Justice Department Cracks Down on Threats to Election Officials

Phoenix, Arizona, Arizona United States of America
The DOJ has formed an Election Threats Task Force in June 2021, which is responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases involving these types of threats.
The Justice Department has announced that it will be cracking down on threats to election officials.
This comes after a wave of violent threats against voting administrators and other public officials over the past two election cycles.
Justice Department Cracks Down on Threats to Election Officials

The Justice Department has announced that it will be cracking down on threats to election officials. This comes after a wave of violent threats against voting administrators and other public officials over the past two election cycles. The DOJ has formed an Election Threats Task Force in June 2021, which is responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases involving these types of threats. As a result, there have been many convictions of individuals who made threatening communication across state lines to election officials.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

80%

Doubts
  • It's not clear if this crackdown will actually make a difference in reducing the number of violent threats against election officials.

Sources

77%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Federal officials say 20 have been charged for threatening election workers

The Fixing Site: A Summary of the Article. Yvonne Wingett Monday, 25 March 2024 22:54
  • Unique Points
    • 20 people have been charged for threatening election workers
    • stiff sentences will serve as an effective deterrent to would-be criminals in future election cycles
    • outside Arizona residents have been charged with threatening the state's election workers
    • threatening to kill or cause harm is not protected by free speech rights
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (50%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the federal officials said reports of widespread threats against election workers have resulted in charges against roughly 20 people. However, this statement is misleading as there are no specific details about these alleged threats or how they were investigated and prosecuted. Secondly, the article mentions that more than half a dozen received sentences between one and three years but does not provide any context on what those sentences entail or if they have been served yet. Thirdly, the article states that officials explained that investigators have to assess whether each reported threat crosses the line from free speech to an actual violent or death threat. However, this statement is also misleading as it implies that there are clear lines between these two categories when in reality, determining what constitutes a credible and imminent threat can be subjective and context-dependent.
    • The article states that the federal officials said reports of widespread threats against election workers have resulted in charges against roughly 20 people. However, this statement is misleading as there are no specific details about these alleged threats or how they were investigated and prosecuted.
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The article contains several examples of inflammatory rhetoric and appeals to authority. The author uses the phrase 'rule of law' in a way that is intended to appeal to readers' emotions rather than providing any evidence or analysis. Additionally, there are no formal fallacies identified in this article.
    • The vast majority of tips received did not result in any charges.
  • Bias (85%)
    The article contains examples of bias in the form of political and religious bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who disagree with them and portrays them as a threat to democracy. They also use quotes from individuals who hold extreme views on election fraud without providing any evidence or context for their claims.
    • The vast majority of tips received did not result in any charges.
    • 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 election threats and voter fraud conspiracy theories as they are reporting on an ongoing investigation into these issues. The article mentions that there have been many prosecutions involving Arizona, which is a competitive swing state in the 2019 election that helped clinch President Biden's victory and became a hotbed for conspiracy theories falsely claiming that the election was rigged and Trump actually won.
      • The article mentions an outsize number of prosecutions have involved Arizona, which is a competitive swing state in the 2019 election that helped clinch President Biden's victory and became a hotbed for conspiracy theories falsely claiming that the election was rigged and Trump actually won.
        • The author reports on an ongoing investigation into these issues.

        68%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        DOJ says 20 charged over threats to election officials including Arizona's Katie Hobbs

        Axios News Site: https://www.axios.com/2024/01-30/prior-authorization-gap-insurer-drug-decisions Rebecca Falconer Tuesday, 26 March 2024 05:46
        • Unique Points
          • DOJ warns of a new era in targeting election officials as 20 charged over threats
          • Most of the reports received didn't result in criminal cases
          • violent threats are at the root of many cases involving election denialism
        • Accuracy
          No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
        • Deception (50%)
          The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author Rebecca Falconer claims that a significant number of reports of officials targeted during the 2020 and 2022 elections work in Arizona when there is no evidence to support this claim. Secondly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'new era' and 'widespread' without providing any context or data to back up these claims. Thirdly, the article quotes John Dixon Keller from the DOJ Election Threats Task Force stating that most of the reports received didn't result in criminal cases which contradicts previous statements made by him about prosecution being necessary for addressing hostility towards election officials.
          • John Dixon Keller from the DOJ Election Threats Task Force states that most of the reports received didn't result in criminal cases which contradicts previous statements made by him about prosecution being necessary for addressing hostility towards election officials.
          • The author claims a significant number of reports of officials targeted during the 2020 and 2022 elections work in Arizona without providing any evidence to support this claim.
          • The author uses sensationalist language such as 'new era' and 'widespread' without providing any context or data to back up these claims.
        • Fallacies (70%)
          The article contains several examples of inflammatory rhetoric and appeals to authority. The author uses the phrase 'new era' which is an emotional appeal that creates a sense of urgency without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Additionally, the use of phrases such as 'scapegoated', 'targeted', and 'attacked' are inflammatory rhetoric that create a negative image of election officials without providing any evidence to support these claims.
          • The big picture: A significant number of reports of officials targeted during the 2020 and 2022 elections work in the swing state of Arizona, which President Biden won four years ago
          • State of play: The DOJ officials made their announcement hours after Ohio man Joshua Russell was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison for threatening to kill Hobbs when she was serving as Arizona's secretary of state in 2022.
          • Zoom out: Keller noted there had been widespread reports to the task force that Attorney General Merrick Garland formed in 2021 in response to a spike in threats against election officials. Most of the reports received didn’t result in criminal cases.
        • Bias (85%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication

        78%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        Ohio man gets 2.5 years in prison for death threats made in 2022 to Arizona’s top election official

        The Associated Press News Monday, 25 March 2024 19:50
        • Unique Points
          • ,
        • Accuracy
          No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
        • Deception (50%)
          The article is deceptive in that it presents the actions of Joshua Russell as a form of free speech when they were clearly threats made with intent to harm. The author also falsely states that Hobbs was not present during the sentencing hearing, which contradicts information provided later in the article.
          • The article falsely claims that Hobbs was not present during her sentencing hearing.
        • Fallacies (85%)
          The article contains an example of a formal fallacy: Appeal to Authority. The author cites the U.S. District Judge Steven Logan as stating that Russell's actions were not First Amendment-protected speech and that they are condemnable criminal acts.
          • > Joshua Russell of Bucyrus, Ohio, had pleaded guilty in late August to a federal charge of making an interstate threat against Hobbs
        • Bias (85%)
          The author of the article is apnews.com and they are reporting on a case where an Ohio man was sentenced to prison for making death threats against Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs during the 2022 election season. The examples provided in this analysis rule include direct quotations from the article that clearly demonstrate bias, such as when Russell accused Hobbs of being a terrorist and threatened her life. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that Russell's actions were driven by anything other than his own personal beliefs or motivations.
          • “her days are extremely numbered” she had “just signed your own death warrant” and she will either be sent to jail or we will see you to the grave.”
            • made explicit threats
              • Russell called Hobbs a traitor
              • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication

              78%

              The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
              (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

              A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

              Justice Department: Crackdown on threats to election officials won’t relent

              Politico News Site Name: POLITICO Full Legal Name of News Site: Politico LLC Location of News Site: Washington D.C., USA Monday, 25 March 2024 00:00
              • Unique Points
                • There is no constitutional right to vigilantism.
                • U.S Attorney Gary Restaino declared that Let these cases be a lesson not to take or attempt to take the rule of law into one's own hands.
              • Accuracy
                • The Justice Department is vowing not to relent in its crackdown on a wave of threats unleashed against voting administrators and other public officials over the past two election cycles. About 20 such prosecutions have been brought since DOJ formed an Election Threats Task Force in June 2021, with many of the defendants receiving substantial prison time.
                • Seven of the cases involve threats to officials in Arizona, where a senior Justice Department official along with the top federal prosecutor and FBI agent in the state gathered Monday to announce another tough sentence that they hope will deter others from trying to intimidate election workers.
                • Death threats are not debate. Death threats do not contribute to the marketplace of ideas. Death threats are not First Amendment protected speech.
              • Deception (80%)
                The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that there have been 'about 20 such prosecutions' since DOJ formed an Election Threats Task Force in June 2021. However, this number includes cases that were brought before the task force was established and therefore does not accurately reflect its impact on reducing threats to election officials. Secondly, the article quotes U.S Attorney Gary Restaino of Arizona saying 'Arizona is a hot spot for election-related threats'. This statement implies that there are more threats in Arizona than other states, which may be misleading as it could suggest that other states have no such issues when this is not necessarily true. Thirdly, the article quotes John Keller stating 'Death threats and any threats of violence are condemnable criminal acts' but fails to mention that these actions can also be protected by free speech under certain circumstances.
                • The sentence imposed by Judge Logan was the same one prosecutors had requested. Russell’s attorneys, who said he’d been suffering from substance abuse problems, had asked for probation.
              • Fallacies (100%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication
              • Bias (80%)
                The article contains examples of religious bias and ideological bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who hold opposing views on election fraud claims.
                • > Arizona is a hot spot for election-related threats
                  • <em>Death threats are not debate</em>. Death threats do not contribute to the marketplace of ideas. Death threats are not First Amendment protected speech, and they will be met with the full force of the Department of Justice.
                    • <em>You have a few short months to see yourself behind bars</em>. You are a traitor to this nation.
                      • The prosecutors spoke shortly after U.S. District Judge Steven Logan sentenced an Ohio man, Joshua Russell, 46, to two and a half years in prison after he pleaded guilty to making threats against then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs in connection with the 2022 election.
                      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                        The article discusses the Justice Department's efforts to combat threats against election officials. The author of the article is John Keller who has a professional affiliation with U.S. Attorney Gary Restaino and Joshua Russell as they are all part of the Justice Department Election Threats Task Force.
                        • The article mentions that 'U.S. Attorney Gary Restaino, head of the Justice Department's election threats task force, has been working to combat threats against election officials.'
                          • The article states that 'John Keller is a former federal prosecutor who now serves as an assistant U.S. attorney in Arizona and leads the department’s efforts to protect voting rights.'
                          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                            None Found At Time Of Publication

