claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
'We indicted someone in Texas, 1,700 ballots collected from people who could vote, he made them out and voted for the person he wanted to. | Contradiction | Attorney General William Barr made the case that voting by mail is 'fraught with the risk of fraud and coercion.' As an example of such problems, he pointed to a case in Texas. 'We indicted someone in Texas, 1,700 ballots collected from people who could vote, he made them out and voted for the person he wanted to,' Barr said in an interview on CNN on Sept. 2. The U.S. Justice Department has already walked back this claim, but social media posts continue to echo the attorney general's inaccurate statement. One, from Sept. 17, attributes to Barr a paraphrased statement of what he actually said: ''In Texas, we arrested one man who filled out 1,700 ballots. That's what happens with mail-in ballots.' - AG Barr.' The Justice Department did not immediately respond to our email about Barr's statement. But here's what we know from media reports. The Justice Department did not indict someone in Texas for casting 1,700 ballots. A spokesperson for the department told the Washington Post that prior to his CNN interview, Barr was 'provided a memo prepared within the department that contained an inaccurate summary about the case which he relied upon when using the case as an example.' In 2017, prosecutors in Dallas County, in Texas, investigated suspected mail-in voter fraud after receiving a tip that voters who had not requested mail ballots received notices that they would receive them, according to the Washington Post. The name 'Jose Rodriguez' appeared on about 700 ballots, indicating that this person helped fill them out. Andy Chatham, who was the assistant district attorney on the case at the time, said that when investigators approached the voters who were said to have cast the ballots, the voters generally said the ballots were legitimate and cast for the candidate they supported, the Post reported. 'We didn't find any evidence of widespread voter fraud, and instead the ballots that were returned were consistent with the voter's choice,' the paper quotes Chatham as saying. Ultimately, one suspect was arrested in the case - Miguel Hernandez, who pleaded guilty to forging a woman's signature on a mail-in ballot in a Dallas County municipal election, the Dallas Morning News reported. Elderly voters had alleged that someone forged their signatures on mail-in ballots in a 2017 Dallas City Council race. 'He violated the law but not for voting,' Chatham told ABC News. 'It was for procuring mail-in ballots under false pretenses.' Mike Snipes, another prosecutor, said investigators initially suspected that there were potentially 1,700 fraudulent ballots, 'but we did not uncover that, at all,' the Post quotes him as saying. 'We actually thought there was voter fraud initially and we couldn't find it except that little tiny case.' | Our ruling Barr said that the Justice Department indicted someone in Texas for casting 1,700 fraudulent mail-in ballots in Texas. Prosecutors investigated about 700 ballots - not 1,700 - for possible fraud. But investigators never found evidence of widespread fraud, and the ballots under scrutiny were cast in favor of the candidates the voter supported. 'Everyone who voted in it, their vote counted,' Chatham told the Morning News. 'They weren't disenfranchised, and we made sure of this.' We rate Barr's claim False. | []
|
'We indicted someone in Texas, 1,700 ballots collected from people who could vote, he made them out and voted for the person he wanted to. | Contradiction | Attorney General William Barr made the case that voting by mail is 'fraught with the risk of fraud and coercion.' As an example of such problems, he pointed to a case in Texas. 'We indicted someone in Texas, 1,700 ballots collected from people who could vote, he made them out and voted for the person he wanted to,' Barr said in an interview on CNN on Sept. 2. The U.S. Justice Department has already walked back this claim, but social media posts continue to echo the attorney general's inaccurate statement. One, from Sept. 17, attributes to Barr a paraphrased statement of what he actually said: ''In Texas, we arrested one man who filled out 1,700 ballots. That's what happens with mail-in ballots.' - AG Barr.' The Justice Department did not immediately respond to our email about Barr's statement. But here's what we know from media reports. The Justice Department did not indict someone in Texas for casting 1,700 ballots. A spokesperson for the department told the Washington Post that prior to his CNN interview, Barr was 'provided a memo prepared within the department that contained an inaccurate summary about the case which he relied upon when using the case as an example.' In 2017, prosecutors in Dallas County, in Texas, investigated suspected mail-in voter fraud after receiving a tip that voters who had not requested mail ballots received notices that they would receive them, according to the Washington Post. The name 'Jose Rodriguez' appeared on about 700 ballots, indicating that this person helped fill them out. Andy Chatham, who was the assistant district attorney on the case at the time, said that when investigators approached the voters who were said to have cast the ballots, the voters generally said the ballots were legitimate and cast for the candidate they supported, the Post reported. 'We didn't find any evidence of widespread voter fraud, and instead the ballots that were returned were consistent with the voter's choice,' the paper quotes Chatham as saying. Ultimately, one suspect was arrested in the case - Miguel Hernandez, who pleaded guilty to forging a woman's signature on a mail-in ballot in a Dallas County municipal election, the Dallas Morning News reported. Elderly voters had alleged that someone forged their signatures on mail-in ballots in a 2017 Dallas City Council race. 'He violated the law but not for voting,' Chatham told ABC News. 'It was for procuring mail-in ballots under false pretenses.' Mike Snipes, another prosecutor, said investigators initially suspected that there were potentially 1,700 fraudulent ballots, 'but we did not uncover that, at all,' the Post quotes him as saying. 'We actually thought there was voter fraud initially and we couldn't find it except that little tiny case.' | Our ruling Barr said that the Justice Department indicted someone in Texas for casting 1,700 fraudulent mail-in ballots in Texas. Prosecutors investigated about 700 ballots - not 1,700 - for possible fraud. But investigators never found evidence of widespread fraud, and the ballots under scrutiny were cast in favor of the candidates the voter supported. 'Everyone who voted in it, their vote counted,' Chatham told the Morning News. 'They weren't disenfranchised, and we made sure of this.' We rate Barr's claim False. | []
|
'We indicted someone in Texas, 1,700 ballots collected from people who could vote, he made them out and voted for the person he wanted to. | Contradiction | Attorney General William Barr made the case that voting by mail is 'fraught with the risk of fraud and coercion.' As an example of such problems, he pointed to a case in Texas. 'We indicted someone in Texas, 1,700 ballots collected from people who could vote, he made them out and voted for the person he wanted to,' Barr said in an interview on CNN on Sept. 2. The U.S. Justice Department has already walked back this claim, but social media posts continue to echo the attorney general's inaccurate statement. One, from Sept. 17, attributes to Barr a paraphrased statement of what he actually said: ''In Texas, we arrested one man who filled out 1,700 ballots. That's what happens with mail-in ballots.' - AG Barr.' The Justice Department did not immediately respond to our email about Barr's statement. But here's what we know from media reports. The Justice Department did not indict someone in Texas for casting 1,700 ballots. A spokesperson for the department told the Washington Post that prior to his CNN interview, Barr was 'provided a memo prepared within the department that contained an inaccurate summary about the case which he relied upon when using the case as an example.' In 2017, prosecutors in Dallas County, in Texas, investigated suspected mail-in voter fraud after receiving a tip that voters who had not requested mail ballots received notices that they would receive them, according to the Washington Post. The name 'Jose Rodriguez' appeared on about 700 ballots, indicating that this person helped fill them out. Andy Chatham, who was the assistant district attorney on the case at the time, said that when investigators approached the voters who were said to have cast the ballots, the voters generally said the ballots were legitimate and cast for the candidate they supported, the Post reported. 'We didn't find any evidence of widespread voter fraud, and instead the ballots that were returned were consistent with the voter's choice,' the paper quotes Chatham as saying. Ultimately, one suspect was arrested in the case - Miguel Hernandez, who pleaded guilty to forging a woman's signature on a mail-in ballot in a Dallas County municipal election, the Dallas Morning News reported. Elderly voters had alleged that someone forged their signatures on mail-in ballots in a 2017 Dallas City Council race. 'He violated the law but not for voting,' Chatham told ABC News. 'It was for procuring mail-in ballots under false pretenses.' Mike Snipes, another prosecutor, said investigators initially suspected that there were potentially 1,700 fraudulent ballots, 'but we did not uncover that, at all,' the Post quotes him as saying. 'We actually thought there was voter fraud initially and we couldn't find it except that little tiny case.' | Our ruling Barr said that the Justice Department indicted someone in Texas for casting 1,700 fraudulent mail-in ballots in Texas. Prosecutors investigated about 700 ballots - not 1,700 - for possible fraud. But investigators never found evidence of widespread fraud, and the ballots under scrutiny were cast in favor of the candidates the voter supported. 'Everyone who voted in it, their vote counted,' Chatham told the Morning News. 'They weren't disenfranchised, and we made sure of this.' We rate Barr's claim False. | []
|
Photo shows Time magazine cover with Barack Obama that says 'Treason. | Contradiction | A video spreading widely on Facebook opens with a fake Time magazine cover showing Barack Obama and then piles on more misinformation about the former president over more than four minutes. 'Time is up' and 'Treason' appear as headlines on the supposed cover of the magazine, and there's a partial headline that's cut off: 'How former president Barack Obama was the kingpin of the biggest political scandal in modern...' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reviewed Time covers from 2008, when Obama was elected, to date and found no cover matching the image in the video. The video goes on to share more fake images of the president among unfounded claims. About 17 seconds into the video, one photo has been edited to show Obama wearing a turban while standing next to Osama bin Laden. In the original image, released by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in February 2008, Obama was dressed as a Somali elder by Sheikh Mahmed Hassan, who is standing next to Obama during his visit to northeastern Kenya. The next image in the video shows former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Clinton and Obama all posing separately with bin Laden. We've already fact-checked those photos - they're fake. About 45 seconds into the video, an image of Obama and Clinton appears with this text: 'They paid a foreign government to falsify information, than lied to the courts to spy and overthrow Trump. Democrats lied and impeached Trump to hide their crimes.' This touches on other claims we've already checked. After Trump won the Republican nomination, the Democratic National Committee hired an opposition firm called Fusion GPS to collect information on him. Fusion GPS then hired former British spy Christopher Steele to produce memos on Trump's ties to Russia. He wrote a dossier that included salacious but unverified claims about Trump. In September 2019, House Democrats launched a formal impeachment inquiry on grounds that Trump illegally used his position as president to solicit help from a foreign government to damage his political opponent. We have a timeline of the impeachment proceedings, from 2013 through late 2019, here. About a minute and 11 seconds into the video, a photo of Obama appears with the names 'Jean Paul Ludwig' and 'Barry Soetoro' and a Social Security number. These refer to inaccurate claims that Obama's real name is Barry Soetoro and that Obama has illegally been using the Social Security number of a dead man, Ludwig. The video also uses imagery and slogans associated with the wide-ranging QAanon conspiracy, which asserts without evidence that Trump is fighting against a deep-state cabal of pedophiles seeking to overthrow the president. About a minute and 45 seconds in, it claims that Obama helped 'plan a coup' and that he should 'pay the price' for treason. After that, another fake image appears, showing Obama kissing David Cameron, Britain's former prime minister. Later in the video, a photo of former presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama appears and perpetuates the conspiracy theory that mass shootings in the United States are orchestrated by the government to achieve its policy agenda. 'Trump is sending us all to Gitmo for life,' Clinton appears to be saying in the image. 'Let's plan another mass shooting,' Bush says. 'We can't,' Obama responds, 'all the restaurants and theaters are closed.' Toward the end of the video, yet another doctored image appears. Snopes checked this one - it appears to show Russian President Vladimir Putin pulling Obama's tie, but that didn't happen. We rate these images False. | We rate these images False. | []
|
'Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States ... The actual number is almost certainly higher. | Contradiction | Fox News host Tucker Carlson suggested that thousands of Americans have died since December because of the COVID-19 vaccines, citing an unverified federal database that has become a breeding ground for anti-vaccine misinformation. The comments were the latest in a series of controversial remarks by Carlson raising doubts about the vaccines, which clinical trials and real-world studies have shown are both safe and effective. 'Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States - 3,362,' Carlson told millions of viewers during his primetime TV show May 5. 'That's an average of roughly 30 people every day.' 'The actual number is almost certainly higher than that, perhaps vastly higher than that,' he added. 'It's clear that what is happening now, for whatever reason, is not even close to normal.' Carlson said he was citing numbers from the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, an open-source database often misused by anti-vaccine activists to make false claims about vaccine safety. Experts rejected Carlson's claim as misleading. That's because VAERS data is considered unreliable for drawing causal conclusions. And dying after a vaccine is not the same thing as dying because of the vaccine. 'It is exceptionally irresponsible for this man to claim that all these are causal associations. It's wrong,' said Dr. Paul Offit, the chair of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine. 'He puts people's lives at risk with bad information during a pandemic.' VAERS reports are unverified and don't show causation Unlike other official government sources, which flow through consistent reporting channels and get screened by statisticians and analysts before they are made available to the public, VAERS is an open-access system. The reports submitted are not verified before they become public. 'Anybody can report to it,' Offit said. 'If I get a vaccine, or I give my child a vaccine, and I believe that they have turned into the 'Incredible Hulk,' then I can write up a one-page report online and submit it, and that then is included. And that's been done.' A disclaimer on the VAERS website says the 'reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness,' in part because they 'may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.' People accessing the database must click an option that says that they've read and understand the disclaimer. Offit said VAERS works best as 'a hypothesis-generating mechanism' that can tip scientists off to issues for further study, such as the rare cases of blood clots that prompted the agency to recommend a temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In this case, the CDC has analyzed all the reports of death among COVID-19 vaccine recipients that were submitted to VAERS between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 3. 'A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines,' the agency concluded. To establish causation, scientists need to find proof that an adverse event is significantly more common among vaccinated people than unvaccinated people. VAERS doesn't provide enough data to do that. As of May 5, nearly 150 million Americans have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and many of the early shots went to older and more vulnerable people. 'When you're giving a COVID-19 vaccine to elderly adults, there are going to be people who die shortly after vaccination because they would have died anyway,' Dr. William Moss, executive director of Johns Hopkins's International Vaccine Access Center, previously told PolitiFact. An estimated 8,000 Americans die every day of all causes, according to the CDC. Offit cited the case of baseball legend Hank Aaron, who died of natural causes - likely a stroke - weeks after getting his shot. Social media posts falsely claimed the vaccine killed him. 'You can get the vaccine and still die from other reasons,' Offit said. After his segment baselessly linking the COVID-19 vaccines to 'roughly 30' deaths per day, Carlson interviewed Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Kulldorff told Carlson that VAERS is 'not a very useful system,' in part because it doesn't take into account 'what is expected by chance' in terms of adverse reactions. Carlson has questioned the vaccines and U.S. vaccination efforts on several occasions. In April, we rated Pants on Fire his claim that, 'Maybe it doesn't work, and they're simply not telling you that.' Fox News defended that statement by pointing to other instances where Carlson claimed to support vaccines, such as when he said he is 'pretty pro-vaccine.' Elsewhere in his May 5 segment, Carlson similarly said the 'vaccines aren't dangerous' based on 'the official numbers.' But his claim about thousands of deaths is wrong. On Facebook, a video of the claim was viewed more than 155,000 times, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) | Our ruling Carlson said, 'Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States ... The actual number is almost certainly higher.' That's highly misleading. The source of Carlson's numbers is the VAERS database, which is often exploited by anti-vaccine activists to make false vaccine claims. The CDC analyzed the VAERS death reports and concluded that there's no 'causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.' People can die after getting vaccinated for any number of reasons unrelated to the vaccine. We rate Carlson's statement False. | [
"103222-proof-15-4fbc499351bbf87d29597101770ba63f.jpg"
]
|
'Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States ... The actual number is almost certainly higher. | Contradiction | Fox News host Tucker Carlson suggested that thousands of Americans have died since December because of the COVID-19 vaccines, citing an unverified federal database that has become a breeding ground for anti-vaccine misinformation. The comments were the latest in a series of controversial remarks by Carlson raising doubts about the vaccines, which clinical trials and real-world studies have shown are both safe and effective. 'Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States - 3,362,' Carlson told millions of viewers during his primetime TV show May 5. 'That's an average of roughly 30 people every day.' 'The actual number is almost certainly higher than that, perhaps vastly higher than that,' he added. 'It's clear that what is happening now, for whatever reason, is not even close to normal.' Carlson said he was citing numbers from the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, an open-source database often misused by anti-vaccine activists to make false claims about vaccine safety. Experts rejected Carlson's claim as misleading. That's because VAERS data is considered unreliable for drawing causal conclusions. And dying after a vaccine is not the same thing as dying because of the vaccine. 'It is exceptionally irresponsible for this man to claim that all these are causal associations. It's wrong,' said Dr. Paul Offit, the chair of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine. 'He puts people's lives at risk with bad information during a pandemic.' VAERS reports are unverified and don't show causation Unlike other official government sources, which flow through consistent reporting channels and get screened by statisticians and analysts before they are made available to the public, VAERS is an open-access system. The reports submitted are not verified before they become public. 'Anybody can report to it,' Offit said. 'If I get a vaccine, or I give my child a vaccine, and I believe that they have turned into the 'Incredible Hulk,' then I can write up a one-page report online and submit it, and that then is included. And that's been done.' A disclaimer on the VAERS website says the 'reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness,' in part because they 'may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.' People accessing the database must click an option that says that they've read and understand the disclaimer. Offit said VAERS works best as 'a hypothesis-generating mechanism' that can tip scientists off to issues for further study, such as the rare cases of blood clots that prompted the agency to recommend a temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In this case, the CDC has analyzed all the reports of death among COVID-19 vaccine recipients that were submitted to VAERS between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 3. 'A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines,' the agency concluded. To establish causation, scientists need to find proof that an adverse event is significantly more common among vaccinated people than unvaccinated people. VAERS doesn't provide enough data to do that. As of May 5, nearly 150 million Americans have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and many of the early shots went to older and more vulnerable people. 'When you're giving a COVID-19 vaccine to elderly adults, there are going to be people who die shortly after vaccination because they would have died anyway,' Dr. William Moss, executive director of Johns Hopkins's International Vaccine Access Center, previously told PolitiFact. An estimated 8,000 Americans die every day of all causes, according to the CDC. Offit cited the case of baseball legend Hank Aaron, who died of natural causes - likely a stroke - weeks after getting his shot. Social media posts falsely claimed the vaccine killed him. 'You can get the vaccine and still die from other reasons,' Offit said. After his segment baselessly linking the COVID-19 vaccines to 'roughly 30' deaths per day, Carlson interviewed Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Kulldorff told Carlson that VAERS is 'not a very useful system,' in part because it doesn't take into account 'what is expected by chance' in terms of adverse reactions. Carlson has questioned the vaccines and U.S. vaccination efforts on several occasions. In April, we rated Pants on Fire his claim that, 'Maybe it doesn't work, and they're simply not telling you that.' Fox News defended that statement by pointing to other instances where Carlson claimed to support vaccines, such as when he said he is 'pretty pro-vaccine.' Elsewhere in his May 5 segment, Carlson similarly said the 'vaccines aren't dangerous' based on 'the official numbers.' But his claim about thousands of deaths is wrong. On Facebook, a video of the claim was viewed more than 155,000 times, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) | Our ruling Carlson said, 'Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States ... The actual number is almost certainly higher.' That's highly misleading. The source of Carlson's numbers is the VAERS database, which is often exploited by anti-vaccine activists to make false vaccine claims. The CDC analyzed the VAERS death reports and concluded that there's no 'causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.' People can die after getting vaccinated for any number of reasons unrelated to the vaccine. We rate Carlson's statement False. | [
"103222-proof-15-4fbc499351bbf87d29597101770ba63f.jpg"
]
|
'Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States ... The actual number is almost certainly higher. | Contradiction | Fox News host Tucker Carlson suggested that thousands of Americans have died since December because of the COVID-19 vaccines, citing an unverified federal database that has become a breeding ground for anti-vaccine misinformation. The comments were the latest in a series of controversial remarks by Carlson raising doubts about the vaccines, which clinical trials and real-world studies have shown are both safe and effective. 'Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States - 3,362,' Carlson told millions of viewers during his primetime TV show May 5. 'That's an average of roughly 30 people every day.' 'The actual number is almost certainly higher than that, perhaps vastly higher than that,' he added. 'It's clear that what is happening now, for whatever reason, is not even close to normal.' Carlson said he was citing numbers from the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, an open-source database often misused by anti-vaccine activists to make false claims about vaccine safety. Experts rejected Carlson's claim as misleading. That's because VAERS data is considered unreliable for drawing causal conclusions. And dying after a vaccine is not the same thing as dying because of the vaccine. 'It is exceptionally irresponsible for this man to claim that all these are causal associations. It's wrong,' said Dr. Paul Offit, the chair of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine. 'He puts people's lives at risk with bad information during a pandemic.' VAERS reports are unverified and don't show causation Unlike other official government sources, which flow through consistent reporting channels and get screened by statisticians and analysts before they are made available to the public, VAERS is an open-access system. The reports submitted are not verified before they become public. 'Anybody can report to it,' Offit said. 'If I get a vaccine, or I give my child a vaccine, and I believe that they have turned into the 'Incredible Hulk,' then I can write up a one-page report online and submit it, and that then is included. And that's been done.' A disclaimer on the VAERS website says the 'reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness,' in part because they 'may include incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information.' People accessing the database must click an option that says that they've read and understand the disclaimer. Offit said VAERS works best as 'a hypothesis-generating mechanism' that can tip scientists off to issues for further study, such as the rare cases of blood clots that prompted the agency to recommend a temporary pause on use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. In this case, the CDC has analyzed all the reports of death among COVID-19 vaccine recipients that were submitted to VAERS between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 3. 'A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines,' the agency concluded. To establish causation, scientists need to find proof that an adverse event is significantly more common among vaccinated people than unvaccinated people. VAERS doesn't provide enough data to do that. As of May 5, nearly 150 million Americans have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and many of the early shots went to older and more vulnerable people. 'When you're giving a COVID-19 vaccine to elderly adults, there are going to be people who die shortly after vaccination because they would have died anyway,' Dr. William Moss, executive director of Johns Hopkins's International Vaccine Access Center, previously told PolitiFact. An estimated 8,000 Americans die every day of all causes, according to the CDC. Offit cited the case of baseball legend Hank Aaron, who died of natural causes - likely a stroke - weeks after getting his shot. Social media posts falsely claimed the vaccine killed him. 'You can get the vaccine and still die from other reasons,' Offit said. After his segment baselessly linking the COVID-19 vaccines to 'roughly 30' deaths per day, Carlson interviewed Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. Kulldorff told Carlson that VAERS is 'not a very useful system,' in part because it doesn't take into account 'what is expected by chance' in terms of adverse reactions. Carlson has questioned the vaccines and U.S. vaccination efforts on several occasions. In April, we rated Pants on Fire his claim that, 'Maybe it doesn't work, and they're simply not telling you that.' Fox News defended that statement by pointing to other instances where Carlson claimed to support vaccines, such as when he said he is 'pretty pro-vaccine.' Elsewhere in his May 5 segment, Carlson similarly said the 'vaccines aren't dangerous' based on 'the official numbers.' But his claim about thousands of deaths is wrong. On Facebook, a video of the claim was viewed more than 155,000 times, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) | Our ruling Carlson said, 'Between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States ... The actual number is almost certainly higher.' That's highly misleading. The source of Carlson's numbers is the VAERS database, which is often exploited by anti-vaccine activists to make false vaccine claims. The CDC analyzed the VAERS death reports and concluded that there's no 'causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.' People can die after getting vaccinated for any number of reasons unrelated to the vaccine. We rate Carlson's statement False. | [
"103222-proof-15-4fbc499351bbf87d29597101770ba63f.jpg"
]
|
'Voter FRAUD exposed in Georgia. Over 2600 votes 'FOUND. | Contradiction | As Georgia neared the deadline to complete a hand recount and audit of its presidential election results, some social media users said officials found evidence of voter fraud. On Nov. 16, the man who runs a conservative page called the 'Pissed Off Patriot' posted a Facebook Live video in which he falsely claimed that President Donald Trump won the election against Joe Biden. In Georgia, where Biden led by about 14,000 votes, the page owner said there is evidence of voter fraud in rural Floyd County. 'BREAKING: Voter FRAUD exposed in Georgia,' the video caption says. 'Over 2600 votes 'FOUND.'' The man in the video appears to read from a news article as he discusses how '2,631 votes were found in Georgia' and speculates that it was due to voter fraud. We reached out to the Pissed Off Patriot for a comment, but we haven't heard back. The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In the weeks since the election, Georgia has been the subject of numerous pieces of disinformation that seek to undermine faith in the integrity of its vote. (Screenshot from Facebook) While election officials did find more than 2,600 uncounted votes in Floyd County, that discovery is not evidence of voter fraud in Georgia. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, has repeatedly said there is no evidence of fraud affecting the state's presidential election results. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Nov. 16 that officials had found more than 2,600 ballots in Floyd County, located northwest of Atlanta, that hadn't been tallied. In a tweeted statement, Gabriel Sterling, Georgia's voting system manager, said Trump will likely benefit from the votes. 'Here is the unofficial breakdown of the ballots that weren't originally uploaded,' Sterling said. '1,643 votes for Pres. Trump, 865 for former VP Biden and 16 for Libertarian Jo Jorgensen. That is +778 for President Trump that will be reflected in the certified result.' To win Georgia, which has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1992, Trump would need to make up thousands more votes. State election officials do not expect that will happen - and even if it did, Biden would still have enough electoral votes to win the presidency. The Floyd County ballots weren't counted after Election Day because local officials did not upload votes from a memory card in a ballot scanning machine. Sterling told reporters the problem was the result of human error. RELATED: How we know Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential race 'It is the only county where we've had an issue like this,' he said. 'It's unfortunate, but it's not an equipment issue. It's a person not executing their job properly.' Raffensperger's office told PolitiFact in an email that the uncounted ballots had nothing to do with voter fraud. 'This is not an example of fraud. It is an example of mismanagement at the county level,' the secretary of state said. 'These ballots were part of the hand audit directed by the secretary of state. Once the audit discovered them, it was recognized that they should be part of the final certified total. The audit did its job to assure legally cast ballots are counted properly.' The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"103252-proof-12-6f26cc83888784eafdfbdbe15bad58fc.jpg"
]
|
'Voter FRAUD exposed in Georgia. Over 2600 votes 'FOUND. | Contradiction | As Georgia neared the deadline to complete a hand recount and audit of its presidential election results, some social media users said officials found evidence of voter fraud. On Nov. 16, the man who runs a conservative page called the 'Pissed Off Patriot' posted a Facebook Live video in which he falsely claimed that President Donald Trump won the election against Joe Biden. In Georgia, where Biden led by about 14,000 votes, the page owner said there is evidence of voter fraud in rural Floyd County. 'BREAKING: Voter FRAUD exposed in Georgia,' the video caption says. 'Over 2600 votes 'FOUND.'' The man in the video appears to read from a news article as he discusses how '2,631 votes were found in Georgia' and speculates that it was due to voter fraud. We reached out to the Pissed Off Patriot for a comment, but we haven't heard back. The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In the weeks since the election, Georgia has been the subject of numerous pieces of disinformation that seek to undermine faith in the integrity of its vote. (Screenshot from Facebook) While election officials did find more than 2,600 uncounted votes in Floyd County, that discovery is not evidence of voter fraud in Georgia. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, has repeatedly said there is no evidence of fraud affecting the state's presidential election results. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Nov. 16 that officials had found more than 2,600 ballots in Floyd County, located northwest of Atlanta, that hadn't been tallied. In a tweeted statement, Gabriel Sterling, Georgia's voting system manager, said Trump will likely benefit from the votes. 'Here is the unofficial breakdown of the ballots that weren't originally uploaded,' Sterling said. '1,643 votes for Pres. Trump, 865 for former VP Biden and 16 for Libertarian Jo Jorgensen. That is +778 for President Trump that will be reflected in the certified result.' To win Georgia, which has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1992, Trump would need to make up thousands more votes. State election officials do not expect that will happen - and even if it did, Biden would still have enough electoral votes to win the presidency. The Floyd County ballots weren't counted after Election Day because local officials did not upload votes from a memory card in a ballot scanning machine. Sterling told reporters the problem was the result of human error. RELATED: How we know Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential race 'It is the only county where we've had an issue like this,' he said. 'It's unfortunate, but it's not an equipment issue. It's a person not executing their job properly.' Raffensperger's office told PolitiFact in an email that the uncounted ballots had nothing to do with voter fraud. 'This is not an example of fraud. It is an example of mismanagement at the county level,' the secretary of state said. 'These ballots were part of the hand audit directed by the secretary of state. Once the audit discovered them, it was recognized that they should be part of the final certified total. The audit did its job to assure legally cast ballots are counted properly.' The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"103252-proof-12-6f26cc83888784eafdfbdbe15bad58fc.jpg"
]
|
'Voter FRAUD exposed in Georgia. Over 2600 votes 'FOUND. | Contradiction | As Georgia neared the deadline to complete a hand recount and audit of its presidential election results, some social media users said officials found evidence of voter fraud. On Nov. 16, the man who runs a conservative page called the 'Pissed Off Patriot' posted a Facebook Live video in which he falsely claimed that President Donald Trump won the election against Joe Biden. In Georgia, where Biden led by about 14,000 votes, the page owner said there is evidence of voter fraud in rural Floyd County. 'BREAKING: Voter FRAUD exposed in Georgia,' the video caption says. 'Over 2600 votes 'FOUND.'' The man in the video appears to read from a news article as he discusses how '2,631 votes were found in Georgia' and speculates that it was due to voter fraud. We reached out to the Pissed Off Patriot for a comment, but we haven't heard back. The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) In the weeks since the election, Georgia has been the subject of numerous pieces of disinformation that seek to undermine faith in the integrity of its vote. (Screenshot from Facebook) While election officials did find more than 2,600 uncounted votes in Floyd County, that discovery is not evidence of voter fraud in Georgia. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, has repeatedly said there is no evidence of fraud affecting the state's presidential election results. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Nov. 16 that officials had found more than 2,600 ballots in Floyd County, located northwest of Atlanta, that hadn't been tallied. In a tweeted statement, Gabriel Sterling, Georgia's voting system manager, said Trump will likely benefit from the votes. 'Here is the unofficial breakdown of the ballots that weren't originally uploaded,' Sterling said. '1,643 votes for Pres. Trump, 865 for former VP Biden and 16 for Libertarian Jo Jorgensen. That is +778 for President Trump that will be reflected in the certified result.' To win Georgia, which has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1992, Trump would need to make up thousands more votes. State election officials do not expect that will happen - and even if it did, Biden would still have enough electoral votes to win the presidency. The Floyd County ballots weren't counted after Election Day because local officials did not upload votes from a memory card in a ballot scanning machine. Sterling told reporters the problem was the result of human error. RELATED: How we know Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential race 'It is the only county where we've had an issue like this,' he said. 'It's unfortunate, but it's not an equipment issue. It's a person not executing their job properly.' Raffensperger's office told PolitiFact in an email that the uncounted ballots had nothing to do with voter fraud. 'This is not an example of fraud. It is an example of mismanagement at the county level,' the secretary of state said. 'These ballots were part of the hand audit directed by the secretary of state. Once the audit discovered them, it was recognized that they should be part of the final certified total. The audit did its job to assure legally cast ballots are counted properly.' The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"103252-proof-12-6f26cc83888784eafdfbdbe15bad58fc.jpg"
]
|
Photo shows Kamala Harris pretending to board an official plane. | Contradiction | Two photos circulating on social media are being characterized as further evidence for the theory that members of the Biden administration are staging events for the cameras. 'ENJOYING THE SHOW EVERYONE KAMALA,' reads a recent Facebook post showing an image of an Air Force One replica and another image of people standing below an airstair leading to a green screen. 'JUST ABOUT TO BOARD THE GREEN SCREEN.' In the second photo, the feet of someone wearing what look like black Converse sneakers has been circled in red. The person's face isn't visible, but the implication in the post is that it's Vice President Kamala Harris, who is famous for wearing Converse. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've previously debunked claims that a bill signing in the Rose Garden was filmed at Tyler Perry Studios in Atlanta and that Biden faked an interview in front of a green screen. The Air Force One replica shown in the Facebook post is not from a movie set. It's used for training at the U.S. Secret Service training center in Laurel, Md. The photo was taken in 2016, when Barack Obama was president. The photo of the people gathered at the bottom of the airstair leading to a green screen also predates the Biden administration, and Harris isn't in it. Other people wear Converse, too. Kal Penn, who starred as Seth Wright, a White House speechwriter in the TV drama 'Designated Survivor,' shared the picture on social media on May 3, 2017. 'Here's what it looked like to film this scene,' he wrote on Instagram and Twitter. 'Entirely green screen Air Force One. Just stairs leading up to a box. #DesignatedSurvivor.' We rate claims that the image shows Kamala Harris Pants on Fire! | We rate claims that the image shows Kamala Harris Pants on Fire! | []
|
'Congress files charges against Nancy Pelosi. | Contradiction | Weeks after U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up her copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech, misinformation continues to ripple online. A recent example is this Feb. 25 post being shared on a blog with the title 'Re-elect TRUMP 2020.' The story claims Congress has filed charges against Pelosi. Only it's not much of a story. The headline is dramatic: 'Congress files charges against Nancy Pelosi - she may have broken federal law with her speech rip.' But the five-sentence post offers no details about the allegation, saying only that 'it looks like Nancy Pelosi made a big mistake at the State of the Union - bigger than she could have expected.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've already debunked several claims about the speech. There's no evidence Pelosi planned to rip the speech at the start of the president's address, for example. Her actions weren't illegal. And she wasn't arrested for them. Pelosi defended her behavior, saying in a press conference that she 'tore up a manifesto of mistruths.' 'It was necessary to get the attention of the American people to say, 'This is not true. And this is how it affects you,'' she said. U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., filed an ethics complaint against Pelosi for ripping up the speech, but we found no evidence that charges have been filed against her, as this blog claims. The Feb. 25 blog post repeats claims that have already been debunked. We rate it Pants on Fire. | We rate it Pants on Fire. | []
|
'Congress files charges against Nancy Pelosi. | Contradiction | Weeks after U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up her copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech, misinformation continues to ripple online. A recent example is this Feb. 25 post being shared on a blog with the title 'Re-elect TRUMP 2020.' The story claims Congress has filed charges against Pelosi. Only it's not much of a story. The headline is dramatic: 'Congress files charges against Nancy Pelosi - she may have broken federal law with her speech rip.' But the five-sentence post offers no details about the allegation, saying only that 'it looks like Nancy Pelosi made a big mistake at the State of the Union - bigger than she could have expected.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've already debunked several claims about the speech. There's no evidence Pelosi planned to rip the speech at the start of the president's address, for example. Her actions weren't illegal. And she wasn't arrested for them. Pelosi defended her behavior, saying in a press conference that she 'tore up a manifesto of mistruths.' 'It was necessary to get the attention of the American people to say, 'This is not true. And this is how it affects you,'' she said. U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., filed an ethics complaint against Pelosi for ripping up the speech, but we found no evidence that charges have been filed against her, as this blog claims. The Feb. 25 blog post repeats claims that have already been debunked. We rate it Pants on Fire. | We rate it Pants on Fire. | []
|
'Congress files charges against Nancy Pelosi. | Contradiction | Weeks after U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up her copy of President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech, misinformation continues to ripple online. A recent example is this Feb. 25 post being shared on a blog with the title 'Re-elect TRUMP 2020.' The story claims Congress has filed charges against Pelosi. Only it's not much of a story. The headline is dramatic: 'Congress files charges against Nancy Pelosi - she may have broken federal law with her speech rip.' But the five-sentence post offers no details about the allegation, saying only that 'it looks like Nancy Pelosi made a big mistake at the State of the Union - bigger than she could have expected.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've already debunked several claims about the speech. There's no evidence Pelosi planned to rip the speech at the start of the president's address, for example. Her actions weren't illegal. And she wasn't arrested for them. Pelosi defended her behavior, saying in a press conference that she 'tore up a manifesto of mistruths.' 'It was necessary to get the attention of the American people to say, 'This is not true. And this is how it affects you,'' she said. U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., filed an ethics complaint against Pelosi for ripping up the speech, but we found no evidence that charges have been filed against her, as this blog claims. The Feb. 25 blog post repeats claims that have already been debunked. We rate it Pants on Fire. | We rate it Pants on Fire. | []
|
Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried 'suspended gun rights - no due process - just because she says these people were merely 'involved' in January 6. | Contradiction | Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried suspended gun permits for nearly two dozen people charged with crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. 'The deeply disturbing events that occurred at our nation's Capitol on January 6 were sedition, treason, and domestic terrorism - and those individuals involved in the insurrection must be held accountable for attempting to subvert our democratic process,' Fried said in a July 27 statement. Fried runs the state department that oversees gun permits, including concealed carry licenses. Fried, Florida's only statewide Democrat officeholder, is running in the 2022 Democratic primary for governor. A conservative Florida attorney criticized the gun permit suspensions on Facebook. 'She suspended 'gun rights' - no due process - just because she says these people were merely 'involved' in January 6,' wrote KrisAnne Hall, a Florida attorney who hosts a podcast and gives lectures on the Constitution. 'Did they have a trial? Were they convicted of a crime?' Fried did use the word 'involved' in a press release describing the permit holders actions on Jan. 6. But it's wrong to suggest that Fried suspended their permits just because they were 'involved.' State law calls for suspending gun permits when people are charged with serious offenses. The post is also wrong to claim that due process rights have been ignored. These Floridians will have an opportunity to request a hearing about the suspension. The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Florida law requires suspensions for permit holders charged with certain crimes Florida is a 'shall issue' state, which makes it easier to get a gun permit than in some other states. There are 2.3 million concealed weapon permit holders. Criminal activity can cost someone their license, at least temporarily. State law requires the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to suspend a concealed carry gun permit when a person is arrested or charged with a crime that would disqualify a person from having a license. This includes any felony offense as well as certain misdemeanors, such as multiple DUIs or drug crimes. For the most recent year ending in June 2021, the state revoked 1,050 licenses and suspended about 7,300. Under Florida law, a concealed weapon or firearm license is a private record - which means we don't know which Jan. 6 defendants had their permits suspended, and so we also don't know their specific charges. A spokesperson for the department would not reveal which charges were at play, saying it received the information about the defendants from the U.S. Department of Justice. Suspensions are a temporary action - an interim step to a potential revocation. And state law spells out the mandate for suspensions. It says when the department is notified by a law enforcement agency or a court, it shall suspend a license of a person arrested or charged with a crime that would disqualify the person from having a license until final disposition of the case. Also, the department shall suspend a license of a person who is issued an injunction that restrains the person from committing acts of domestic violence or repeat violence. The Justice Department has charged more than 550 people in connection with the Capitol siege, according to a database run by the George Washington University Center on Extremism. Charges include obstruction of law enforcement, violence with a deadly weapon, assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm on Capitol grounds. The largest number of defendants - 63 - came from Florida, according to the university's database. Some of the Floridians include: Kevin Tuck, a Windermere police officer who has since resigned. He was indicted on multiple offenses including obstruction of an official proceeding and disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building. Adam Johnson, who was photographed carrying Speaker Nancy Pelosi's lectern during the riot. He was charged with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. Joseph Biggs, a member of the neofascist group the Proud Boys. He was charged with multiple counts including destruction of government property and violent and disorderly conduct. Paul Hodgkins of Tampa, who was seen in the Senate chamber taking selfies, and was the first defendant to be sentenced for a felony charge. Relating to due process, Florida law says that the agriculture department must send a notice of suspension to the permit holder, who then has a few weeks to request a hearing. So far, one suspended permit holder has requested a hearing, said Erin Moffet, a spokesperson for Fried. If permit holders want to present evidence that they were not charged with a disqualifying offense, they could do so. The number of suspended licenses could go up or down depending on the outcome of cases. As of Aug. 2, the number of suspended permits was 23. In an email interview about her Facebook post, Hall cited part of the law that points to felonies or drug crimes as disqualifying offenses for gun permits. 'The majority of these people have not been charged with crimes that would disqualify them from having a license, therefore they are not eligible for suspension or revocation without actual conviction of a greater crime,' Hall said in an email. 'Therefore, neither the law nor due process have been served.' We asked Hall how she knows that the majority of these people have not been charged with disqualifying offenses since the names of the permit holders are private and did not get a reply to that question. She is wrong to suggest there is no due process since the permit holders have a right to a hearing. Daniel W. Webster, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy, said there isn't a lot of data to examine offending rates of concealed carry permit holders compared with the public at large. 'But I think it is still safe to say that, as a group, permit holders are very law-abiding,' Webster said. 'What people fail to appreciate is that this is simply a reflection of group average. Within that large group, there are clearly subgroups of individuals with much higher risks for violent offending. Participating in a violent insurrection may well be a marker for risks for committing acts of violence.' | Our ruling A Facebook post said that Fried 'suspended gun rights - no due process - just because she says these people were merely 'involved' in January 6.' The post wrongly suggests that Fried suspended gun permits based on the participants' mere involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The post ignores what Florida law actually says: Fried's department is required to suspend gun permits for disqualifying offenses, which includes violent crimes. Since the names of permit holders are a private record in Florida, we can't independently evaluate their charges to confirm that they are disqualifying offenses under state law. However, under state law, they have a right to request a hearing to challenge their suspensions. We rate this statement Mostly False. RELATED: Misinformation and the Jan. 6 insurrection: When 'patriot warriors' were fed lies PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this fact-check. | [
"103280-proof-28-f2d9166092450e5e4608637752559521.jpg"
]
|
Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried 'suspended gun rights - no due process - just because she says these people were merely 'involved' in January 6. | Contradiction | Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried suspended gun permits for nearly two dozen people charged with crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. 'The deeply disturbing events that occurred at our nation's Capitol on January 6 were sedition, treason, and domestic terrorism - and those individuals involved in the insurrection must be held accountable for attempting to subvert our democratic process,' Fried said in a July 27 statement. Fried runs the state department that oversees gun permits, including concealed carry licenses. Fried, Florida's only statewide Democrat officeholder, is running in the 2022 Democratic primary for governor. A conservative Florida attorney criticized the gun permit suspensions on Facebook. 'She suspended 'gun rights' - no due process - just because she says these people were merely 'involved' in January 6,' wrote KrisAnne Hall, a Florida attorney who hosts a podcast and gives lectures on the Constitution. 'Did they have a trial? Were they convicted of a crime?' Fried did use the word 'involved' in a press release describing the permit holders actions on Jan. 6. But it's wrong to suggest that Fried suspended their permits just because they were 'involved.' State law calls for suspending gun permits when people are charged with serious offenses. The post is also wrong to claim that due process rights have been ignored. These Floridians will have an opportunity to request a hearing about the suspension. The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Florida law requires suspensions for permit holders charged with certain crimes Florida is a 'shall issue' state, which makes it easier to get a gun permit than in some other states. There are 2.3 million concealed weapon permit holders. Criminal activity can cost someone their license, at least temporarily. State law requires the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to suspend a concealed carry gun permit when a person is arrested or charged with a crime that would disqualify a person from having a license. This includes any felony offense as well as certain misdemeanors, such as multiple DUIs or drug crimes. For the most recent year ending in June 2021, the state revoked 1,050 licenses and suspended about 7,300. Under Florida law, a concealed weapon or firearm license is a private record - which means we don't know which Jan. 6 defendants had their permits suspended, and so we also don't know their specific charges. A spokesperson for the department would not reveal which charges were at play, saying it received the information about the defendants from the U.S. Department of Justice. Suspensions are a temporary action - an interim step to a potential revocation. And state law spells out the mandate for suspensions. It says when the department is notified by a law enforcement agency or a court, it shall suspend a license of a person arrested or charged with a crime that would disqualify the person from having a license until final disposition of the case. Also, the department shall suspend a license of a person who is issued an injunction that restrains the person from committing acts of domestic violence or repeat violence. The Justice Department has charged more than 550 people in connection with the Capitol siege, according to a database run by the George Washington University Center on Extremism. Charges include obstruction of law enforcement, violence with a deadly weapon, assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm on Capitol grounds. The largest number of defendants - 63 - came from Florida, according to the university's database. Some of the Floridians include: Kevin Tuck, a Windermere police officer who has since resigned. He was indicted on multiple offenses including obstruction of an official proceeding and disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building. Adam Johnson, who was photographed carrying Speaker Nancy Pelosi's lectern during the riot. He was charged with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. Joseph Biggs, a member of the neofascist group the Proud Boys. He was charged with multiple counts including destruction of government property and violent and disorderly conduct. Paul Hodgkins of Tampa, who was seen in the Senate chamber taking selfies, and was the first defendant to be sentenced for a felony charge. Relating to due process, Florida law says that the agriculture department must send a notice of suspension to the permit holder, who then has a few weeks to request a hearing. So far, one suspended permit holder has requested a hearing, said Erin Moffet, a spokesperson for Fried. If permit holders want to present evidence that they were not charged with a disqualifying offense, they could do so. The number of suspended licenses could go up or down depending on the outcome of cases. As of Aug. 2, the number of suspended permits was 23. In an email interview about her Facebook post, Hall cited part of the law that points to felonies or drug crimes as disqualifying offenses for gun permits. 'The majority of these people have not been charged with crimes that would disqualify them from having a license, therefore they are not eligible for suspension or revocation without actual conviction of a greater crime,' Hall said in an email. 'Therefore, neither the law nor due process have been served.' We asked Hall how she knows that the majority of these people have not been charged with disqualifying offenses since the names of the permit holders are private and did not get a reply to that question. She is wrong to suggest there is no due process since the permit holders have a right to a hearing. Daniel W. Webster, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy, said there isn't a lot of data to examine offending rates of concealed carry permit holders compared with the public at large. 'But I think it is still safe to say that, as a group, permit holders are very law-abiding,' Webster said. 'What people fail to appreciate is that this is simply a reflection of group average. Within that large group, there are clearly subgroups of individuals with much higher risks for violent offending. Participating in a violent insurrection may well be a marker for risks for committing acts of violence.' | Our ruling A Facebook post said that Fried 'suspended gun rights - no due process - just because she says these people were merely 'involved' in January 6.' The post wrongly suggests that Fried suspended gun permits based on the participants' mere involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The post ignores what Florida law actually says: Fried's department is required to suspend gun permits for disqualifying offenses, which includes violent crimes. Since the names of permit holders are a private record in Florida, we can't independently evaluate their charges to confirm that they are disqualifying offenses under state law. However, under state law, they have a right to request a hearing to challenge their suspensions. We rate this statement Mostly False. RELATED: Misinformation and the Jan. 6 insurrection: When 'patriot warriors' were fed lies PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this fact-check. | [
"103280-proof-28-f2d9166092450e5e4608637752559521.jpg"
]
|
Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried 'suspended gun rights - no due process - just because she says these people were merely 'involved' in January 6. | Contradiction | Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried suspended gun permits for nearly two dozen people charged with crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. 'The deeply disturbing events that occurred at our nation's Capitol on January 6 were sedition, treason, and domestic terrorism - and those individuals involved in the insurrection must be held accountable for attempting to subvert our democratic process,' Fried said in a July 27 statement. Fried runs the state department that oversees gun permits, including concealed carry licenses. Fried, Florida's only statewide Democrat officeholder, is running in the 2022 Democratic primary for governor. A conservative Florida attorney criticized the gun permit suspensions on Facebook. 'She suspended 'gun rights' - no due process - just because she says these people were merely 'involved' in January 6,' wrote KrisAnne Hall, a Florida attorney who hosts a podcast and gives lectures on the Constitution. 'Did they have a trial? Were they convicted of a crime?' Fried did use the word 'involved' in a press release describing the permit holders actions on Jan. 6. But it's wrong to suggest that Fried suspended their permits just because they were 'involved.' State law calls for suspending gun permits when people are charged with serious offenses. The post is also wrong to claim that due process rights have been ignored. These Floridians will have an opportunity to request a hearing about the suspension. The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Florida law requires suspensions for permit holders charged with certain crimes Florida is a 'shall issue' state, which makes it easier to get a gun permit than in some other states. There are 2.3 million concealed weapon permit holders. Criminal activity can cost someone their license, at least temporarily. State law requires the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to suspend a concealed carry gun permit when a person is arrested or charged with a crime that would disqualify a person from having a license. This includes any felony offense as well as certain misdemeanors, such as multiple DUIs or drug crimes. For the most recent year ending in June 2021, the state revoked 1,050 licenses and suspended about 7,300. Under Florida law, a concealed weapon or firearm license is a private record - which means we don't know which Jan. 6 defendants had their permits suspended, and so we also don't know their specific charges. A spokesperson for the department would not reveal which charges were at play, saying it received the information about the defendants from the U.S. Department of Justice. Suspensions are a temporary action - an interim step to a potential revocation. And state law spells out the mandate for suspensions. It says when the department is notified by a law enforcement agency or a court, it shall suspend a license of a person arrested or charged with a crime that would disqualify the person from having a license until final disposition of the case. Also, the department shall suspend a license of a person who is issued an injunction that restrains the person from committing acts of domestic violence or repeat violence. The Justice Department has charged more than 550 people in connection with the Capitol siege, according to a database run by the George Washington University Center on Extremism. Charges include obstruction of law enforcement, violence with a deadly weapon, assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm on Capitol grounds. The largest number of defendants - 63 - came from Florida, according to the university's database. Some of the Floridians include: Kevin Tuck, a Windermere police officer who has since resigned. He was indicted on multiple offenses including obstruction of an official proceeding and disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building. Adam Johnson, who was photographed carrying Speaker Nancy Pelosi's lectern during the riot. He was charged with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds. Joseph Biggs, a member of the neofascist group the Proud Boys. He was charged with multiple counts including destruction of government property and violent and disorderly conduct. Paul Hodgkins of Tampa, who was seen in the Senate chamber taking selfies, and was the first defendant to be sentenced for a felony charge. Relating to due process, Florida law says that the agriculture department must send a notice of suspension to the permit holder, who then has a few weeks to request a hearing. So far, one suspended permit holder has requested a hearing, said Erin Moffet, a spokesperson for Fried. If permit holders want to present evidence that they were not charged with a disqualifying offense, they could do so. The number of suspended licenses could go up or down depending on the outcome of cases. As of Aug. 2, the number of suspended permits was 23. In an email interview about her Facebook post, Hall cited part of the law that points to felonies or drug crimes as disqualifying offenses for gun permits. 'The majority of these people have not been charged with crimes that would disqualify them from having a license, therefore they are not eligible for suspension or revocation without actual conviction of a greater crime,' Hall said in an email. 'Therefore, neither the law nor due process have been served.' We asked Hall how she knows that the majority of these people have not been charged with disqualifying offenses since the names of the permit holders are private and did not get a reply to that question. She is wrong to suggest there is no due process since the permit holders have a right to a hearing. Daniel W. Webster, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention and Policy, said there isn't a lot of data to examine offending rates of concealed carry permit holders compared with the public at large. 'But I think it is still safe to say that, as a group, permit holders are very law-abiding,' Webster said. 'What people fail to appreciate is that this is simply a reflection of group average. Within that large group, there are clearly subgroups of individuals with much higher risks for violent offending. Participating in a violent insurrection may well be a marker for risks for committing acts of violence.' | Our ruling A Facebook post said that Fried 'suspended gun rights - no due process - just because she says these people were merely 'involved' in January 6.' The post wrongly suggests that Fried suspended gun permits based on the participants' mere involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The post ignores what Florida law actually says: Fried's department is required to suspend gun permits for disqualifying offenses, which includes violent crimes. Since the names of permit holders are a private record in Florida, we can't independently evaluate their charges to confirm that they are disqualifying offenses under state law. However, under state law, they have a right to request a hearing to challenge their suspensions. We rate this statement Mostly False. RELATED: Misinformation and the Jan. 6 insurrection: When 'patriot warriors' were fed lies PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this fact-check. | [
"103280-proof-28-f2d9166092450e5e4608637752559521.jpg"
]
|
'I would do press events in May, I would never be asked about coronavirus. | Contradiction | Gov. Ron DeSantis has a new narrative about Florida's rising COVID-19 numbers: As cases leveled off in May, the media stopped covering the story, and the public grew complacent. DeSantis made this case during his July 2 meeting in Tampa with Vice President Mike Pence, where he said that the pandemic 'fell out of the news.' at the end of May and beginning of June. A week earlier, DeSantis said the media had returned its attention to the pandemic as the caseload grew in June amid reopenings of restaurants, shops and beaches. 'Well, I think now this is back in the news. I think people understand. Look, it was natural. It wasn't much, I mean, I would do press events in May, I would never be asked about coronavirus,' DeSantis said June 26. 'It was about all these other things. Now it's something that they are (asking about).' The other major news story that swept the nation and Florida starting in late May was the protests about police brutality and racism that followed George Floyd's killing in police custody. As Florida journalists covered weeks of protests across the state, media outlets continued their pandemic coverage. In the week following Floyd's death, we found news articles about Florida's COVID-19 case numbers, reopenings of beaches and gyms in Broward, a photo gallery of pandemic life in Jacksonville, updates on openings and closings in southwest Florida, and the impact of the pandemic on hurricane planning, just to name a few of thousands of examples we found in Nexis. Reporters pushed back against DeSantis, so we wanted to look into it. We found that multiple transcripts of DeSantis press conferences in May show reporters asking him about lifting COVID-19 restrictions on businesses, the state's rising unemployment and flawed benefits system, the plan for addressing spikes, and outbreaks in nursing homes and prisons. We sent a link to those transcripts to spokespersons for DeSantis and asked what he was referring to when he said he wasn't asked about the coronavirus. We did not get a response to our emails or phone messages. Some of the COVID-19 questions The press conferences we reviewed showed DeSantis taking questions about COVID-19, even if that wasn't the main topic of the event. Reporters asked him about the pandemic at press conferences on judicial appointments and a road construction project. We found at least a dozen times reporters asked DeSantis about COVID-19 in May. Here are a few examples. For our review, we used the transcript service Rev.com and video from the Florida Channel, a public affairs programming service based at the state Capitol. May 3: Reporters asked about applicants for unemployment, antibody testing and efforts to protect people in nursing homes as well as a prison outbreak. May 8: A reporter asked a question about the phases of reopening in South Florida. May 11: DeSantis faced questions about people awaiting unemployment checks and the state's unemployment website. A reporter started to ask a question about one of the covid case models that the state was looking at and DeSantis interjected: 'Has that been accurate so far? Have any of the models been accurate so far?' May 13: DeSantis faced a couple of questions about cases in long-term facilities including if he had considered testing for all residents and staff and why Florida was not pursuing the White House recommendation to test everyone in nursing homes. May 15: Reporters asked questions about unemployment as well as when bars would be allowed to reopen and vacation rentals could resume. A reporter also asked if parents should send their children to summer camp. May 22: Reporters asked questions about lifting restrictions, the number of pending unemployment claims and if the state had a plan if COVID-19 spiked in the future. | Our ruling DeSantis said, 'I would do press events in May, I would never be asked about coronavirus,'' His spokespersons did not respond to our multiple queries to figure out which events he had in mind. Our own review shows that he was asked about coronavirus issues at many press conferences. Questions related to unemployment, nursing homes, rules about reopening and how the state would handle spikes. We rate this claim False. | [
"103292-proof-23-1ef49fce454f59435dc02776b92f9bca.jpg"
]
|
Says Donald Trump got 'exposed for raping a 13-year-old' in retaliation for law enforcement officers 'killing black people. | Contradiction | Amid the nationwide protests over the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in police custody in Minneapolis after a white officer knelt on his neck, a Facebook user claimed: 'Remember when Anonymous said they would expose America's politicians if pigs kept killing black people? well, ur president got exposed for raping a 13 year old!!!! heres the proof!!! you support a pedophile/child rapist!!!!' The May 31 post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post suggested the rape allegation against Trump is a revelation. It isn't. The lawsuit referenced in the post is from 2016 and was dropped before any litigation began in earnest to evaluate the allegations. The post includes images of the first four pages of the initial complaint, which was filed against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. We confirmed with online court records that the pages are the same as those in the actual lawsuit. The federal case was brought in New York by Jane Doe, a woman who requested to maintain her anonymity. She alleged the two men raped her during parties hosted by Epstein in the summer of 1994, when she was 13. She also alleged that Trump threatened her and her family with physical harm if she told anyone. A lawyer for Trump called the lawsuit at the time 'a complete fabrication.' The woman dropped the lawsuit in November 2016. Two days earlier, she had been expected to appear at a news conference, but it was abruptly canceled; her attorney, Lisa Bloom, said the woman had received threats and was too frightened to appear. Epstein was charged in July 2019 with running a sex-trafficking ring involving underage girls. His death in his New York jail cell in August 2019 was ruled a suicide, although the circumstances of his death have been disputed. | Our ruling A recent Facebook post says President Donald Trump was 'exposed for raping a 13-year-old' in retaliation for law enforcement officers 'killing black people.' A 2016 lawsuit accused Trump, then a candidate for president, of raping a minor, but no evidence was put forth before the case was dropped. There's also no evidence that the allegation was tied to law enforcement officer-involved deaths of African-Americans. We rate this Facebook post False. | [
"103310-proof-22-15ae73e62bce77b68fe128eebdaf9655.jpg"
]
|
Says Donald Trump got 'exposed for raping a 13-year-old' in retaliation for law enforcement officers 'killing black people. | Contradiction | Amid the nationwide protests over the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in police custody in Minneapolis after a white officer knelt on his neck, a Facebook user claimed: 'Remember when Anonymous said they would expose America's politicians if pigs kept killing black people? well, ur president got exposed for raping a 13 year old!!!! heres the proof!!! you support a pedophile/child rapist!!!!' The May 31 post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post suggested the rape allegation against Trump is a revelation. It isn't. The lawsuit referenced in the post is from 2016 and was dropped before any litigation began in earnest to evaluate the allegations. The post includes images of the first four pages of the initial complaint, which was filed against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. We confirmed with online court records that the pages are the same as those in the actual lawsuit. The federal case was brought in New York by Jane Doe, a woman who requested to maintain her anonymity. She alleged the two men raped her during parties hosted by Epstein in the summer of 1994, when she was 13. She also alleged that Trump threatened her and her family with physical harm if she told anyone. A lawyer for Trump called the lawsuit at the time 'a complete fabrication.' The woman dropped the lawsuit in November 2016. Two days earlier, she had been expected to appear at a news conference, but it was abruptly canceled; her attorney, Lisa Bloom, said the woman had received threats and was too frightened to appear. Epstein was charged in July 2019 with running a sex-trafficking ring involving underage girls. His death in his New York jail cell in August 2019 was ruled a suicide, although the circumstances of his death have been disputed. | Our ruling A recent Facebook post says President Donald Trump was 'exposed for raping a 13-year-old' in retaliation for law enforcement officers 'killing black people.' A 2016 lawsuit accused Trump, then a candidate for president, of raping a minor, but no evidence was put forth before the case was dropped. There's also no evidence that the allegation was tied to law enforcement officer-involved deaths of African-Americans. We rate this Facebook post False. | [
"103310-proof-22-15ae73e62bce77b68fe128eebdaf9655.jpg"
]
|
'COP26 luxury EVs to be recharged using diesel generators' | Contradiction | Too bad snark can't fuel our cars. Climate-change skeptics have delighted in pointing out the shortage of electric vehicle charging stations in Glasgow, Scotland, site of the upcoming international climate change summit known as COP26. 'More Embarrassment: COP26 Luxury EVs to be Recharged Using Diesel Generators,' said a headline on the website Watt's Up With That on Oct. 24. The conservative website Zero Hedge quipped Oct. 16, 'Maybe since we're gathered to talk about the negative effect on the climate, we could at least start by finding a carbon neutral way to shuttle yourself back and forth to the event.' A plain reading would suggest that electric vehicles were being recharged by burning ordinary diesel fuel. That's not what's going on. Yes, generators are being used for recharging, but people who read just a bit further would see that the generators will burn a type of vegetable oil, a fuel with significantly lower emissions than diesel. The fuel is called a biodiesel, but it's fossil-free and chemically quite different from standard petroleum-based diesel fuel. Donated electric Jaguars A number of dignitaries will be staying at hotels that are some distance from the conference site, in some cases as much as 45 miles away. In September, the U.K. government announced that Jaguar Land Rover would provide electric cars and SUVs to shuttle people back and forth. According to Reuters, the automaker is providing 240 vehicles. There aren't enough charging stations to top off the batteries for that many cars overnight. To fill the gap, as The Scotsman reported Oct. 9, the conference organizers will deploy generators powered by waste vegetable oil. The U.K. COP26 office said they would run on hydrotreated vegetable oil. Hydrotreated vegetable oil is less polluting than diesel. A 2018 comparison found the biofuel 'resulted in a significant reduction of all regulated emissions.' RELATED VIDEO That included a 75% reduction in soot, 35% in carbon monoxide, at least 20% fewer hydrocarbons, and about 6% less carbon dioxide. With nitric oxides, the results were mixed. Under some conditions, emissions were lower with hydrotreated vegetable oil. Under others, emissions were higher. Hydrotreated vegetable oil is actually a second-generation biofuel and is broadly seen as more sustainable than the first biofuels based on products like soybeans and rapeseed. The European Union plans to use hydrotreated vegetable oil more in the next decade. While this fuel might be cleaner than diesel, climate change activists criticized the organizers for lack of planning, and suggested the delegates could ride electric buses instead of cars and SUVs. | Our ruling Bloggers said the organizers of the COP26 climate change summit were using diesel generators to recharge electric vehicle batteries. Organizers are using generators, but they run on a type of vegetable oil that has much lower emissions than diesel fuel. The fuel, hydrotreated vegetable oil, is sometimes called a biodiesel, but it is not a fossil fuel and is chemically distinct from diesel. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"103314-proof-04-c4dde407449d89c640717dfd6004a3d9.jpg"
]
|
