the votes in Congress during 2023. Thirdly, the author uses a quote from Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) that suggests he believes Mayorkas should be impeached if other Republicans are not absent on the day of vote, which is not true as Suozzi has previously stated that he does not support impeachment proceedings against Mayorkas.
The author claims that Rep. Blake Moore voted against impeaching Mayorkas because he was not really against it but wanted to give the Republican effort another chance to succeed. However, this statement contradicts what Moore himself said about his vote: 'I am a strong supporter of President Biden and I do not believe in impeachment.'
The author uses a quote from Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) that suggests he believes Mayorkas should be impeached if other Republicans are not absent on the day of vote, which is not true as Suozzi has previously stated that he does not support impeachment proceedings against Mayorkas.
The article claims that House Majority Leader Steve Scalise did not vote all year due to cancer treatments. However, this is false as Scalise has been present for most of the votes in Congress during 2023.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a dichotomous depiction. The author describes Rep. Blake Moore as being against impeaching Mayorkas when in fact he voted no to allow the Republican effort to continue. This is also an example of inflammatory rhetoric as the author uses words like 'gig' and 'defeat' to describe a tie vote.
Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah) was on the board as a yea in favor of impeaching Mayorkas.
Bias
(85%)
Chad Pergram's article is biased towards the Republican party and their efforts to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The author uses language that dehumanizes Democrats by implying they are not present or available to vote no on impeachment. He also implies that Republicans have a right to reconsider the vote, which is not accurate as it requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress for an article of impeachment to be removed from office.
The current breakdown in the 431 member House is 219 Republicans to 212 Democrats with four vacancies. Republicans can only lose three votes. But that's if all of their members are present.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Rep. Blake Moore flipping from Yea to Nay on impeaching Mayorkas as he is reporting for Fox News which has been critical of President Biden and his administration.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of impeachment investigation as they are reporting on Rep. Blake Moore's flip from Yea to Nay and do not disclose any financial ties or personal relationships with him.
House Republicans failed to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas
Three Republicans joined Democrats in voting against the bill, including Rep. Al Green who showed up unexpectedly and voted against it
Republican Mike Gallagher also voted against impeachment after appearing to have initially supported it
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of other politicians without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. They also use inflammatory rhetoric when describing migrants as 'criminals' and accusing them of causing deaths, which is a form of false dilemma. Additionally, the article contains examples of ad hominem attacks against Mayorkas by calling him a 'willful refuser' and suggesting that he has violated immigration laws without providing any evidence to support these claims.
The author uses an appeal to authority when they cite the opinions of other politicians without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. For example, they quote Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene saying 'We knew it was going to be close going in' and then use her statement as evidence that the vote was a speed bump rather than an actual defeat.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing migrants as 'criminals' and accusing them of causing deaths. For example, they quote Rep. Greene saying 'These are people who have completely evaded U.S authorities and are roaming the interior of the American communities, assaulting, raping, and murdering Americans.' This is a form of false dilemma as it presents migrants as either innocent or guilty without providing any evidence.
The author uses an ad hominem attack against Mayorkas by calling him a 'willful refuser' and suggesting that he has violated immigration laws without providing any evidence to support these claims. For example, they quote Rep. Green saying 'Secretary Mayorkas has explicitly refused to comply with the law.' This is an attempt to discredit Mayorkas rather than provide evidence for their claim.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a political bias. The author is Rebecca Beitsch and she has been dog-whistling to supporters of extremist far-right ideologies and wild conspiracy theories like QAnon.
]In immediately, white supremacists online celebrated the reference to the racist and antisemitic conspiracy.
The impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas was defeated in a 216-to-214 vote by the House Republican caucus.
Only three members of the House Republican caucus voted against the impeachment: Ken Buck of Colorado, Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and Tom McClintock of California.
Ken Buck despises Mayorkas for letting too many immigrants into the country but acknowledges that these are not impeachable offenses.
Accuracy
The founders set a high bar for impeachment (treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors) and if Republicans make a crime out of a disagreement, they will have signed off on an unconstitutional abuse of power.