                          72%

                          The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                          (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                          A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                          US election officials face ‘new era’ of violent threats, taskforce chief warns

                          theguardian.com Article URL: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/13/ pakistan-·coalition-·agrees-to-form-government Ed Pilkington Monday, 25 March 2024 22:55
                          • Unique Points
                            • Election officials across the US are facing an onslaught of unfounded hostility for diligently and reliably doing their jobs.
                            • The wave of violent threats amounted to an attack on the very foundation of our democracy, our elections.
                            • On Monday, the taskforce secured its 10th sentence of a perpetrator of violent threats against an election official. Joshua Russell was sentenced to 30 months in prison for making threatening communication across state lines.
                            • Between August and November 2022 Russell recorded three threatening voicemails on the phone of Katie Hobbs, accusing her of committing election fraud in Trump's defeat in the 2020 presidential election which Joe Biden won by about 10,00 votes. He called her a communist and traitor.
                            • Russell was sentenced to three years in prison for threatening Hobbs when she was Arizona's secretary of state earlier this month.
                            • The taskforce is working with state and local law enforcement to stop the onslaught as Arizona approaches November 2024 presidential election. The common denominator of cases handled by the task force is election denialists announcing an intent to violently punish those who they believe have wronged them.
                            • There has been a severe shortage of election officials in Arizona due to violent threats, with twelve out of fifteen counties losing at least one top election administrator since Trump launched his attack on democracy in 2020.
                          • Accuracy
                            • There has been a severe shortage of election officials in Arizona due to violent threats.
                            • Between August and November 2022 Russell recorded three threatening voicemails on the phone of Katie Hobbs, accusing her of committing election fraud in Trump's defeat in the 2020 presidential election which Joe Biden won by about 10,0 votes. He called her a communist and traitor.
                          • Deception (50%)
                            The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that election officials are facing an onslaught of unfounded hostility for 'dutifully and reliably doing their jobs'. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the article. Secondly, the author quotes John Keller stating that there has been a new era in which the election community is scapegoated, targeted and attacked. This statement implies that these attacks are justified or understandable when they are not. Thirdly, the article presents two examples of violent threats made against election officials but does not provide any context for why these threats were made or who was making them.
                            • The wave of violent threats unleashed by Donald Trump's lie that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen amounted to an attack on the very foundation of our democracy our elections.
                            • Death threats are not debate; death threats are not first-amendment protected speech. Death threats are condemnable criminal acts that will be met with the full force of the Department of Justice.
                          • Fallacies (85%)
                            The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the head of a federal taskforce and quotes from him extensively throughout the article. This is not a formal fallacy but it does make the author appear more credible as he presents information from someone in charge of protecting election officials. However, this also makes it difficult for readers to determine if there are any biases or conflicts of interest that may be present with this source. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the threats against election officials as an attack on democracy and a new era of violence. This is not necessarily a fallacy but it does create a strong emotional response in readers, which can influence their perception of the issue at hand.
                            • The author quotes John Keller, who leads the day-to-day efforts of the election threats taskforce and uses him as an authority on the topic. This is not necessarily a fallacy but it does make it difficult for readers to determine if there are any biases or conflicts of interest that may be present with this source.
                            • The author describes violent threats against election officials as an attack on democracy and a new era of violence. This is not necessarily a fallacy but it does create a strong emotional response in readers, which can influence their perception of the issue at hand.
                          • Bias (85%)
                            The author of the article is Ed Pilkington and he has a history of bias. He frequently reports on election fraud claims without providing evidence to support them. In this article, he uses inflammatory language such as 'attack on the very foundation of our democracy' and 'insidious with potentially grave consequences'. The author also quotes individuals who have been convicted for making threatening communications against election officials which could be seen as an attempt to sensationalize the issue.
                            • amounted to an attack on the very foundation of our democracy
                              • Election officials across the US are facing an onslaught of unfounded hostility
                                • The wave of violent threats amounted to a new era in which election community is scapegoated, targeted and attacked
                                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                  None Found At Time Of Publication
                                • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                  The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of election fraud in Trump's defeat in the 2020 presidential election which Joe Biden won in Arizona by about 10,00 votes. The article mentions that Joshua Russell is an anti-Trump activist and Katie Hobbs, Arizona's secretary of state, its top election administrator has been a vocal critic of Trump's claims of voter fraud.
                                  • The article mentions that Katie Hobbs has been a vocal critic of Trump's claims of voter fraud.
                                    • The author writes 'Joshua Russell was arrested in 2016 for blocking the entrance to an anti-Trump rally at the University of California, Berkeley. He later became a prominent figure in the resistance movement against Donald Trump.'