'COP26 luxury EVs to be recharged using diesel generators' | Contradiction | Too bad snark can't fuel our cars. Climate-change skeptics have delighted in pointing out the shortage of electric vehicle charging stations in Glasgow, Scotland, site of the upcoming international climate change summit known as COP26. 'More Embarrassment: COP26 Luxury EVs to be Recharged Using Diesel Generators,' said a headline on the website Watt's Up With That on Oct. 24. The conservative website Zero Hedge quipped Oct. 16, 'Maybe since we're gathered to talk about the negative effect on the climate, we could at least start by finding a carbon neutral way to shuttle yourself back and forth to the event.' A plain reading would suggest that electric vehicles were being recharged by burning ordinary diesel fuel. That's not what's going on. Yes, generators are being used for recharging, but people who read just a bit further would see that the generators will burn a type of vegetable oil, a fuel with significantly lower emissions than diesel. The fuel is called a biodiesel, but it's fossil-free and chemically quite different from standard petroleum-based diesel fuel. Donated electric Jaguars A number of dignitaries will be staying at hotels that are some distance from the conference site, in some cases as much as 45 miles away. In September, the U.K. government announced that Jaguar Land Rover would provide electric cars and SUVs to shuttle people back and forth. According to Reuters, the automaker is providing 240 vehicles. There aren't enough charging stations to top off the batteries for that many cars overnight. To fill the gap, as The Scotsman reported Oct. 9, the conference organizers will deploy generators powered by waste vegetable oil. The U.K. COP26 office said they would run on hydrotreated vegetable oil. Hydrotreated vegetable oil is less polluting than diesel. A 2018 comparison found the biofuel 'resulted in a significant reduction of all regulated emissions.' RELATED VIDEO That included a 75% reduction in soot, 35% in carbon monoxide, at least 20% fewer hydrocarbons, and about 6% less carbon dioxide. With nitric oxides, the results were mixed. Under some conditions, emissions were lower with hydrotreated vegetable oil. Under others, emissions were higher. Hydrotreated vegetable oil is actually a second-generation biofuel and is broadly seen as more sustainable than the first biofuels based on products like soybeans and rapeseed. The European Union plans to use hydrotreated vegetable oil more in the next decade. While this fuel might be cleaner than diesel, climate change activists criticized the organizers for lack of planning, and suggested the delegates could ride electric buses instead of cars and SUVs. | Our ruling Bloggers said the organizers of the COP26 climate change summit were using diesel generators to recharge electric vehicle batteries. Organizers are using generators, but they run on a type of vegetable oil that has much lower emissions than diesel fuel. The fuel, hydrotreated vegetable oil, is sometimes called a biodiesel, but it is not a fossil fuel and is chemically distinct from diesel. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"103314-proof-04-c4dde407449d89c640717dfd6004a3d9.jpg"
]
|
'FREE HORSES!!!! 52 thoroughbred horses need homes. Will go to Sugarcreek this Sat. for slaughter. Gentleman died due to COVID-19 and his son wants nothing to do with them. | Contradiction | The 'horse girl' stereotype includes such traits as a waist-length french braid and an affection for collecting a stable of plastic horse figurines. Horse girls are supposed to love horses, not misinformation. But it's perhaps a big-hearted penchant for ponies that has led us to this moment: social media users indiscriminately amplifying a post that wrongly claims dozens of horses need to be saved from imminent death. 'ANYONE WITH A FARM WANT FREE HORSES,' begins a message that is being widely shared on Facebook. 'FREE HORSES!!!! 52 thoroughbred horses need homes. Will go to Sugarcreek this Sat. for slaughter. Gentleman died due to COVID-19 and his son wants nothing to do with them. Most broodmares are broke and some are in foal weanling, yearlings, 2 yrs. and 3 yrs. old most are gelded. FREE and papered. Friend of the deceased is trying to find homes. (XXX) XXX-XXXX in Texas. Please copy and paste this on your status. I would hate to see all these horses put down. PLEASE someone help they are FREE and papered!!!!!!!!!' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Please don't call the number listed in the Facebook post. We've replaced it with Xes here, but it might not matter. Other versions of the message are appearing on Facebook with the same promise of 52 thoroughbred horses who need homes but with different phone numbers and locations. This one claims they're in Fairhill, Md. In 2012, a version of this post claimed the horses were in the United Kingdom. Yes, 2012! Well before the coronavirus pandemic. COVID-19 didn't exist when Snopes fact-checked what was already an out-of-date plea about the horses that originated after a longtime horse breeder in Ohio died in January 2011. His friend used Facebook to rehome the animals. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'When California faced a budget crisis,' Christy Smith 'voted to lay off teachers and then voted to increase her pay. | Contradiction | A TV ad attacking California congressional candidate Christy Smith portrays the former school board member as being anti-teacher. 'When California faced a budget crisis,' it says over menacing music, 'Smith voted to lay off teachers and then voted to increase her pay.' The ad is referring to votes that Smith cast more than six years ago during her nine-year tenure as a local school board member. However, the ad lacks context and tells only part of the story. Her votes ultimately led to the layoff of only one permanent teacher. Smith did vote once to raise the $250 monthly stipend of school board members by 5%. A tossup race The ad is from the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC that works to elect Republicans to the House. Smith, a California assemblywoman elected in 2018, is running against Republican Rep. Mike Garcia on Nov. 3 for the 25th District congressional seat, north of Los Angeles. Garcia, a former military pilot, defeated Smith in a special election for the seat in May. That election was held to replace Democrat Katie Hill after she resigned. The race is one of 18 pivotal House and Senate contests up for election on Nov. 3 that PolitiFact is tracking. It is rated a tossup by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Smith's votes on layoffs The ad alludes to May 2012, when California's governor announced that the state budget deficit was $16 billion, much wider than the $9 billion that had been estimated four months earlier. State officials were preparing to make further budget cuts to schools and other programs. The ad cites three votes Smith took on the Newhall School Board, on which she served from 2009 until her election to the Assembly in 2018. Asked for evidence of the ad's claims, the Congressional Leadership Fund provided PolitiFact with what appear to be screenshots of portions of the minutes from three Newhall School Board meetings. PolitiFact obtained the full minutes for those votes and related votes. May 2012: The board voted 5-0 to lay off 17 temporary elementary school teachers and two permanent physical education teachers. Within two months, the board took two more votes - both 5-0 with Smith in favor - resulting in all of the temporary teachers being rehired and one of the physical education teachers being brought back full time and the other part time. So, the total loss was one-half of a physical education teacher position. March 2013: The board voted 5-0 to notify 26 temporary teachers of possible layoffs; and voted 3-1-1, with Smith abstaining, to lay off one permanent music teacher. The minutes don't state why Smith abstained, but they say current and former students and parents expressed concern about the effect on the music program of losing the position. Sixteen temps were rehired three months later, with Smith joining in a 5-0 vote for the rehiring. Marc Winger, who was the Newhall superintendent at the time and is now Smith's campaign treasurer, said California law requires school districts to issue notifications of possible layoffs and that such notifications, which can be rescinded without layoffs being done, are common when districts' finances are uncertain early in the year. The Newhall district sent possible layoff notices to temps even though their contracts were only for one school year, ending June 30, he said. Smith's vote on stipend When Smith served, the only compensation Newhall school board members received was a monthly stipend, though they could also opt to purchase health insurance through the school district, Winger said. On Dec. 9, 2014, the board voted 5-0 to approve 'an allowable 5% increase to their current monthly stipend,' the minutes said. No other details were given. Winger said the stipend before the vote was $250. The vote raised the stipend by $12.50 per month. In response to a similar attack from the National Republican Congressional Committee, Smith's campaign put out a statement in April from the president of the California Federation of Teachers that says the union is supporting her campaign. The campaign also cited awards Smith received from the California Teachers Association union in January. | Our ruling The Congressional Leadership Fund said: 'When California faced a budget crisis,' Smith 'voted to lay off teachers and then voted to increase her pay.' Smith voted in 2012 to lay off 17 temporary elementary school teachers and two permanent physical education teachers. Within two months, however, she also voted in favor of rehiring all of the temporary teachers, and one of the physical education teachers. The second physical education teacher was brought back part time. A vote she took in 2013 was to notify temporary teachers of possible layoffs. Smith did vote in 2014 for a $12.50 increase in a monthly stipend for board members, their only compensation. The statement about Smith's votes on teacher layoffs ignores the fact that Smith also voted to rehire all the teachers, ultimately only losing a half of a position. And the claim about Smith's vote on pay leaves out the fact that the increase amounted to $12.50 per month, important clarifying information. Overall, the claim this ad makes is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more. | [
"103319-proof-23-3d573295b8a5f3a09500b93effb4a03c.jpg"
]
|
'When California faced a budget crisis,' Christy Smith 'voted to lay off teachers and then voted to increase her pay. | Contradiction | A TV ad attacking California congressional candidate Christy Smith portrays the former school board member as being anti-teacher. 'When California faced a budget crisis,' it says over menacing music, 'Smith voted to lay off teachers and then voted to increase her pay.' The ad is referring to votes that Smith cast more than six years ago during her nine-year tenure as a local school board member. However, the ad lacks context and tells only part of the story. Her votes ultimately led to the layoff of only one permanent teacher. Smith did vote once to raise the $250 monthly stipend of school board members by 5%. A tossup race The ad is from the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC that works to elect Republicans to the House. Smith, a California assemblywoman elected in 2018, is running against Republican Rep. Mike Garcia on Nov. 3 for the 25th District congressional seat, north of Los Angeles. Garcia, a former military pilot, defeated Smith in a special election for the seat in May. That election was held to replace Democrat Katie Hill after she resigned. The race is one of 18 pivotal House and Senate contests up for election on Nov. 3 that PolitiFact is tracking. It is rated a tossup by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Smith's votes on layoffs The ad alludes to May 2012, when California's governor announced that the state budget deficit was $16 billion, much wider than the $9 billion that had been estimated four months earlier. State officials were preparing to make further budget cuts to schools and other programs. The ad cites three votes Smith took on the Newhall School Board, on which she served from 2009 until her election to the Assembly in 2018. Asked for evidence of the ad's claims, the Congressional Leadership Fund provided PolitiFact with what appear to be screenshots of portions of the minutes from three Newhall School Board meetings. PolitiFact obtained the full minutes for those votes and related votes. May 2012: The board voted 5-0 to lay off 17 temporary elementary school teachers and two permanent physical education teachers. Within two months, the board took two more votes - both 5-0 with Smith in favor - resulting in all of the temporary teachers being rehired and one of the physical education teachers being brought back full time and the other part time. So, the total loss was one-half of a physical education teacher position. March 2013: The board voted 5-0 to notify 26 temporary teachers of possible layoffs; and voted 3-1-1, with Smith abstaining, to lay off one permanent music teacher. The minutes don't state why Smith abstained, but they say current and former students and parents expressed concern about the effect on the music program of losing the position. Sixteen temps were rehired three months later, with Smith joining in a 5-0 vote for the rehiring. Marc Winger, who was the Newhall superintendent at the time and is now Smith's campaign treasurer, said California law requires school districts to issue notifications of possible layoffs and that such notifications, which can be rescinded without layoffs being done, are common when districts' finances are uncertain early in the year. The Newhall district sent possible layoff notices to temps even though their contracts were only for one school year, ending June 30, he said. Smith's vote on stipend When Smith served, the only compensation Newhall school board members received was a monthly stipend, though they could also opt to purchase health insurance through the school district, Winger said. On Dec. 9, 2014, the board voted 5-0 to approve 'an allowable 5% increase to their current monthly stipend,' the minutes said. No other details were given. Winger said the stipend before the vote was $250. The vote raised the stipend by $12.50 per month. In response to a similar attack from the National Republican Congressional Committee, Smith's campaign put out a statement in April from the president of the California Federation of Teachers that says the union is supporting her campaign. The campaign also cited awards Smith received from the California Teachers Association union in January. | Our ruling The Congressional Leadership Fund said: 'When California faced a budget crisis,' Smith 'voted to lay off teachers and then voted to increase her pay.' Smith voted in 2012 to lay off 17 temporary elementary school teachers and two permanent physical education teachers. Within two months, however, she also voted in favor of rehiring all of the temporary teachers, and one of the physical education teachers. The second physical education teacher was brought back part time. A vote she took in 2013 was to notify temporary teachers of possible layoffs. Smith did vote in 2014 for a $12.50 increase in a monthly stipend for board members, their only compensation. The statement about Smith's votes on teacher layoffs ignores the fact that Smith also voted to rehire all the teachers, ultimately only losing a half of a position. And the claim about Smith's vote on pay leaves out the fact that the increase amounted to $12.50 per month, important clarifying information. Overall, the claim this ad makes is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more. | [
"103319-proof-23-3d573295b8a5f3a09500b93effb4a03c.jpg"
]
|
'When California faced a budget crisis,' Christy Smith 'voted to lay off teachers and then voted to increase her pay. | Contradiction | A TV ad attacking California congressional candidate Christy Smith portrays the former school board member as being anti-teacher. 'When California faced a budget crisis,' it says over menacing music, 'Smith voted to lay off teachers and then voted to increase her pay.' The ad is referring to votes that Smith cast more than six years ago during her nine-year tenure as a local school board member. However, the ad lacks context and tells only part of the story. Her votes ultimately led to the layoff of only one permanent teacher. Smith did vote once to raise the $250 monthly stipend of school board members by 5%. A tossup race The ad is from the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC that works to elect Republicans to the House. Smith, a California assemblywoman elected in 2018, is running against Republican Rep. Mike Garcia on Nov. 3 for the 25th District congressional seat, north of Los Angeles. Garcia, a former military pilot, defeated Smith in a special election for the seat in May. That election was held to replace Democrat Katie Hill after she resigned. The race is one of 18 pivotal House and Senate contests up for election on Nov. 3 that PolitiFact is tracking. It is rated a tossup by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Smith's votes on layoffs The ad alludes to May 2012, when California's governor announced that the state budget deficit was $16 billion, much wider than the $9 billion that had been estimated four months earlier. State officials were preparing to make further budget cuts to schools and other programs. The ad cites three votes Smith took on the Newhall School Board, on which she served from 2009 until her election to the Assembly in 2018. Asked for evidence of the ad's claims, the Congressional Leadership Fund provided PolitiFact with what appear to be screenshots of portions of the minutes from three Newhall School Board meetings. PolitiFact obtained the full minutes for those votes and related votes. May 2012: The board voted 5-0 to lay off 17 temporary elementary school teachers and two permanent physical education teachers. Within two months, the board took two more votes - both 5-0 with Smith in favor - resulting in all of the temporary teachers being rehired and one of the physical education teachers being brought back full time and the other part time. So, the total loss was one-half of a physical education teacher position. March 2013: The board voted 5-0 to notify 26 temporary teachers of possible layoffs; and voted 3-1-1, with Smith abstaining, to lay off one permanent music teacher. The minutes don't state why Smith abstained, but they say current and former students and parents expressed concern about the effect on the music program of losing the position. Sixteen temps were rehired three months later, with Smith joining in a 5-0 vote for the rehiring. Marc Winger, who was the Newhall superintendent at the time and is now Smith's campaign treasurer, said California law requires school districts to issue notifications of possible layoffs and that such notifications, which can be rescinded without layoffs being done, are common when districts' finances are uncertain early in the year. The Newhall district sent possible layoff notices to temps even though their contracts were only for one school year, ending June 30, he said. Smith's vote on stipend When Smith served, the only compensation Newhall school board members received was a monthly stipend, though they could also opt to purchase health insurance through the school district, Winger said. On Dec. 9, 2014, the board voted 5-0 to approve 'an allowable 5% increase to their current monthly stipend,' the minutes said. No other details were given. Winger said the stipend before the vote was $250. The vote raised the stipend by $12.50 per month. In response to a similar attack from the National Republican Congressional Committee, Smith's campaign put out a statement in April from the president of the California Federation of Teachers that says the union is supporting her campaign. The campaign also cited awards Smith received from the California Teachers Association union in January. | Our ruling The Congressional Leadership Fund said: 'When California faced a budget crisis,' Smith 'voted to lay off teachers and then voted to increase her pay.' Smith voted in 2012 to lay off 17 temporary elementary school teachers and two permanent physical education teachers. Within two months, however, she also voted in favor of rehiring all of the temporary teachers, and one of the physical education teachers. The second physical education teacher was brought back part time. A vote she took in 2013 was to notify temporary teachers of possible layoffs. Smith did vote in 2014 for a $12.50 increase in a monthly stipend for board members, their only compensation. The statement about Smith's votes on teacher layoffs ignores the fact that Smith also voted to rehire all the teachers, ultimately only losing a half of a position. And the claim about Smith's vote on pay leaves out the fact that the increase amounted to $12.50 per month, important clarifying information. Overall, the claim this ad makes is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more. | [
"103319-proof-23-3d573295b8a5f3a09500b93effb4a03c.jpg"
]
|
Says North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper 'has seen his approval rating plummet' | Contradiction | North Carolina's Roy Cooper enters a re-election year as one of only three Democratic governors in the South. Cooper also leads the only state where the governor and legislature didn't agree on a full budget for fiscal year 2020. The state House and Senate passed a budget in late June. But Cooper vetoed it just days later, saying it didn't do enough for education and health care. The state House voted to override Cooper's veto on Sept. 11, but the Senate hasn't been able to wrangle the votes. Now, the North Carolina Republican Party is saying Cooper's budget veto significantly affected his approval ratings. Cooper faces Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest in the November election. 'Radical (Gov. Cooper) has seen his approval rating plummet after refusing to give teachers their raises or increasing ed funding while holding the state hostage over expanding Obamacare,' the NC GOP tweeted on Feb. 25. The tweet includes misleading information about the governor's stance on education and why he vetoed the budget. But, since we've previously addressed a claim about the reasoning behind Cooper's veto, we're going to focus on his approval ratings. Is it true that they have plummeted? PolitiFact and WRAL reviewed multiple polls conducted before and after Cooper vetoed the budget on June 28. The word plummet means to 'drop sharply and abruptly,' or 'drop straight down at a high rate of speed.' Most polls show a very slight dip, if any at all. Experts who spoke with PolitiFact said use of the word 'plummet' in this case exaggerates what poll numbers show about Cooper, who they say is generally in good shape for an incumbent facing re-election. A 7 point drop When we reached out to the NC GOP, its digital director Sasha Duncan pointed us to polling from Civitas Institute, a conservative think tank in North Carolina. Duncan pointed out that Cooper's approval rating dropped from 58 percent in March 2019 to 51 percent between Oct. 15-17, when the poll was conducted. The same survey showed Cooper's disapproval rating rising by 6 percentage points, from 29 percent in March to 35 percent in October. There are a couple reasons the Civitas poll doesn't support the GOP's tweet: Civitas is only one polling group, and experts say multiple polls are needed to properly gauge a change in attitudes. It showed a 7 percentage point drop in the survey that has a 4 percent margin of error, which most experts would not consider to be a dramatic fall. 'I would say that, generally, movements of less than 10 percent would not be considered 'significant,'' said David McLennan, director of the Meredith College Poll. The Civitas polling results were unveiled and discussed at an event in October, according to the Carolina Journal newspaper. At the event, Institute President Donald Bryson said Cooper's approval drop was 'nothing for him to complain about.' 'That's where an incumbent would want to be late in the year before an election year. But it's still something to watch,' Bryson said. Kaye Usry, assistant director of the Elon Poll, said Cooper's approval rating suffered a 'slight drop' between the March and October Civitas polls. 'There is certainly a downward trend in his overall approval rating, but it is slight,' Usry said. As for the reason behind the drop? Usry and Jason Husser, the Elon Poll's director, agreed that there's little hard evidence to tie the ratings drop to the budget stalemate. 'A decline along these lines could be driven by the budget stalemate, but it seems more likely that it would be driven by the campaign season calendar and that Cooper now has a general election opponent running a campaign against him,' Husser said. Other polls What do other polls show? Much smaller dips. North Carolina is home to several reputable polling universities and organizations. Meredith College polls show that Cooper's approval rating fell 3.5 percentage points from 48.6 percent in October to 45.1 percent in February, McLennan said. Their margin of error was 3 points, he added. Polls conducted by High Point University found Cooper's approval rating to be 40 percent in February, 40 percent in November, and 41 percent approval in April. Raleigh-based Public Policy Polling has consistently found Cooper's approval rating in the 45-to-50 percent range, said Tom Jensen, the group's director. PPP found Cooper's approval rating to be 40 percent in June and 45 percent in October, he said. Cooper's position 'I would consider a 7 point drop to be pretty significant if it was showing up in polling across the board, but it's not,' Jenson said in an email. 'And even if you did drop from 58% approval to 51% approval, that's something most politicians these days would take in a second!' J. Miles Coleman, associate editor of Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball politics blog, agreed with Jensen's assessment that Cooper is in a good position. He pointed to surveys conducted by MorningConsult at the beginning of 2019 and the end of the year. The margin of error in the Morning Consult polls is only 1 percent. Cooper had an approval rating of 49 percent at the beginning of the year and 47 percent at the end of the year. Cooper's disapproval ratings, meanwhile, started at 28 percent and ended at 32 percent. By contrast, Coleman said one-term NC Gov. Bev Perdue started 2012 with a disapproval rate of 48 percent and ended the year at 59 percent disapproval. She didn't seek reelection. 'That type of double-digit negative movement would qualify as 'plummeting,'' Coleman said of Perdue's numbers. The Crystal Ball blog currently considers the race to be 'leaning' in Cooper's favor, he added. | Our ruling The NC GOP tweeted that Cooper's approval rating has 'plummeted' and, as evidence, they cited polls from a conservative think tank. But there are several reasons the GOP's claim is inaccurate. The GOP cited a poll showed a 7-point dip, which experts don't consider significant. Other polls show Cooper's approval rating as stable. And experts, including the president of a conservative think tank, believe Cooper is in good position. The tweet exaggerated the reality of Cooper's polling numbers. So we rate it Mostly False. | [
"103326-proof-35-29b2b5f214a00a8e5b9c84d35dbabb57.jpg"
]
|