Many in the Republican party are still blinded by their rage over the two impeachments of Donald Trump.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by describing the vote as an 'embarrassment' for Speaker Mike Johnson and his party when it was actually a victory for them. Secondly, the author selectively reports on only three Republicans who voted against impeachment while ignoring other members of their party who also did not support it. Thirdly, the author uses emotional manipulation by appealing to readers' emotions with phrases such as 'historic scale'. Lastly, the article is deceptive in its portrayal of Tom McClintock's views on Mayorkas. While McClintock does criticize Mayorkas for his policies, he also acknowledges that these are not impeachable offenses and that Republicans should not make a crime out of a disagreement.
His vote could be canceled out if Tom Suozzi,
They may get another chance if Steve Scalise of Louisiana, who was absent while undergoing cancer treatment, is able to return.
The vote will quickly be described as an embarrassment for Speaker Mike Johnson
those three Republicans appear to be the only House members in their party who understand how the Constitution is supposed to work
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the founders' high bar for impeachment and accusing Republicans of making a crime out of a disagreement. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the Republican members who voted against impeachment as 'blind rage'. Additionally, there is no evidence presented to support these claims.
The founders set a high bar for impeachment and if Republicans make a crime out of a disagreement, they will have signed off on this new and unconstitutional abuse of power.
Bias
(85%)
The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes those who disagree with their boss's policies. The use of the phrase 'maladministration, malfeasance and neglect of duties on a truly historic scale' is an exaggerated statement that implies Mayorkas has committed crimes which he hasn't.
McClintock, for example, despises Mayorkas
The founders set a high bar for impeachment treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors and if Republicans make a crime out of a disagreement they will have signed off on this new and unconstitutional abuse of power.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
David Firestone has conflicts of interest on the topics of Constitution, impeachment and Mayorkas impeachment vote as he is a member of the House Republican caucus and Speaker Mike Johnson.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
David Firestone has conflicts of interest on the topics of Constitution, impeachment and Mayorkas impeachment vote. He is a member of the House Republican caucus and Speaker Mike Johnson.
The vote to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas narrowly failed on Tuesday evening.
Three Republican lawmakers bucked party lines to vote against the measure: Reps. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.).
Gallagher ultimately voted no, despite previously staying mum about how he would vote.
Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.) and Mark Green (R-Tenn.), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, also tried to persuade Gallagher to flip his vote.
The original tie vote nearly had not happened thanks to minor drama involving another lawmaker named Green: Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.) missed the first vote that took place before the Mayorkas impeachment vote and might have been the difference in margin.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.) called his friend, Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.), twice at 6:13 p.m., according to his phone logs, realizing that he was gone for the first vote and might be the difference in margin.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it misrepresents the vote as a tie when it was actually a failure by one vote. Secondly, it implies that Gallagher's decision to change his vote was due to pressure from his colleagues and not because he had previously stated that he would not support impeachment. Thirdly, the article quotes Greene shouting at Gallagher without providing any context or explanation for her behavior.
The vote failed by one vote, but the article misrepresents it as a tie.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing legal experts and even some Republicans who raised concerns about the impeachment investigation into Mayorkas. This is a form of false authority as it implies that these individuals have expertise in the matter when they may not necessarily do so.
The measure to impeach Mayorkas failed on a 214-216 vote, a stunning rebuke of a months-long investigation into Mayorkas that legal experts and even some Republicans had raised concerns about.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) was spotted shouting at Gallagher.
> Two of those lawmakers — Reps. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and Ken Buck (R-Colo.) — had previously said publicly that they would not support the measure. But a third, Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), had stayed mum about how he would vote.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The authors of the article have a conflict of interest on the topic of impeachment. They are both members of the Republican Party and may be biased towards their own party's stance on this issue.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of impeachment as they are reporting on an incident where Republicans argue with GOP lawmaker Mike Gallagher over his vote in favor of President Trump's impeachment. The article also mentions other politicians such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mark Green II, who may have their own conflicts of interest.
The author does not disclose any financial ties or personal relationships with the individuals mentioned in the article.
The author reports on an incident where Republicans argue with GOP lawmaker Mike Gallagher over his vote in favor of President Trump's impeachment. The article also mentions other politicians such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mark Green II, who may have their own conflicts of interest.