Says North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper 'has seen his approval rating plummet' | Contradiction | North Carolina's Roy Cooper enters a re-election year as one of only three Democratic governors in the South. Cooper also leads the only state where the governor and legislature didn't agree on a full budget for fiscal year 2020. The state House and Senate passed a budget in late June. But Cooper vetoed it just days later, saying it didn't do enough for education and health care. The state House voted to override Cooper's veto on Sept. 11, but the Senate hasn't been able to wrangle the votes. Now, the North Carolina Republican Party is saying Cooper's budget veto significantly affected his approval ratings. Cooper faces Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest in the November election. 'Radical (Gov. Cooper) has seen his approval rating plummet after refusing to give teachers their raises or increasing ed funding while holding the state hostage over expanding Obamacare,' the NC GOP tweeted on Feb. 25. The tweet includes misleading information about the governor's stance on education and why he vetoed the budget. But, since we've previously addressed a claim about the reasoning behind Cooper's veto, we're going to focus on his approval ratings. Is it true that they have plummeted? PolitiFact and WRAL reviewed multiple polls conducted before and after Cooper vetoed the budget on June 28. The word plummet means to 'drop sharply and abruptly,' or 'drop straight down at a high rate of speed.' Most polls show a very slight dip, if any at all. Experts who spoke with PolitiFact said use of the word 'plummet' in this case exaggerates what poll numbers show about Cooper, who they say is generally in good shape for an incumbent facing re-election. A 7 point drop When we reached out to the NC GOP, its digital director Sasha Duncan pointed us to polling from Civitas Institute, a conservative think tank in North Carolina. Duncan pointed out that Cooper's approval rating dropped from 58 percent in March 2019 to 51 percent between Oct. 15-17, when the poll was conducted. The same survey showed Cooper's disapproval rating rising by 6 percentage points, from 29 percent in March to 35 percent in October. There are a couple reasons the Civitas poll doesn't support the GOP's tweet: Civitas is only one polling group, and experts say multiple polls are needed to properly gauge a change in attitudes. It showed a 7 percentage point drop in the survey that has a 4 percent margin of error, which most experts would not consider to be a dramatic fall. 'I would say that, generally, movements of less than 10 percent would not be considered 'significant,'' said David McLennan, director of the Meredith College Poll. The Civitas polling results were unveiled and discussed at an event in October, according to the Carolina Journal newspaper. At the event, Institute President Donald Bryson said Cooper's approval drop was 'nothing for him to complain about.' 'That's where an incumbent would want to be late in the year before an election year. But it's still something to watch,' Bryson said. Kaye Usry, assistant director of the Elon Poll, said Cooper's approval rating suffered a 'slight drop' between the March and October Civitas polls. 'There is certainly a downward trend in his overall approval rating, but it is slight,' Usry said. As for the reason behind the drop? Usry and Jason Husser, the Elon Poll's director, agreed that there's little hard evidence to tie the ratings drop to the budget stalemate. 'A decline along these lines could be driven by the budget stalemate, but it seems more likely that it would be driven by the campaign season calendar and that Cooper now has a general election opponent running a campaign against him,' Husser said. Other polls What do other polls show? Much smaller dips. North Carolina is home to several reputable polling universities and organizations. Meredith College polls show that Cooper's approval rating fell 3.5 percentage points from 48.6 percent in October to 45.1 percent in February, McLennan said. Their margin of error was 3 points, he added. Polls conducted by High Point University found Cooper's approval rating to be 40 percent in February, 40 percent in November, and 41 percent approval in April. Raleigh-based Public Policy Polling has consistently found Cooper's approval rating in the 45-to-50 percent range, said Tom Jensen, the group's director. PPP found Cooper's approval rating to be 40 percent in June and 45 percent in October, he said. Cooper's position 'I would consider a 7 point drop to be pretty significant if it was showing up in polling across the board, but it's not,' Jenson said in an email. 'And even if you did drop from 58% approval to 51% approval, that's something most politicians these days would take in a second!' J. Miles Coleman, associate editor of Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball politics blog, agreed with Jensen's assessment that Cooper is in a good position. He pointed to surveys conducted by MorningConsult at the beginning of 2019 and the end of the year. The margin of error in the Morning Consult polls is only 1 percent. Cooper had an approval rating of 49 percent at the beginning of the year and 47 percent at the end of the year. Cooper's disapproval ratings, meanwhile, started at 28 percent and ended at 32 percent. By contrast, Coleman said one-term NC Gov. Bev Perdue started 2012 with a disapproval rate of 48 percent and ended the year at 59 percent disapproval. She didn't seek reelection. 'That type of double-digit negative movement would qualify as 'plummeting,'' Coleman said of Perdue's numbers. The Crystal Ball blog currently considers the race to be 'leaning' in Cooper's favor, he added. | Our ruling The NC GOP tweeted that Cooper's approval rating has 'plummeted' and, as evidence, they cited polls from a conservative think tank. But there are several reasons the GOP's claim is inaccurate. The GOP cited a poll showed a 7-point dip, which experts don't consider significant. Other polls show Cooper's approval rating as stable. And experts, including the president of a conservative think tank, believe Cooper is in good position. The tweet exaggerated the reality of Cooper's polling numbers. So we rate it Mostly False. | [
"103326-proof-35-29b2b5f214a00a8e5b9c84d35dbabb57.jpg"
]
|
Says North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper 'has seen his approval rating plummet' | Contradiction | North Carolina's Roy Cooper enters a re-election year as one of only three Democratic governors in the South. Cooper also leads the only state where the governor and legislature didn't agree on a full budget for fiscal year 2020. The state House and Senate passed a budget in late June. But Cooper vetoed it just days later, saying it didn't do enough for education and health care. The state House voted to override Cooper's veto on Sept. 11, but the Senate hasn't been able to wrangle the votes. Now, the North Carolina Republican Party is saying Cooper's budget veto significantly affected his approval ratings. Cooper faces Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest in the November election. 'Radical (Gov. Cooper) has seen his approval rating plummet after refusing to give teachers their raises or increasing ed funding while holding the state hostage over expanding Obamacare,' the NC GOP tweeted on Feb. 25. The tweet includes misleading information about the governor's stance on education and why he vetoed the budget. But, since we've previously addressed a claim about the reasoning behind Cooper's veto, we're going to focus on his approval ratings. Is it true that they have plummeted? PolitiFact and WRAL reviewed multiple polls conducted before and after Cooper vetoed the budget on June 28. The word plummet means to 'drop sharply and abruptly,' or 'drop straight down at a high rate of speed.' Most polls show a very slight dip, if any at all. Experts who spoke with PolitiFact said use of the word 'plummet' in this case exaggerates what poll numbers show about Cooper, who they say is generally in good shape for an incumbent facing re-election. A 7 point drop When we reached out to the NC GOP, its digital director Sasha Duncan pointed us to polling from Civitas Institute, a conservative think tank in North Carolina. Duncan pointed out that Cooper's approval rating dropped from 58 percent in March 2019 to 51 percent between Oct. 15-17, when the poll was conducted. The same survey showed Cooper's disapproval rating rising by 6 percentage points, from 29 percent in March to 35 percent in October. There are a couple reasons the Civitas poll doesn't support the GOP's tweet: Civitas is only one polling group, and experts say multiple polls are needed to properly gauge a change in attitudes. It showed a 7 percentage point drop in the survey that has a 4 percent margin of error, which most experts would not consider to be a dramatic fall. 'I would say that, generally, movements of less than 10 percent would not be considered 'significant,'' said David McLennan, director of the Meredith College Poll. The Civitas polling results were unveiled and discussed at an event in October, according to the Carolina Journal newspaper. At the event, Institute President Donald Bryson said Cooper's approval drop was 'nothing for him to complain about.' 'That's where an incumbent would want to be late in the year before an election year. But it's still something to watch,' Bryson said. Kaye Usry, assistant director of the Elon Poll, said Cooper's approval rating suffered a 'slight drop' between the March and October Civitas polls. 'There is certainly a downward trend in his overall approval rating, but it is slight,' Usry said. As for the reason behind the drop? Usry and Jason Husser, the Elon Poll's director, agreed that there's little hard evidence to tie the ratings drop to the budget stalemate. 'A decline along these lines could be driven by the budget stalemate, but it seems more likely that it would be driven by the campaign season calendar and that Cooper now has a general election opponent running a campaign against him,' Husser said. Other polls What do other polls show? Much smaller dips. North Carolina is home to several reputable polling universities and organizations. Meredith College polls show that Cooper's approval rating fell 3.5 percentage points from 48.6 percent in October to 45.1 percent in February, McLennan said. Their margin of error was 3 points, he added. Polls conducted by High Point University found Cooper's approval rating to be 40 percent in February, 40 percent in November, and 41 percent approval in April. Raleigh-based Public Policy Polling has consistently found Cooper's approval rating in the 45-to-50 percent range, said Tom Jensen, the group's director. PPP found Cooper's approval rating to be 40 percent in June and 45 percent in October, he said. Cooper's position 'I would consider a 7 point drop to be pretty significant if it was showing up in polling across the board, but it's not,' Jenson said in an email. 'And even if you did drop from 58% approval to 51% approval, that's something most politicians these days would take in a second!' J. Miles Coleman, associate editor of Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball politics blog, agreed with Jensen's assessment that Cooper is in a good position. He pointed to surveys conducted by MorningConsult at the beginning of 2019 and the end of the year. The margin of error in the Morning Consult polls is only 1 percent. Cooper had an approval rating of 49 percent at the beginning of the year and 47 percent at the end of the year. Cooper's disapproval ratings, meanwhile, started at 28 percent and ended at 32 percent. By contrast, Coleman said one-term NC Gov. Bev Perdue started 2012 with a disapproval rate of 48 percent and ended the year at 59 percent disapproval. She didn't seek reelection. 'That type of double-digit negative movement would qualify as 'plummeting,'' Coleman said of Perdue's numbers. The Crystal Ball blog currently considers the race to be 'leaning' in Cooper's favor, he added. | Our ruling The NC GOP tweeted that Cooper's approval rating has 'plummeted' and, as evidence, they cited polls from a conservative think tank. But there are several reasons the GOP's claim is inaccurate. The GOP cited a poll showed a 7-point dip, which experts don't consider significant. Other polls show Cooper's approval rating as stable. And experts, including the president of a conservative think tank, believe Cooper is in good position. The tweet exaggerated the reality of Cooper's polling numbers. So we rate it Mostly False. | [
"103326-proof-35-29b2b5f214a00a8e5b9c84d35dbabb57.jpg"
]
|
'Boom! Georgia 1st to decertify election. | Contradiction | Georgia's Republican secretary of state certified the presidential election results in November showing that Joe Biden won the state. But six months later, a state judge's order authorizing an inspection of absentee ballots has inspired a fresh round of falsehoods about the Georgia election. 'Boom! Georgia 1st to decertify election,' stated a May 25 Facebook post. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Facebook post is wrong: Georgia officials have not decertified the election. A few days before the Facebook post, Henry County Superior Court Judge Brian Amero issued an order that allows a group of plaintiffs, led by a self-proclaimed election watchdog, to inspect and scan the general election absentee ballots cast in Democratic-leaning Fulton County. Precisely what this will entail isn't yet known. Amero indicated he will issue a subsequent order about protocols. Plaintiffs have alleged improper counting of ballots and the existence of 'counterfeit' ballots. Amero's ruling has been embraced by Republicans who have sided with former President Donald Trump's falsehoods about the election. One of the plaintiffs, Garland Favorito, is a longtime critic of Georgia's election infrastructure. Favorito has promoted affidavits signed by poll workers or observers in which they leap to conclusions about the integrity of absentee ballots, suggesting they weren't properly marked or weren't printed on normal paper. 'The purpose of the inspection is to find the truth about the Fulton mail-in ballots so that all Georgians will have the assurance of elections transparency,' Favorito told PolitiFact. The Facebook post links to a video by Christian Patriot News, a conservative outlet. The speaker in the video predicts 'Judge Amero will demand that Gov. Kemp will call a special session to decertify these election results. Boom!' But none of that has happened. Amero's two-paragraph order did not call for any sort of decertification, scrapping of results, or special legislative session. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger certified the results of the presidential election in November following an audit that reaffirmed Biden's victory. Congress counted the electoral votes from the states including Georgia on Jan. 6. Raffensperger and Gabriel Sterling, Georgia's voting system implementation manager, have repeatedly said they found no evidence of systematic voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Lawsuits filed on behalf of former President Donald Trump and his allies seeking to decertify the election results were rejected by the courts. Raffensperger's office indicated that he hasn't sought to decertify the election, and there is no such legal process. 'There is no mechanism under Georgia law to decertify an election,' said Bryan P. Tyson, a Georgia election lawyer who has represented both Democrats and Republicans, including Raffensperger. 'If they find problems in an election after it was certified, the only remedy to the election contest is a judge hears evidence and orders a new election if there were enough problems that it could have changed the results. It is rare.' | Our ruling A Facebook post said Georgia decertified its election results. That didn't happen. A judge in Georgia permitted plaintiffs in an election lawsuit to inspect absentee ballots cast in Fulton County, but didn't order a new election. And there is no evidence that state officials have decertified the election results. Boom! We rate this Pants on Fire! RELATED: Here's why Georgia's Republican officials are confident in their presidential election results | [
"103342-proof-37-be117c85491a93159124d12b098d8650.jpg"
]
|
'Boom! Georgia 1st to decertify election. | Contradiction | Georgia's Republican secretary of state certified the presidential election results in November showing that Joe Biden won the state. But six months later, a state judge's order authorizing an inspection of absentee ballots has inspired a fresh round of falsehoods about the Georgia election. 'Boom! Georgia 1st to decertify election,' stated a May 25 Facebook post. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Facebook post is wrong: Georgia officials have not decertified the election. A few days before the Facebook post, Henry County Superior Court Judge Brian Amero issued an order that allows a group of plaintiffs, led by a self-proclaimed election watchdog, to inspect and scan the general election absentee ballots cast in Democratic-leaning Fulton County. Precisely what this will entail isn't yet known. Amero indicated he will issue a subsequent order about protocols. Plaintiffs have alleged improper counting of ballots and the existence of 'counterfeit' ballots. Amero's ruling has been embraced by Republicans who have sided with former President Donald Trump's falsehoods about the election. One of the plaintiffs, Garland Favorito, is a longtime critic of Georgia's election infrastructure. Favorito has promoted affidavits signed by poll workers or observers in which they leap to conclusions about the integrity of absentee ballots, suggesting they weren't properly marked or weren't printed on normal paper. 'The purpose of the inspection is to find the truth about the Fulton mail-in ballots so that all Georgians will have the assurance of elections transparency,' Favorito told PolitiFact. The Facebook post links to a video by Christian Patriot News, a conservative outlet. The speaker in the video predicts 'Judge Amero will demand that Gov. Kemp will call a special session to decertify these election results. Boom!' But none of that has happened. Amero's two-paragraph order did not call for any sort of decertification, scrapping of results, or special legislative session. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger certified the results of the presidential election in November following an audit that reaffirmed Biden's victory. Congress counted the electoral votes from the states including Georgia on Jan. 6. Raffensperger and Gabriel Sterling, Georgia's voting system implementation manager, have repeatedly said they found no evidence of systematic voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Lawsuits filed on behalf of former President Donald Trump and his allies seeking to decertify the election results were rejected by the courts. Raffensperger's office indicated that he hasn't sought to decertify the election, and there is no such legal process. 'There is no mechanism under Georgia law to decertify an election,' said Bryan P. Tyson, a Georgia election lawyer who has represented both Democrats and Republicans, including Raffensperger. 'If they find problems in an election after it was certified, the only remedy to the election contest is a judge hears evidence and orders a new election if there were enough problems that it could have changed the results. It is rare.' | Our ruling A Facebook post said Georgia decertified its election results. That didn't happen. A judge in Georgia permitted plaintiffs in an election lawsuit to inspect absentee ballots cast in Fulton County, but didn't order a new election. And there is no evidence that state officials have decertified the election results. Boom! We rate this Pants on Fire! RELATED: Here's why Georgia's Republican officials are confident in their presidential election results | [
"103342-proof-37-be117c85491a93159124d12b098d8650.jpg"
]
|
'Boom! Georgia 1st to decertify election. | Contradiction | Georgia's Republican secretary of state certified the presidential election results in November showing that Joe Biden won the state. But six months later, a state judge's order authorizing an inspection of absentee ballots has inspired a fresh round of falsehoods about the Georgia election. 'Boom! Georgia 1st to decertify election,' stated a May 25 Facebook post. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Facebook post is wrong: Georgia officials have not decertified the election. A few days before the Facebook post, Henry County Superior Court Judge Brian Amero issued an order that allows a group of plaintiffs, led by a self-proclaimed election watchdog, to inspect and scan the general election absentee ballots cast in Democratic-leaning Fulton County. Precisely what this will entail isn't yet known. Amero indicated he will issue a subsequent order about protocols. Plaintiffs have alleged improper counting of ballots and the existence of 'counterfeit' ballots. Amero's ruling has been embraced by Republicans who have sided with former President Donald Trump's falsehoods about the election. One of the plaintiffs, Garland Favorito, is a longtime critic of Georgia's election infrastructure. Favorito has promoted affidavits signed by poll workers or observers in which they leap to conclusions about the integrity of absentee ballots, suggesting they weren't properly marked or weren't printed on normal paper. 'The purpose of the inspection is to find the truth about the Fulton mail-in ballots so that all Georgians will have the assurance of elections transparency,' Favorito told PolitiFact. The Facebook post links to a video by Christian Patriot News, a conservative outlet. The speaker in the video predicts 'Judge Amero will demand that Gov. Kemp will call a special session to decertify these election results. Boom!' But none of that has happened. Amero's two-paragraph order did not call for any sort of decertification, scrapping of results, or special legislative session. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger certified the results of the presidential election in November following an audit that reaffirmed Biden's victory. Congress counted the electoral votes from the states including Georgia on Jan. 6. Raffensperger and Gabriel Sterling, Georgia's voting system implementation manager, have repeatedly said they found no evidence of systematic voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Lawsuits filed on behalf of former President Donald Trump and his allies seeking to decertify the election results were rejected by the courts. Raffensperger's office indicated that he hasn't sought to decertify the election, and there is no such legal process. 'There is no mechanism under Georgia law to decertify an election,' said Bryan P. Tyson, a Georgia election lawyer who has represented both Democrats and Republicans, including Raffensperger. 'If they find problems in an election after it was certified, the only remedy to the election contest is a judge hears evidence and orders a new election if there were enough problems that it could have changed the results. It is rare.' | Our ruling A Facebook post said Georgia decertified its election results. That didn't happen. A judge in Georgia permitted plaintiffs in an election lawsuit to inspect absentee ballots cast in Fulton County, but didn't order a new election. And there is no evidence that state officials have decertified the election results. Boom! We rate this Pants on Fire! RELATED: Here's why Georgia's Republican officials are confident in their presidential election results | [
"103342-proof-37-be117c85491a93159124d12b098d8650.jpg"
]
|
A registered nurse in Nashville, Tenn., developed Bell's Palsy after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. | Contradiction | As coronavirus cases and deaths continue to rise across the country, a viral video on social media is urging people not to take the coronavirus vaccine. 'Hi, I am a registered nurse in Nashville, Tenn., and my name is Khalilah Mitchell. I am reaching out to everyone about the Covid-19 vaccination,' a woman says in the video, which we found posted on YouTube Dec. 26 and shared in scores of public Facebook posts. 'I recently took the COVID-19 vaccination ... After the shot I felt fine, but within three days I went to the doctor because I had problems with my face, the whole left side of my face actually.' 'I have Bell's Palsy now, and as you can see I can't smile.' (Screenshot from YouTube) The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It was also posted elsewhere on YouTube and in threads on anonymous internet forums. We've seen plenty of misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines, including reports of nurses who had adverse reactions to the shot. So we wanted to look into this post, too. As of Dec. 29, nearly 80,000 people in Tennessee had been vaccinated for the coronavirus. A nurse named Khalilah Mitchell is not one of them. 'We have no record of anyone by that name in our health professional licensure system,' said Shelley Walker, director of the Office of Communication & Media Relations at the Tennessee Department of Health. Fact-checking website Lead Stories checked online databases in 49 other states and the District of Columbia. It did not find any registered nurses named Khalilah Mitchell. We found one Facebook profile for someone named Khalila Mitchell in Nashville, and it said she works at a bakery and Ralph Lauren. We could not find any credible news reports of nurses developing Bell's Palsy after receiving the vaccine. Misinformation about the condition, which affects about 40,000 Americans every year, has swirled online since a coronavirus vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech was granted emergency-use authorization on Dec. 11. The confusion stems from a briefing document published by the Food and Drug Administration before the vaccine's emergency approval. The agency noted that four vaccinated participants in clinical trials for the vaccine, representing 0.02% of the total group, developed Bell's Palsy. The FDA recommended 'surveillance' for cases of the condition as larger groups of people receive the vaccine. But the agency said the frequency of Bell's Palsy among clinical trial participants was 'consistent with the expected background rate in the general population,' and that 'there is no clear basis upon which to conclude a causal relationship at this time.' The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. RELATED: Vaccine misinformation: preparing for infodemic's 'second wave' | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. RELATED: Vaccine misinformation: preparing for infodemic's 'second wave' | []
|
A registered nurse in Nashville, Tenn., developed Bell's Palsy after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. | Contradiction | As coronavirus cases and deaths continue to rise across the country, a viral video on social media is urging people not to take the coronavirus vaccine. 'Hi, I am a registered nurse in Nashville, Tenn., and my name is Khalilah Mitchell. I am reaching out to everyone about the Covid-19 vaccination,' a woman says in the video, which we found posted on YouTube Dec. 26 and shared in scores of public Facebook posts. 'I recently took the COVID-19 vaccination ... After the shot I felt fine, but within three days I went to the doctor because I had problems with my face, the whole left side of my face actually.' 'I have Bell's Palsy now, and as you can see I can't smile.' (Screenshot from YouTube) The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It was also posted elsewhere on YouTube and in threads on anonymous internet forums. We've seen plenty of misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines, including reports of nurses who had adverse reactions to the shot. So we wanted to look into this post, too. As of Dec. 29, nearly 80,000 people in Tennessee had been vaccinated for the coronavirus. A nurse named Khalilah Mitchell is not one of them. 'We have no record of anyone by that name in our health professional licensure system,' said Shelley Walker, director of the Office of Communication & Media Relations at the Tennessee Department of Health. Fact-checking website Lead Stories checked online databases in 49 other states and the District of Columbia. It did not find any registered nurses named Khalilah Mitchell. We found one Facebook profile for someone named Khalila Mitchell in Nashville, and it said she works at a bakery and Ralph Lauren. We could not find any credible news reports of nurses developing Bell's Palsy after receiving the vaccine. Misinformation about the condition, which affects about 40,000 Americans every year, has swirled online since a coronavirus vaccine from Pfizer and BioNTech was granted emergency-use authorization on Dec. 11. The confusion stems from a briefing document published by the Food and Drug Administration before the vaccine's emergency approval. The agency noted that four vaccinated participants in clinical trials for the vaccine, representing 0.02% of the total group, developed Bell's Palsy. The FDA recommended 'surveillance' for cases of the condition as larger groups of people receive the vaccine. But the agency said the frequency of Bell's Palsy among clinical trial participants was 'consistent with the expected background rate in the general population,' and that 'there is no clear basis upon which to conclude a causal relationship at this time.' The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. RELATED: Vaccine misinformation: preparing for infodemic's 'second wave' | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. RELATED: Vaccine misinformation: preparing for infodemic's 'second wave' | []
|
'Ultraviolet Radiation is administered into the body as a disinfectant to kill bacteria and viruses and this has been used for a while now. | Contradiction | Health experts have debunked President Donald Trump's idea to potentially use sunlight to treat coronavirus patients. But some social media users say the president is onto something. An April 24 Facebook post shows an image of what appears to be someone hooked up to an IV that is emanating blue light. The caption claims it shows a 'UV radiation' treatment. 'For all you dummies that have absolutely no idea what trump is talking about... INTERNAL DISINFECTANT aka Ultraviolet Radiation is administered into the body as a 'disinfectant' to kill bacteria and viruses and this has been used for a while now,' reads the post. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Facebook) During an April 23 press briefing, Trump floated the idea of using light to treat COVID-19 patients after a Department of Homeland Security official presented a preliminary study that found sunlight kills the coronavirus on certain surfaces. We found no evidence to suggest such a treatment would work on patients, but we wanted to take a closer look at this recent Facebook post. While the exact origin of the image in the post is unclear, its central claim - that some health care providers inject UV light into patients to kill bacteria and viruses - is inaccurate. We reached out to the original poster for evidence, but we haven't heard back. We used a reverse image search to scour the internet for the source of the photo in the Facebook post. While we couldn't find the source, we did find several tweets from the same day that included the image. One user who shared the photo claimed it shows ultraviolet blood irradiation (UBI). The treatment involves drawing a patient's blood, then exposing that blood to an external light box before returning it to the body. It was popular in the mid-20th century before the development of antibiotics and was used to treat conditions including pneumonia, tuberculosis, arthritis and asthma.. Now UBI is mainly used in the alternative-medicine community. But UV light is not 'administered' into patients' bodies, as the Facebook post claims, and experts who have experimented with the treatment say there is no scientific evidence that it kills bacteria or viruses. Dr. Edzard Ernst, an emeritus professor of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, said the research into UBI and related methods has been limited in scope. 'Yes, there are quite a few papers on UBI and related methods. But most of them are in-vitro studies, while robust clinical trials are missing completely,' Ernst wrote in an April 25 blog post. 'Needless to say also that UBI is an invasive treatment where lots of things might go badly wrong.' RELATED: Why Trump's comments on using disinfectants, sunlight to treat COVID-19 are wrong There are three types of UV light: UVA, UVB and UVC. The first makes up the majority of radiation that reaches the Earth, the second can cause sunburn and skin cancer, and the third destroys genetic material. Applying UVC light to rooms and surfaces has helped some hospitals cut the transmission rate of diseases like MRSA, which can linger in rooms after patients are discharged. The light waves kill bacteria and viruses by disrupting their DNA. But applying UVC light directly to the body would damage genetic material and cause burns within seconds, experts told PolitiFact. Physicians do sometimes use UVA or UVB light to treat skin lymphoma, but they avoid giving patients too much, as it could increase their chances of developing skin cancer later in life. 'There is a modified version of this in which a drug can be injected ahead of time to increase cell sensitivity to externally applied UV, but in general it's not possible to inject UV light itself,' said Dr. Angela Rasmussen, an associate research scientist at Columbia University's Center for Infection and Immunity, in an email. Health care providers also sometimes treat donated blood or plasma with radiation before performing infusions to prevent certain diseases, but most American blood banks use gamma rays or x-rays. That's different from using UV light to treat blood or plasma that's still inside a patient. 'There is no evidence that injecting UV light into the body will kill bacteria or viruses,' said Dr. Krutika Kuppalli, a clinical assistant professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine at Stanford University, in an email. 'We irradiate blood that has been taken out of the body, but that is different than using UV light. I am not sure what that picture is in the Facebook post.' The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"103346-proof-00-c1765724ff5b8ad5dae7d3299b1eeeb3.jpg",
"103346-proof-35-Screen_Shot_2020-04-27_at_5.04.32_PM_2.jpg"
]
|
'Ultraviolet Radiation is administered into the body as a disinfectant to kill bacteria and viruses and this has been used for a while now. | Contradiction | Health experts have debunked President Donald Trump's idea to potentially use sunlight to treat coronavirus patients. But some social media users say the president is onto something. An April 24 Facebook post shows an image of what appears to be someone hooked up to an IV that is emanating blue light. The caption claims it shows a 'UV radiation' treatment. 'For all you dummies that have absolutely no idea what trump is talking about... INTERNAL DISINFECTANT aka Ultraviolet Radiation is administered into the body as a 'disinfectant' to kill bacteria and viruses and this has been used for a while now,' reads the post. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Facebook) During an April 23 press briefing, Trump floated the idea of using light to treat COVID-19 patients after a Department of Homeland Security official presented a preliminary study that found sunlight kills the coronavirus on certain surfaces. We found no evidence to suggest such a treatment would work on patients, but we wanted to take a closer look at this recent Facebook post. While the exact origin of the image in the post is unclear, its central claim - that some health care providers inject UV light into patients to kill bacteria and viruses - is inaccurate. We reached out to the original poster for evidence, but we haven't heard back. We used a reverse image search to scour the internet for the source of the photo in the Facebook post. While we couldn't find the source, we did find several tweets from the same day that included the image. One user who shared the photo claimed it shows ultraviolet blood irradiation (UBI). The treatment involves drawing a patient's blood, then exposing that blood to an external light box before returning it to the body. It was popular in the mid-20th century before the development of antibiotics and was used to treat conditions including pneumonia, tuberculosis, arthritis and asthma.. Now UBI is mainly used in the alternative-medicine community. But UV light is not 'administered' into patients' bodies, as the Facebook post claims, and experts who have experimented with the treatment say there is no scientific evidence that it kills bacteria or viruses. Dr. Edzard Ernst, an emeritus professor of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, said the research into UBI and related methods has been limited in scope. 'Yes, there are quite a few papers on UBI and related methods. But most of them are in-vitro studies, while robust clinical trials are missing completely,' Ernst wrote in an April 25 blog post. 'Needless to say also that UBI is an invasive treatment where lots of things might go badly wrong.' RELATED: Why Trump's comments on using disinfectants, sunlight to treat COVID-19 are wrong There are three types of UV light: UVA, UVB and UVC. The first makes up the majority of radiation that reaches the Earth, the second can cause sunburn and skin cancer, and the third destroys genetic material. Applying UVC light to rooms and surfaces has helped some hospitals cut the transmission rate of diseases like MRSA, which can linger in rooms after patients are discharged. The light waves kill bacteria and viruses by disrupting their DNA. But applying UVC light directly to the body would damage genetic material and cause burns within seconds, experts told PolitiFact. Physicians do sometimes use UVA or UVB light to treat skin lymphoma, but they avoid giving patients too much, as it could increase their chances of developing skin cancer later in life. 'There is a modified version of this in which a drug can be injected ahead of time to increase cell sensitivity to externally applied UV, but in general it's not possible to inject UV light itself,' said Dr. Angela Rasmussen, an associate research scientist at Columbia University's Center for Infection and Immunity, in an email. Health care providers also sometimes treat donated blood or plasma with radiation before performing infusions to prevent certain diseases, but most American blood banks use gamma rays or x-rays. That's different from using UV light to treat blood or plasma that's still inside a patient. 'There is no evidence that injecting UV light into the body will kill bacteria or viruses,' said Dr. Krutika Kuppalli, a clinical assistant professor in the Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine at Stanford University, in an email. 'We irradiate blood that has been taken out of the body, but that is different than using UV light. I am not sure what that picture is in the Facebook post.' The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"103346-proof-00-c1765724ff5b8ad5dae7d3299b1eeeb3.jpg",
"103346-proof-35-Screen_Shot_2020-04-27_at_5.04.32_PM_2.jpg"
]
|
Says 'there is no' COVID-19 virus. | Contradiction | Since January, PolitiFact has fact-checked more than 100 claims about COVID-19. Some of the falsehoods, such as conspiracy theories about the virus' spread, are quite elaborate. A more recent Facebook post is not one of those claims. In a March 19 post, a Facebook user said the coronavirus doesn't actually exist. 'There is no virus,' the user wrote in all capital letters. 'The government is trying to enforce martial law and place a chip inside of us as a 'vaccine.'' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It had more than 8,000 shares as of March 19. (Screenshot from Facebook) The post is bogus - it's similar to a conspiracy theory that falsely claims the media and politicians have fabricated the threat of COVID-19. There is ample evidence that the coronavirus is real and infecting hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Scientists have traced the first confirmed case of COVID-19 to Hubei Province, China, in November. Several news outlets covered the subsequent outbreak in the city of Wuhan, the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic. From there, the coronavirus spread to more than 100 countries around the world. As of March 19, more than 191,000 people had been infected and 7,807 had been killed by the virus, according to the World Health Organization. Footage from a variety of news outlets has documented the spread of COVID-19. Scientists have isolated the genetic data and approximate origin of the virus, as well as how different groups of people are affected. They've also released microscopic images of coronavirus virions. RELATED: 7 ways to avoid misinformation during the coronavirus pandemic According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, COVID-19 is a betacoronavirus like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). All three have their origins in bats and cause symptoms like cough, shortness of breath and fever. COVID-19 is a 'novel,' or new, coronavirus, meaning it had not been previously identified. The WHO has declared the COVID-19 outbreak to be a pandemic and global health emergency. On the advice of health officials, several countries - including France, Italy and Spain - have ordered nationwide lockdowns to prevent the spread of the virus. Coronavirus prevention measures have caused the plunge of global financial markets, as well as layoffs across the country. To claim that the virus at the center of the pandemic does not exist, as the Facebook post does, is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! | To claim that the virus at the center of the pandemic does not exist, as the Facebook post does, is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! | [
"103351-proof-09-Screen_Shot_2020-03-19_at_1.02.46_PM.jpg",
"103351-proof-23-937f91a5cdae29a0264d5db10833d841.jpg"
]
|
Says 'there is no' COVID-19 virus. | Contradiction | Since January, PolitiFact has fact-checked more than 100 claims about COVID-19. Some of the falsehoods, such as conspiracy theories about the virus' spread, are quite elaborate. A more recent Facebook post is not one of those claims. In a March 19 post, a Facebook user said the coronavirus doesn't actually exist. 'There is no virus,' the user wrote in all capital letters. 'The government is trying to enforce martial law and place a chip inside of us as a 'vaccine.'' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It had more than 8,000 shares as of March 19. (Screenshot from Facebook) The post is bogus - it's similar to a conspiracy theory that falsely claims the media and politicians have fabricated the threat of COVID-19. There is ample evidence that the coronavirus is real and infecting hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Scientists have traced the first confirmed case of COVID-19 to Hubei Province, China, in November. Several news outlets covered the subsequent outbreak in the city of Wuhan, the epicenter of the coronavirus pandemic. From there, the coronavirus spread to more than 100 countries around the world. As of March 19, more than 191,000 people had been infected and 7,807 had been killed by the virus, according to the World Health Organization. Footage from a variety of news outlets has documented the spread of COVID-19. Scientists have isolated the genetic data and approximate origin of the virus, as well as how different groups of people are affected. They've also released microscopic images of coronavirus virions. RELATED: 7 ways to avoid misinformation during the coronavirus pandemic According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, COVID-19 is a betacoronavirus like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS). All three have their origins in bats and cause symptoms like cough, shortness of breath and fever. COVID-19 is a 'novel,' or new, coronavirus, meaning it had not been previously identified. The WHO has declared the COVID-19 outbreak to be a pandemic and global health emergency. On the advice of health officials, several countries - including France, Italy and Spain - have ordered nationwide lockdowns to prevent the spread of the virus. Coronavirus prevention measures have caused the plunge of global financial markets, as well as layoffs across the country. To claim that the virus at the center of the pandemic does not exist, as the Facebook post does, is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! | To claim that the virus at the center of the pandemic does not exist, as the Facebook post does, is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! | [
"103351-proof-09-Screen_Shot_2020-03-19_at_1.02.46_PM.jpg",
"103351-proof-23-937f91a5cdae29a0264d5db10833d841.jpg"
]
|
'Trump signs Insurrection Act - General Flynn to be appointed vice president. | Contradiction | Social media posts have started circulating false claims that President Donald Trump has signed and invoked the Insurrection Act, and that Michael Flynn will be appointed vice president. A website called bitchute.com published a video Jan. 10 with the headline: 'TRUMP SIGNS INSURRECTION ACT - GENERAL FLYNN TO BE APPOINTED VICE PRESIDENT.' The man in the video claims that the Insurrection Act was signed 'last night,' and that Trump will be staying in office. He says not to expect Trump to bother going to the Capitol to be inaugurated, saying that he believes Trump will be inaugurated in the White House. Later in the video, the man says he 'can't confirm' it right now, but says to 'not be surprised' if Michael Flynn - the former national security adviser who was pardoned by the president after pleading guilty to lying to the FBI - is put forward as the vice president. Other posts on Facebook display a screenshot of what is supposedly a post Trump made on Parler, an alternative social media application that was suspended by several hosting platforms over posts inciting violence. An account called '@TeamTrumpNews' wrote: 'I have invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807, to address the treasonous rebellion conducted by Democrat & Republican lawmakers, CCP agents, the FBI, DOJ, CIA, & others to undermine, corrode and dismantle the United States of America and its Constitution. These entities pose a direct threat to national security. I will remain president indefinitely until all domestic enemies are arrested.' But Trump hasn't signed or invoked the Insurrection Act, and there's no evidence Flynn would be involved in any upcoming presidential administration. The Insurrection Act is a federal law that empowers the president to deploy the military and federalize National Guard troops to suppress certain situations including civil disorder, insurrection or rebellion. Before the president could use any of the powers under the act, he would first have to issue a formal proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) PolitiFact reached out to the White House and the Trump 2020 campaign but did not hear back. The act has been used to send the armed forces to quell civil disturbances a number of times during U.S. history, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. It was most recently invoked during the 1992 Los Angeles riots after four white police officers were acquitted in the roadside beating of a Black man, Rodney King, and during Hurricane Hugo in 1989, when widespread looting was reported in St. Croix, in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Congressional Research Service says it is legal convention under the act for the president to first issue a proclamation to get the situation under control before using the powers in the federal law. 'If the President decides to respond to such a situation, generally upon the recommendation of the Attorney General and, if necessary, the request of the governor, he must first issue a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse within a limited time,' the report says, citing Title 10 of the U.S. Code. 'If the situation does not resolve itself, the President may issue an executive order to send in troops.' Trump has not done this, and he signaled in a Jan. 7 speech that he will support the transition to a new administration. In the videotaped speech a day after a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, Trump said that he's focused on 'ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power' and that 'a new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th.' He also added in a subsequent tweet that he would not be attending the event. | Our ruling Several posts online claim that Trump has invoked the Insurrection Act, and a video blog says Michael Flynn will serve as vice president. This is not supported by evidence. Trump has not issued the proclamation required before he can use the powers of the act and he signaled on Jan. 7 that he will support a transition of power. We rate this False. | []
|
'Trump signs Insurrection Act - General Flynn to be appointed vice president. | Contradiction | Social media posts have started circulating false claims that President Donald Trump has signed and invoked the Insurrection Act, and that Michael Flynn will be appointed vice president. A website called bitchute.com published a video Jan. 10 with the headline: 'TRUMP SIGNS INSURRECTION ACT - GENERAL FLYNN TO BE APPOINTED VICE PRESIDENT.' The man in the video claims that the Insurrection Act was signed 'last night,' and that Trump will be staying in office. He says not to expect Trump to bother going to the Capitol to be inaugurated, saying that he believes Trump will be inaugurated in the White House. Later in the video, the man says he 'can't confirm' it right now, but says to 'not be surprised' if Michael Flynn - the former national security adviser who was pardoned by the president after pleading guilty to lying to the FBI - is put forward as the vice president. Other posts on Facebook display a screenshot of what is supposedly a post Trump made on Parler, an alternative social media application that was suspended by several hosting platforms over posts inciting violence. An account called '@TeamTrumpNews' wrote: 'I have invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807, to address the treasonous rebellion conducted by Democrat & Republican lawmakers, CCP agents, the FBI, DOJ, CIA, & others to undermine, corrode and dismantle the United States of America and its Constitution. These entities pose a direct threat to national security. I will remain president indefinitely until all domestic enemies are arrested.' But Trump hasn't signed or invoked the Insurrection Act, and there's no evidence Flynn would be involved in any upcoming presidential administration. The Insurrection Act is a federal law that empowers the president to deploy the military and federalize National Guard troops to suppress certain situations including civil disorder, insurrection or rebellion. Before the president could use any of the powers under the act, he would first have to issue a formal proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) PolitiFact reached out to the White House and the Trump 2020 campaign but did not hear back. The act has been used to send the armed forces to quell civil disturbances a number of times during U.S. history, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. It was most recently invoked during the 1992 Los Angeles riots after four white police officers were acquitted in the roadside beating of a Black man, Rodney King, and during Hurricane Hugo in 1989, when widespread looting was reported in St. Croix, in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Congressional Research Service says it is legal convention under the act for the president to first issue a proclamation to get the situation under control before using the powers in the federal law. 'If the President decides to respond to such a situation, generally upon the recommendation of the Attorney General and, if necessary, the request of the governor, he must first issue a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse within a limited time,' the report says, citing Title 10 of the U.S. Code. 'If the situation does not resolve itself, the President may issue an executive order to send in troops.' Trump has not done this, and he signaled in a Jan. 7 speech that he will support the transition to a new administration. In the videotaped speech a day after a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol, Trump said that he's focused on 'ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power' and that 'a new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th.' He also added in a subsequent tweet that he would not be attending the event. | Our ruling Several posts online claim that Trump has invoked the Insurrection Act, and a video blog says Michael Flynn will serve as vice president. This is not supported by evidence. Trump has not issued the proclamation required before he can use the powers of the act and he signaled on Jan. 7 that he will support a transition of power. We rate this False. | []
|
'Michigan just refused to certify the election results!' | Contradiction | President Donald Trump continues his quest for victories in states that he lost at the ballot box, this time with a dubious claim to a procedural win in Michigan. 'Wow! Michigan just refused to certify the election results.' Trump said in a Nov. 17 tweet. 'Having courage is a beautiful thing. The USA stands proud!' He was wrong. Michigan didn't refuse to certify its election results. In fact, the Board of State Canvassers, which is tasked with certifying the results, has not yet met to do so. The meeting is scheduled for Nov. 23. Trump appeared to have confused the state board with the Board of Canvassers in Wayne County, the state's largest. On Nov. 17, the four-member county board briefly deadlocked when its two Republican members initially voted against certifying the results. They later joined their Democratic colleagues to unanimously certify the results. What happened at the Wayne County Board of Canvassers Meeting The Wayne County board met Nov. 17 to consider the election results for the county's 43 jurisdictions, which include Detroit. The Republican members of the board - chairperson Monica Palmer and William Hartmann - initially voted against certifying the county's results, pointing to discrepancies in some Detroit precincts and absent-voter counting boards between the number of ballots recorded as cast and the number of ballots counted. Precincts with such discrepancies are considered 'out of balance,' unless the gaps are accounted for and explained in polling records. Of Detroit's 503 Election Day precincts, 85 were out of balance, as were 94 of the city's 134 absent-voter counting boards. Most of them recorded discrepancies of three votes or fewer; 10 Election Day precincts and 43 counting boards had larger discrepancies. The discrepancies amounted to roughly 400 votes, out of the roughly 250,000 votes cast in Detroit, according to unofficial election results. During the meeting, Palmer said she would be open to certifying the election results for jurisdictions outside Detroit, even though some of them also had precincts that were out of balance. The Republican votes drew a strong public outcry. Commenters weighing in on the Zoom call accused the the two Republicans of racism for suggesting excluding votes from Detroit, the state's largest city, which is nearly 80% Black. Palmer and Hartmann changed their minds and ultimately voted to certify the election results and passed a resolution to have Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson audit the county's results. What happens next? Now that canvassing boards in all 83 Michigan counties have certified their results, the Board of State Canvassers is scheduled to meet Nov. 23 to certify the statewide results. A federal lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign asks the U.S. District Court for Western Michigan to stop the certification of Michigan's election results. The court has not ruled on the case yet. The lawsuit largely bases its claims on hundreds of affidavits filed by Republican election challengers present at TCF Center, where Detroit election workers counted absentee ballots cast by the city's voters. Claims of election fraud in Detroit have so far been rejected in court. Steven Liedel, a Lansing attorney specializing in state constitutional law, said state board members are obligated to certify the statewide results. 'They have taken an oath to uphold the U.S. and Michigan Constitution, and they have a clear legal duty to certify the results if they have results presented to them,' he said. | Our ruling Trump claimed that Michigan 'refused to certify the election results.' That's not true. The State Board of Canvassers that certifies the statewide results has not met yet. The board is scheduled to meet Nov. 23 to vote on certification. In Wayne County, two Republican members of the county canvassing board initially voted against certifying the results but later changed their votes. We rate Trump's claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"103359-proof-25-ddcf65e076964f2c1433b51bf92ab080.jpg"
]
|
'Michigan just refused to certify the election results!' | Contradiction | President Donald Trump continues his quest for victories in states that he lost at the ballot box, this time with a dubious claim to a procedural win in Michigan. 'Wow! Michigan just refused to certify the election results.' Trump said in a Nov. 17 tweet. 'Having courage is a beautiful thing. The USA stands proud!' He was wrong. Michigan didn't refuse to certify its election results. In fact, the Board of State Canvassers, which is tasked with certifying the results, has not yet met to do so. The meeting is scheduled for Nov. 23. Trump appeared to have confused the state board with the Board of Canvassers in Wayne County, the state's largest. On Nov. 17, the four-member county board briefly deadlocked when its two Republican members initially voted against certifying the results. They later joined their Democratic colleagues to unanimously certify the results. What happened at the Wayne County Board of Canvassers Meeting The Wayne County board met Nov. 17 to consider the election results for the county's 43 jurisdictions, which include Detroit. The Republican members of the board - chairperson Monica Palmer and William Hartmann - initially voted against certifying the county's results, pointing to discrepancies in some Detroit precincts and absent-voter counting boards between the number of ballots recorded as cast and the number of ballots counted. Precincts with such discrepancies are considered 'out of balance,' unless the gaps are accounted for and explained in polling records. Of Detroit's 503 Election Day precincts, 85 were out of balance, as were 94 of the city's 134 absent-voter counting boards. Most of them recorded discrepancies of three votes or fewer; 10 Election Day precincts and 43 counting boards had larger discrepancies. The discrepancies amounted to roughly 400 votes, out of the roughly 250,000 votes cast in Detroit, according to unofficial election results. During the meeting, Palmer said she would be open to certifying the election results for jurisdictions outside Detroit, even though some of them also had precincts that were out of balance. The Republican votes drew a strong public outcry. Commenters weighing in on the Zoom call accused the the two Republicans of racism for suggesting excluding votes from Detroit, the state's largest city, which is nearly 80% Black. Palmer and Hartmann changed their minds and ultimately voted to certify the election results and passed a resolution to have Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson audit the county's results. What happens next? Now that canvassing boards in all 83 Michigan counties have certified their results, the Board of State Canvassers is scheduled to meet Nov. 23 to certify the statewide results. A federal lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign asks the U.S. District Court for Western Michigan to stop the certification of Michigan's election results. The court has not ruled on the case yet. The lawsuit largely bases its claims on hundreds of affidavits filed by Republican election challengers present at TCF Center, where Detroit election workers counted absentee ballots cast by the city's voters. Claims of election fraud in Detroit have so far been rejected in court. Steven Liedel, a Lansing attorney specializing in state constitutional law, said state board members are obligated to certify the statewide results. 'They have taken an oath to uphold the U.S. and Michigan Constitution, and they have a clear legal duty to certify the results if they have results presented to them,' he said. | Our ruling Trump claimed that Michigan 'refused to certify the election results.' That's not true. The State Board of Canvassers that certifies the statewide results has not met yet. The board is scheduled to meet Nov. 23 to vote on certification. In Wayne County, two Republican members of the county canvassing board initially voted against certifying the results but later changed their votes. We rate Trump's claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"103359-proof-25-ddcf65e076964f2c1433b51bf92ab080.jpg"
]
|
'Nancy Pelosi's Brother's Company Received $737 Million from Obama's Energy Dept!' | Contradiction | Facebook users are sharing a year-old YouTube video that revived an old conspiracy alleging corruption between former President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. 'Nancy Pelosi's brother's company received $737 million from Obama's Energy Dept.,' says the title of the video, which was posted to YouTube on Feb. 16, 2019. This claim exaggerates what really happened. Pelosi's brother-in-law, Ronald Pelosi, was on the board of a firm that made a small investment in a solar company, and that solar company received a $737 million loan guarantee for a project. Pelosi's company never received $737 million from Obama's Energy Department. The YouTube video splices together photos of Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Ronald Pelosi. It includes more than six minutes of narration lifted word-for-word from an opinion article on Illicit Info, a blog site for conversative and libertarian opinion writers. The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Daily Politics Feed, the YouTube channel responsible for the video, says all of its videos are created by transcribing the text of stories from 'alternative news sources.' The Illicit Info article is labeled as opinion. Ronald Pelosi's connection to a Nevada solar project In a statement to PolitiFact, a spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi's office said the claims about Ronald Pelosi have 'been repeatedly debunked.' 'It was a loan guarantee to a company with a very small investment from a firm Ronald Pelosi joined after the deal in which he had no financial stake or benefit,' the spokesperson said, noting that Ronald Pelosi is Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law, not brother, as the video says. Several fact-checkers and news outlets have set the record straight since the deal was announced in 2011, including FactCheck.org, Snopes, the San Francisco Chronicle and Fortune. Some debunked similar claims again in 2019. Each of them found that Ronald Pelosi's connection to SolarReserve, the parent company of the firm that received the loan for a project in Nevada, was blown out of proportion. According to those reports, the unsubstantiated claims first popped up shortly after the Energy Department announced in September 2011 that it would be providing a $737 loan guarantee to Tonopah Solar Energy, a subsidiary of SolarReserve, for a major solar project. At the time of the announcement, Ronald Pelosi was an 'independent director' on the board of PCG Asset Management, a subsidiary of a private equity firm called Pacific Corporate Group, which had invested in SolarReserve, according to FactCheck.org. Before that, Pelosi had been an executive director with the same subsidiary firm from March 2008 to April 2009. That's about the extent of Ronald Pelosi's connection to the money in question. The $737 million sent to Tonopah Solar Energy was a loan guarantee, not a blank check, and SolarReserve told FactCheck.org and Snopes that Pacific Corporate Group's investment was a 2% share. Pelosi also provided FactCheck.org with documentation showing that he took in just $25,000 annually from his role on the board. Plus, Ronald Pelosi wasn't on the board at the time that Pacific Corporate Group made its investment in SolarReserve, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The Chronicle reported that Pelosi didn't stand to profit from the firm's stake in SolarReserve, either. Pacific Corporate Group did not return our emailed requests for comment. | Our ruling A YouTube video said, 'Nancy Pelosi's brother's company received $737 million from Obama's Energy Dept.' The Energy Department didn't give money to Ronald Pelosi or his company, Pacific Corporate Group. The department's $737 loan guarantee went to a subsidiary of SolarReserve, a firm in which Pacific Corporate Group had a small investment. Also, Ronald Pelosi is Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law. We rate this statement False. | [
"103373-proof-00-334972668db0a5d3567ef0b4565e60a5.jpg"
]
|
'Nancy Pelosi's Brother's Company Received $737 Million from Obama's Energy Dept!' | Contradiction | Facebook users are sharing a year-old YouTube video that revived an old conspiracy alleging corruption between former President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. 'Nancy Pelosi's brother's company received $737 million from Obama's Energy Dept.,' says the title of the video, which was posted to YouTube on Feb. 16, 2019. This claim exaggerates what really happened. Pelosi's brother-in-law, Ronald Pelosi, was on the board of a firm that made a small investment in a solar company, and that solar company received a $737 million loan guarantee for a project. Pelosi's company never received $737 million from Obama's Energy Department. The YouTube video splices together photos of Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Ronald Pelosi. It includes more than six minutes of narration lifted word-for-word from an opinion article on Illicit Info, a blog site for conversative and libertarian opinion writers. The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Daily Politics Feed, the YouTube channel responsible for the video, says all of its videos are created by transcribing the text of stories from 'alternative news sources.' The Illicit Info article is labeled as opinion. Ronald Pelosi's connection to a Nevada solar project In a statement to PolitiFact, a spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi's office said the claims about Ronald Pelosi have 'been repeatedly debunked.' 'It was a loan guarantee to a company with a very small investment from a firm Ronald Pelosi joined after the deal in which he had no financial stake or benefit,' the spokesperson said, noting that Ronald Pelosi is Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law, not brother, as the video says. Several fact-checkers and news outlets have set the record straight since the deal was announced in 2011, including FactCheck.org, Snopes, the San Francisco Chronicle and Fortune. Some debunked similar claims again in 2019. Each of them found that Ronald Pelosi's connection to SolarReserve, the parent company of the firm that received the loan for a project in Nevada, was blown out of proportion. According to those reports, the unsubstantiated claims first popped up shortly after the Energy Department announced in September 2011 that it would be providing a $737 loan guarantee to Tonopah Solar Energy, a subsidiary of SolarReserve, for a major solar project. At the time of the announcement, Ronald Pelosi was an 'independent director' on the board of PCG Asset Management, a subsidiary of a private equity firm called Pacific Corporate Group, which had invested in SolarReserve, according to FactCheck.org. Before that, Pelosi had been an executive director with the same subsidiary firm from March 2008 to April 2009. That's about the extent of Ronald Pelosi's connection to the money in question. The $737 million sent to Tonopah Solar Energy was a loan guarantee, not a blank check, and SolarReserve told FactCheck.org and Snopes that Pacific Corporate Group's investment was a 2% share. Pelosi also provided FactCheck.org with documentation showing that he took in just $25,000 annually from his role on the board. Plus, Ronald Pelosi wasn't on the board at the time that Pacific Corporate Group made its investment in SolarReserve, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The Chronicle reported that Pelosi didn't stand to profit from the firm's stake in SolarReserve, either. Pacific Corporate Group did not return our emailed requests for comment. | Our ruling A YouTube video said, 'Nancy Pelosi's brother's company received $737 million from Obama's Energy Dept.' The Energy Department didn't give money to Ronald Pelosi or his company, Pacific Corporate Group. The department's $737 loan guarantee went to a subsidiary of SolarReserve, a firm in which Pacific Corporate Group had a small investment. Also, Ronald Pelosi is Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law. We rate this statement False. | [
"103373-proof-00-334972668db0a5d3567ef0b4565e60a5.jpg"
]
|
'Nancy Pelosi's Brother's Company Received $737 Million from Obama's Energy Dept!' | Contradiction | Facebook users are sharing a year-old YouTube video that revived an old conspiracy alleging corruption between former President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. 'Nancy Pelosi's brother's company received $737 million from Obama's Energy Dept.,' says the title of the video, which was posted to YouTube on Feb. 16, 2019. This claim exaggerates what really happened. Pelosi's brother-in-law, Ronald Pelosi, was on the board of a firm that made a small investment in a solar company, and that solar company received a $737 million loan guarantee for a project. Pelosi's company never received $737 million from Obama's Energy Department. The YouTube video splices together photos of Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Ronald Pelosi. It includes more than six minutes of narration lifted word-for-word from an opinion article on Illicit Info, a blog site for conversative and libertarian opinion writers. The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Daily Politics Feed, the YouTube channel responsible for the video, says all of its videos are created by transcribing the text of stories from 'alternative news sources.' The Illicit Info article is labeled as opinion. Ronald Pelosi's connection to a Nevada solar project In a statement to PolitiFact, a spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi's office said the claims about Ronald Pelosi have 'been repeatedly debunked.' 'It was a loan guarantee to a company with a very small investment from a firm Ronald Pelosi joined after the deal in which he had no financial stake or benefit,' the spokesperson said, noting that Ronald Pelosi is Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law, not brother, as the video says. Several fact-checkers and news outlets have set the record straight since the deal was announced in 2011, including FactCheck.org, Snopes, the San Francisco Chronicle and Fortune. Some debunked similar claims again in 2019. Each of them found that Ronald Pelosi's connection to SolarReserve, the parent company of the firm that received the loan for a project in Nevada, was blown out of proportion. According to those reports, the unsubstantiated claims first popped up shortly after the Energy Department announced in September 2011 that it would be providing a $737 loan guarantee to Tonopah Solar Energy, a subsidiary of SolarReserve, for a major solar project. At the time of the announcement, Ronald Pelosi was an 'independent director' on the board of PCG Asset Management, a subsidiary of a private equity firm called Pacific Corporate Group, which had invested in SolarReserve, according to FactCheck.org. Before that, Pelosi had been an executive director with the same subsidiary firm from March 2008 to April 2009. That's about the extent of Ronald Pelosi's connection to the money in question. The $737 million sent to Tonopah Solar Energy was a loan guarantee, not a blank check, and SolarReserve told FactCheck.org and Snopes that Pacific Corporate Group's investment was a 2% share. Pelosi also provided FactCheck.org with documentation showing that he took in just $25,000 annually from his role on the board. Plus, Ronald Pelosi wasn't on the board at the time that Pacific Corporate Group made its investment in SolarReserve, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. The Chronicle reported that Pelosi didn't stand to profit from the firm's stake in SolarReserve, either. Pacific Corporate Group did not return our emailed requests for comment. | Our ruling A YouTube video said, 'Nancy Pelosi's brother's company received $737 million from Obama's Energy Dept.' The Energy Department didn't give money to Ronald Pelosi or his company, Pacific Corporate Group. The department's $737 loan guarantee went to a subsidiary of SolarReserve, a firm in which Pacific Corporate Group had a small investment. Also, Ronald Pelosi is Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law. We rate this statement False. | [
"103373-proof-00-334972668db0a5d3567ef0b4565e60a5.jpg"
]
|
'Facebook said that if you support the NRA you will get kicked off. | Contradiction | An old claim about Facebook banning users who support the National Rifle Association is again gaining traction on social media, but there's still no evidence of this. 'Well Facebook said that if you support the NRA you will get kicked off,' one July 2020 post says. 'Well let's experiment. I support the NRA how about y'all.' The fact that this post is still on Facebook a year later should make clear that it's not true, and Facebook spokesperson told PolitiFact the same. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Facebook doesn't mention the National Rifle Association in its community standards, where it outlines rules about objectionable content such as hate speech and sexual solicitation. (Facebook does ban users from buying, selling or trading guns and some other regulated products on its platform.) The NRA's Facebook page, followed by more than 4.7 million people, is active. And in September 2020, when USA Today looked into the claim, a spokesperson for Facebook said it was 'not true' and that support for the NRA doesn't violate the company's community standards. Facebook also told AFP in July 2020 that the claim was wrong. While we found other Facebook posts claiming that the company would ban NRA supporters from the social media platform, we found no credible evidence of this in news coverage or anywhere else. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
'Facebook said that if you support the NRA you will get kicked off. | Contradiction | An old claim about Facebook banning users who support the National Rifle Association is again gaining traction on social media, but there's still no evidence of this. 'Well Facebook said that if you support the NRA you will get kicked off,' one July 2020 post says. 'Well let's experiment. I support the NRA how about y'all.' The fact that this post is still on Facebook a year later should make clear that it's not true, and Facebook spokesperson told PolitiFact the same. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Facebook doesn't mention the National Rifle Association in its community standards, where it outlines rules about objectionable content such as hate speech and sexual solicitation. (Facebook does ban users from buying, selling or trading guns and some other regulated products on its platform.) The NRA's Facebook page, followed by more than 4.7 million people, is active. And in September 2020, when USA Today looked into the claim, a spokesperson for Facebook said it was 'not true' and that support for the NRA doesn't violate the company's community standards. Facebook also told AFP in July 2020 that the claim was wrong. While we found other Facebook posts claiming that the company would ban NRA supporters from the social media platform, we found no credible evidence of this in news coverage or anywhere else. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
The Biden White House has 'no one there. They don't travel. They don't go down to the border. They don't go overseas. | Contradiction | In a falsehood-filled attack on President Joe Biden's administration, Eric Trump wrongly claimed that the White House under Biden is not traveling - to the border, overseas, or anywhere. 'There's no fight coming out of the White House,' Trump, the second son of former President Donald Trump, told Fox News host Sean Hannity May 18. 'There's no one there. They don't travel. They don't go down to the border. They don't go overseas.' The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has affected Biden's transition into office, but Trump's claim about White House travel and work is wrong. Previously, he criticized Biden for traveling on the job too often, calling Biden's weekend trips to his home state of Delaware 'heartbreaking.' The Trump Organization and former president's office did not respond to requests for comment. The Biden White House is not empty President Joe Biden meets with congressional leaders in the Oval Office of the White House on May 12, 2021, in Washington. (AP) Trump's claim that 'there's no one there' in the White House is inaccurate. The Biden White House has maintained a slimmed-down in-person workforce because of the coronavirus pandemic, but it is gradually returning people to the office environment. 'Today, those who physically come into work vary in the West Wing,' Politico reported May 6. 'Most senior advisers around Biden are in the office every day.' The administration includes Biden's Cabinet, made up of the 15 agency heads and other senior officials, such as White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain. The president has also announced his intent to nominate 233 people to serve in Senate-confirmed positions across the executive branch, according to a White House fact sheet about his first 100 days in office. President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a member of Biden's Cabinet, meet with Vice President Kamala Harris and members of the House of Representatives in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington on March 4, 2021. (AP) The White House has hired nearly 1,500 additional presidential appointees to serve roles in various agencies that don't require Senate confirmation, the fact sheet says. In April, Biden hosted Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, the first in-person visit of a world leader during his presidency. Biden, top administration officials have been traveling President Joe Biden tours the New Orleans Sewerage & Water Board's Carrollton water plant on May 6, 2021, in New Orleans. (AP) Trump's claim that Biden and his administration haven't been traveling is also inaccurate. On May 18, the same day Trump accused the Biden administration of staying put, Biden had traveled to Dearborn, Mich., where he spoke at Ford's electric vehicle center and test-drove the company's new electric truck. Hannity highlighted portions of Biden's remarks from that visit on his show. In addition to those trips and his time spent at his home Delaware, Biden has also traveled to Georgia, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Wisconsin and Texas. He has delivered remarks, toured vaccination sites and public health agencies, visited wounded soldiers at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and participated in ceremonies such as the laying of a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery. His first major trip as president outside the Washington area was in February, when he flew to Milwaukee to participate in a CNN town hall. Vice President Kamala Harris, first lady Jill Biden and other members of the White House have also traveled beyond Washington, both with the president and without him. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and other officials have visited the southern U.S. border with Mexico multiple times. Similarly, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and John Kerry, a special presidential envoy on climate, have all traveled overseas, among other officials. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin speaks at a press conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels on April 14, 2021. (AP) On May 18, the day Trump made his false claim, Blinken was in Iceland as part of a trip that also included a visit to Denmark. Kerry was in Berlin that day, rounding out an overseas tour that included stops in Rome and London. Blinken has also traveled to Japan, South Korea, Belgium and Afghanistan, according to a list of his foreign trips. Austin joined Blinken in Japan and South Korea in March and went to Israel, Germany and Belgium in April. Kerry has also made trips to London, Brussels and Paris, and to the United Arab Emirates, India and Bangladesh. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry speaks with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris on March 10, 2021, after a meeting. (AP) Biden, who has been in office for about 120 days, has not traveled himself to the southern border or abroad, although he has pledged to go to the border 'at some point.' He is scheduled to make his first overseas trip as president in June. He will attend the G-7 Summit in the United Kingdom and NATO Summit in Brussels. Harris is slated to go to Mexico and Guatemala in June, marking her first trip abroad and her first trip to the border as vice president. Donald Trump's first foreign trip as president came in late May of 2017, when he traveled to the Middle East and Europe. That was about 120 days after he took office. | Our ruling Eric Trump said of the Biden White House, 'There's no one there. They don't travel. They don't go down to the border. They don't go overseas.' That's wrong on every point. The coronavirus has kept some White House staff working away from the White House grounds, but it's not true that 'there's no one there.' Biden has made several trips, including a visit to Michigan the day Trump made his claim. Other members of Biden's White House and Cabinet have traveled to the border and overseas. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | [
"103398-proof-04-AP_21132574203315.jpg",
"103398-proof-22-AP_21069661189363.jpg",
"103398-proof-23-AP_21126781084447.jpg",
"103398-proof-26-AP_21063708662347.jpg",
"103398-proof-31-AP_21104731194951.jpg",
"103398-proof-32-a7df31b9c386c45c1dfce9da023ea6ea.jpg"
]
|
The Biden White House has 'no one there. They don't travel. They don't go down to the border. They don't go overseas. | Contradiction | In a falsehood-filled attack on President Joe Biden's administration, Eric Trump wrongly claimed that the White House under Biden is not traveling - to the border, overseas, or anywhere. 'There's no fight coming out of the White House,' Trump, the second son of former President Donald Trump, told Fox News host Sean Hannity May 18. 'There's no one there. They don't travel. They don't go down to the border. They don't go overseas.' The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has affected Biden's transition into office, but Trump's claim about White House travel and work is wrong. Previously, he criticized Biden for traveling on the job too often, calling Biden's weekend trips to his home state of Delaware 'heartbreaking.' The Trump Organization and former president's office did not respond to requests for comment. The Biden White House is not empty President Joe Biden meets with congressional leaders in the Oval Office of the White House on May 12, 2021, in Washington. (AP) Trump's claim that 'there's no one there' in the White House is inaccurate. The Biden White House has maintained a slimmed-down in-person workforce because of the coronavirus pandemic, but it is gradually returning people to the office environment. 'Today, those who physically come into work vary in the West Wing,' Politico reported May 6. 'Most senior advisers around Biden are in the office every day.' The administration includes Biden's Cabinet, made up of the 15 agency heads and other senior officials, such as White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain. The president has also announced his intent to nominate 233 people to serve in Senate-confirmed positions across the executive branch, according to a White House fact sheet about his first 100 days in office. President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a member of Biden's Cabinet, meet with Vice President Kamala Harris and members of the House of Representatives in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington on March 4, 2021. (AP) The White House has hired nearly 1,500 additional presidential appointees to serve roles in various agencies that don't require Senate confirmation, the fact sheet says. In April, Biden hosted Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, the first in-person visit of a world leader during his presidency. Biden, top administration officials have been traveling President Joe Biden tours the New Orleans Sewerage & Water Board's Carrollton water plant on May 6, 2021, in New Orleans. (AP) Trump's claim that Biden and his administration haven't been traveling is also inaccurate. On May 18, the same day Trump accused the Biden administration of staying put, Biden had traveled to Dearborn, Mich., where he spoke at Ford's electric vehicle center and test-drove the company's new electric truck. Hannity highlighted portions of Biden's remarks from that visit on his show. In addition to those trips and his time spent at his home Delaware, Biden has also traveled to Georgia, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Wisconsin and Texas. He has delivered remarks, toured vaccination sites and public health agencies, visited wounded soldiers at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and participated in ceremonies such as the laying of a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery. His first major trip as president outside the Washington area was in February, when he flew to Milwaukee to participate in a CNN town hall. Vice President Kamala Harris, first lady Jill Biden and other members of the White House have also traveled beyond Washington, both with the president and without him. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and other officials have visited the southern U.S. border with Mexico multiple times. Similarly, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and John Kerry, a special presidential envoy on climate, have all traveled overseas, among other officials. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin speaks at a press conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels on April 14, 2021. (AP) On May 18, the day Trump made his false claim, Blinken was in Iceland as part of a trip that also included a visit to Denmark. Kerry was in Berlin that day, rounding out an overseas tour that included stops in Rome and London. Blinken has also traveled to Japan, South Korea, Belgium and Afghanistan, according to a list of his foreign trips. Austin joined Blinken in Japan and South Korea in March and went to Israel, Germany and Belgium in April. Kerry has also made trips to London, Brussels and Paris, and to the United Arab Emirates, India and Bangladesh. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry speaks with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris on March 10, 2021, after a meeting. (AP) Biden, who has been in office for about 120 days, has not traveled himself to the southern border or abroad, although he has pledged to go to the border 'at some point.' He is scheduled to make his first overseas trip as president in June. He will attend the G-7 Summit in the United Kingdom and NATO Summit in Brussels. Harris is slated to go to Mexico and Guatemala in June, marking her first trip abroad and her first trip to the border as vice president. Donald Trump's first foreign trip as president came in late May of 2017, when he traveled to the Middle East and Europe. That was about 120 days after he took office. | Our ruling Eric Trump said of the Biden White House, 'There's no one there. They don't travel. They don't go down to the border. They don't go overseas.' That's wrong on every point. The coronavirus has kept some White House staff working away from the White House grounds, but it's not true that 'there's no one there.' Biden has made several trips, including a visit to Michigan the day Trump made his claim. Other members of Biden's White House and Cabinet have traveled to the border and overseas. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | [
"103398-proof-04-AP_21132574203315.jpg",
"103398-proof-22-AP_21069661189363.jpg",
"103398-proof-23-AP_21126781084447.jpg",
"103398-proof-26-AP_21063708662347.jpg",
"103398-proof-31-AP_21104731194951.jpg",
"103398-proof-32-a7df31b9c386c45c1dfce9da023ea6ea.jpg"
]
|
The Biden White House has 'no one there. They don't travel. They don't go down to the border. They don't go overseas. | Contradiction | In a falsehood-filled attack on President Joe Biden's administration, Eric Trump wrongly claimed that the White House under Biden is not traveling - to the border, overseas, or anywhere. 'There's no fight coming out of the White House,' Trump, the second son of former President Donald Trump, told Fox News host Sean Hannity May 18. 'There's no one there. They don't travel. They don't go down to the border. They don't go overseas.' The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has affected Biden's transition into office, but Trump's claim about White House travel and work is wrong. Previously, he criticized Biden for traveling on the job too often, calling Biden's weekend trips to his home state of Delaware 'heartbreaking.' The Trump Organization and former president's office did not respond to requests for comment. The Biden White House is not empty President Joe Biden meets with congressional leaders in the Oval Office of the White House on May 12, 2021, in Washington. (AP) Trump's claim that 'there's no one there' in the White House is inaccurate. The Biden White House has maintained a slimmed-down in-person workforce because of the coronavirus pandemic, but it is gradually returning people to the office environment. 'Today, those who physically come into work vary in the West Wing,' Politico reported May 6. 'Most senior advisers around Biden are in the office every day.' The administration includes Biden's Cabinet, made up of the 15 agency heads and other senior officials, such as White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain. The president has also announced his intent to nominate 233 people to serve in Senate-confirmed positions across the executive branch, according to a White House fact sheet about his first 100 days in office. President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a member of Biden's Cabinet, meet with Vice President Kamala Harris and members of the House of Representatives in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington on March 4, 2021. (AP) The White House has hired nearly 1,500 additional presidential appointees to serve roles in various agencies that don't require Senate confirmation, the fact sheet says. In April, Biden hosted Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, the first in-person visit of a world leader during his presidency. Biden, top administration officials have been traveling President Joe Biden tours the New Orleans Sewerage & Water Board's Carrollton water plant on May 6, 2021, in New Orleans. (AP) Trump's claim that Biden and his administration haven't been traveling is also inaccurate. On May 18, the same day Trump accused the Biden administration of staying put, Biden had traveled to Dearborn, Mich., where he spoke at Ford's electric vehicle center and test-drove the company's new electric truck. Hannity highlighted portions of Biden's remarks from that visit on his show. In addition to those trips and his time spent at his home Delaware, Biden has also traveled to Georgia, Ohio, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Wisconsin and Texas. He has delivered remarks, toured vaccination sites and public health agencies, visited wounded soldiers at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and participated in ceremonies such as the laying of a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery. His first major trip as president outside the Washington area was in February, when he flew to Milwaukee to participate in a CNN town hall. Vice President Kamala Harris, first lady Jill Biden and other members of the White House have also traveled beyond Washington, both with the president and without him. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and other officials have visited the southern U.S. border with Mexico multiple times. Similarly, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and John Kerry, a special presidential envoy on climate, have all traveled overseas, among other officials. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin speaks at a press conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels on April 14, 2021. (AP) On May 18, the day Trump made his false claim, Blinken was in Iceland as part of a trip that also included a visit to Denmark. Kerry was in Berlin that day, rounding out an overseas tour that included stops in Rome and London. Blinken has also traveled to Japan, South Korea, Belgium and Afghanistan, according to a list of his foreign trips. Austin joined Blinken in Japan and South Korea in March and went to Israel, Germany and Belgium in April. Kerry has also made trips to London, Brussels and Paris, and to the United Arab Emirates, India and Bangladesh. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry speaks with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris on March 10, 2021, after a meeting. (AP) Biden, who has been in office for about 120 days, has not traveled himself to the southern border or abroad, although he has pledged to go to the border 'at some point.' He is scheduled to make his first overseas trip as president in June. He will attend the G-7 Summit in the United Kingdom and NATO Summit in Brussels. Harris is slated to go to Mexico and Guatemala in June, marking her first trip abroad and her first trip to the border as vice president. Donald Trump's first foreign trip as president came in late May of 2017, when he traveled to the Middle East and Europe. That was about 120 days after he took office. | Our ruling Eric Trump said of the Biden White House, 'There's no one there. They don't travel. They don't go down to the border. They don't go overseas.' That's wrong on every point. The coronavirus has kept some White House staff working away from the White House grounds, but it's not true that 'there's no one there.' Biden has made several trips, including a visit to Michigan the day Trump made his claim. Other members of Biden's White House and Cabinet have traveled to the border and overseas. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | [
"103398-proof-04-AP_21132574203315.jpg",
"103398-proof-22-AP_21069661189363.jpg",
"103398-proof-23-AP_21126781084447.jpg",
"103398-proof-26-AP_21063708662347.jpg",
"103398-proof-31-AP_21104731194951.jpg",
"103398-proof-32-a7df31b9c386c45c1dfce9da023ea6ea.jpg"
]
|
As part of the Obama administration's criminal justice reforms, '38,000 prisoners were released from federal prison. | Contradiction | Squaring off with President Donald Trump over criminal justice reform during the final debate before Election Day, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden wrongly claimed the Obama administration's policies 'released' 38,000 federal prisoners while he was vice president. '38,000 prisoners were released from federal prison,' Biden said, responding to Trump's claim that Biden and President Barack Obama 'got nothing done' on the matter. The federal prison population did shrink under Obama for the first time since President Jimmy Carter was in office - but not by 38,000, and not because 38,000 prisoners were released. The 38,000 figure is cherry-picked The first problem with Biden's claim is with the number he cited. The Biden campaign pointed to data from the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics showing that the federal prison population dropped from a peak of 217,815 people at the end of 2012 to 179,898 people by the end of 2018, for a decrease of about 38,000. The 38,000 figure was cited in a letter civil rights groups sent the Senate leadership in 2018. But the number is misleading, since it compares the high point under Obama with the federal prison count almost two years into Trump's presidency. The same Bureau of Justice Statistics data shows that there were 201,280 prisoners in federal custody on Dec. 31, 2008, nearly one month before Obama's inauguration. There were 189,192 by the same day in 2016, with less than a month left in Obama's second term. That's a decline of about 12,000 prisoners, not 38,000. The number doesn't count prisoners released The second issue with Biden's claim is the term 'released.' The Bureau of Justice Statistics data measures the federal prison population and can be used to show population changes from year to year. It doesn't track prisoners who were released. 'Released is not the right word here,' said Kara Gotsch, director of strategic initiatives at the Sentencing Project. 'What we're talking about is a decline in the population.' The federal prison population changes all the time, Gotsch said. It drops when prisoners finish their sentences or die, for example, and it rises when new prisoners come in. The population has contracted considerably during the coronavirus pandemic, Gotsch said, as start dates for some prisoners' sentences are getting deferred for safety reasons. Biden framed his point more accurately earlier in the debate. 'The federal prison system was reduced by 38,000 people under our administration,' he said. The Federal Bureau of Prisons does keep tallies of the tens of thousands of federal inmates released each year. But the release data doesn't say much about the Obama administration's criminal justice reform efforts, which is the point Biden was trying to make. 'People get released every day just because their sentence ends,' Gotsch said. The Obama administration helped drive the decline That said, Gotsch told PolitiFact that policies implemented by the Obama administration - along with two changes made during Obama's tenure by the independent, bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission - did help drive a decline in the federal prison population. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, for example, dramatically reduced a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission approved the retroactive application of some of the new sentencing guidelines. According to a U.S. Sentencing Commission report, 7,748 crack-cocaine offenders received retroactive reductions to their prison sentences under that change. The U.S. Sentencing Commission also voted in 2014 to reduce drug sentencing guidelines by two offense levels and apply the change retroactively. That change has resulted in 31,763 drug offenders getting retroactive sentence reductions as of June, according to the commission. Former Attorney General Eric Holder also instituted a 'Smart on Crime Initiative' that Gotsch said led to fewer federal drug prosecutions. A separate Justice Department initiative urged qualified federal inmates to seek sentence commutations. Obama commuted the sentences of 1,696 people through that program, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found. | Our ruling Biden said that as part of the Obama administration's criminal justice reforms, '38,000 prisoners were released from federal prison.' The 38,000 figure is cherry-picked. It represents the change in the federal prison population from its peak at the end of 2012 to the end of 2018, nearly two years into Trump's presidency. The federal prison population did shrink under Obama for the first time in decades, but the true decline from the start to the end of Obama's presidency was about 12,000 prisoners. The 38,000 figure also describes a reduction in the federal prison population - which can happen for a myriad of reasons - rather than the number of federal inmates who were released under or because of the Obama administration's policies. We rate Biden's statement Mostly False. | [
"103399-proof-34-cbbd3eab6d24d3204de0b067f8fc8754.jpg"
]
|
As part of the Obama administration's criminal justice reforms, '38,000 prisoners were released from federal prison. | Contradiction | Squaring off with President Donald Trump over criminal justice reform during the final debate before Election Day, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden wrongly claimed the Obama administration's policies 'released' 38,000 federal prisoners while he was vice president. '38,000 prisoners were released from federal prison,' Biden said, responding to Trump's claim that Biden and President Barack Obama 'got nothing done' on the matter. The federal prison population did shrink under Obama for the first time since President Jimmy Carter was in office - but not by 38,000, and not because 38,000 prisoners were released. The 38,000 figure is cherry-picked The first problem with Biden's claim is with the number he cited. The Biden campaign pointed to data from the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics showing that the federal prison population dropped from a peak of 217,815 people at the end of 2012 to 179,898 people by the end of 2018, for a decrease of about 38,000. The 38,000 figure was cited in a letter civil rights groups sent the Senate leadership in 2018. But the number is misleading, since it compares the high point under Obama with the federal prison count almost two years into Trump's presidency. The same Bureau of Justice Statistics data shows that there were 201,280 prisoners in federal custody on Dec. 31, 2008, nearly one month before Obama's inauguration. There were 189,192 by the same day in 2016, with less than a month left in Obama's second term. That's a decline of about 12,000 prisoners, not 38,000. The number doesn't count prisoners released The second issue with Biden's claim is the term 'released.' The Bureau of Justice Statistics data measures the federal prison population and can be used to show population changes from year to year. It doesn't track prisoners who were released. 'Released is not the right word here,' said Kara Gotsch, director of strategic initiatives at the Sentencing Project. 'What we're talking about is a decline in the population.' The federal prison population changes all the time, Gotsch said. It drops when prisoners finish their sentences or die, for example, and it rises when new prisoners come in. The population has contracted considerably during the coronavirus pandemic, Gotsch said, as start dates for some prisoners' sentences are getting deferred for safety reasons. Biden framed his point more accurately earlier in the debate. 'The federal prison system was reduced by 38,000 people under our administration,' he said. The Federal Bureau of Prisons does keep tallies of the tens of thousands of federal inmates released each year. But the release data doesn't say much about the Obama administration's criminal justice reform efforts, which is the point Biden was trying to make. 'People get released every day just because their sentence ends,' Gotsch said. The Obama administration helped drive the decline That said, Gotsch told PolitiFact that policies implemented by the Obama administration - along with two changes made during Obama's tenure by the independent, bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission - did help drive a decline in the federal prison population. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, for example, dramatically reduced a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission approved the retroactive application of some of the new sentencing guidelines. According to a U.S. Sentencing Commission report, 7,748 crack-cocaine offenders received retroactive reductions to their prison sentences under that change. The U.S. Sentencing Commission also voted in 2014 to reduce drug sentencing guidelines by two offense levels and apply the change retroactively. That change has resulted in 31,763 drug offenders getting retroactive sentence reductions as of June, according to the commission. Former Attorney General Eric Holder also instituted a 'Smart on Crime Initiative' that Gotsch said led to fewer federal drug prosecutions. A separate Justice Department initiative urged qualified federal inmates to seek sentence commutations. Obama commuted the sentences of 1,696 people through that program, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found. | Our ruling Biden said that as part of the Obama administration's criminal justice reforms, '38,000 prisoners were released from federal prison.' The 38,000 figure is cherry-picked. It represents the change in the federal prison population from its peak at the end of 2012 to the end of 2018, nearly two years into Trump's presidency. The federal prison population did shrink under Obama for the first time in decades, but the true decline from the start to the end of Obama's presidency was about 12,000 prisoners. The 38,000 figure also describes a reduction in the federal prison population - which can happen for a myriad of reasons - rather than the number of federal inmates who were released under or because of the Obama administration's policies. We rate Biden's statement Mostly False. | [
"103399-proof-34-cbbd3eab6d24d3204de0b067f8fc8754.jpg"
]
|
As part of the Obama administration's criminal justice reforms, '38,000 prisoners were released from federal prison. | Contradiction | Squaring off with President Donald Trump over criminal justice reform during the final debate before Election Day, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden wrongly claimed the Obama administration's policies 'released' 38,000 federal prisoners while he was vice president. '38,000 prisoners were released from federal prison,' Biden said, responding to Trump's claim that Biden and President Barack Obama 'got nothing done' on the matter. The federal prison population did shrink under Obama for the first time since President Jimmy Carter was in office - but not by 38,000, and not because 38,000 prisoners were released. The 38,000 figure is cherry-picked The first problem with Biden's claim is with the number he cited. The Biden campaign pointed to data from the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics showing that the federal prison population dropped from a peak of 217,815 people at the end of 2012 to 179,898 people by the end of 2018, for a decrease of about 38,000. The 38,000 figure was cited in a letter civil rights groups sent the Senate leadership in 2018. But the number is misleading, since it compares the high point under Obama with the federal prison count almost two years into Trump's presidency. The same Bureau of Justice Statistics data shows that there were 201,280 prisoners in federal custody on Dec. 31, 2008, nearly one month before Obama's inauguration. There were 189,192 by the same day in 2016, with less than a month left in Obama's second term. That's a decline of about 12,000 prisoners, not 38,000. The number doesn't count prisoners released The second issue with Biden's claim is the term 'released.' The Bureau of Justice Statistics data measures the federal prison population and can be used to show population changes from year to year. It doesn't track prisoners who were released. 'Released is not the right word here,' said Kara Gotsch, director of strategic initiatives at the Sentencing Project. 'What we're talking about is a decline in the population.' The federal prison population changes all the time, Gotsch said. It drops when prisoners finish their sentences or die, for example, and it rises when new prisoners come in. The population has contracted considerably during the coronavirus pandemic, Gotsch said, as start dates for some prisoners' sentences are getting deferred for safety reasons. Biden framed his point more accurately earlier in the debate. 'The federal prison system was reduced by 38,000 people under our administration,' he said. The Federal Bureau of Prisons does keep tallies of the tens of thousands of federal inmates released each year. But the release data doesn't say much about the Obama administration's criminal justice reform efforts, which is the point Biden was trying to make. 'People get released every day just because their sentence ends,' Gotsch said. The Obama administration helped drive the decline That said, Gotsch told PolitiFact that policies implemented by the Obama administration - along with two changes made during Obama's tenure by the independent, bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission - did help drive a decline in the federal prison population. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, for example, dramatically reduced a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission approved the retroactive application of some of the new sentencing guidelines. According to a U.S. Sentencing Commission report, 7,748 crack-cocaine offenders received retroactive reductions to their prison sentences under that change. The U.S. Sentencing Commission also voted in 2014 to reduce drug sentencing guidelines by two offense levels and apply the change retroactively. That change has resulted in 31,763 drug offenders getting retroactive sentence reductions as of June, according to the commission. Former Attorney General Eric Holder also instituted a 'Smart on Crime Initiative' that Gotsch said led to fewer federal drug prosecutions. A separate Justice Department initiative urged qualified federal inmates to seek sentence commutations. Obama commuted the sentences of 1,696 people through that program, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found. | Our ruling Biden said that as part of the Obama administration's criminal justice reforms, '38,000 prisoners were released from federal prison.' The 38,000 figure is cherry-picked. It represents the change in the federal prison population from its peak at the end of 2012 to the end of 2018, nearly two years into Trump's presidency. The federal prison population did shrink under Obama for the first time in decades, but the true decline from the start to the end of Obama's presidency was about 12,000 prisoners. The 38,000 figure also describes a reduction in the federal prison population - which can happen for a myriad of reasons - rather than the number of federal inmates who were released under or because of the Obama administration's policies. We rate Biden's statement Mostly False. | [
"103399-proof-34-cbbd3eab6d24d3204de0b067f8fc8754.jpg"
]
|
'Here are pictures from Trump's Tulsa rally!!!' | Contradiction | 'Don't believe the leftist lies!' warns a Facebook post showing three photos of crowds. 'Here are pictures from Trump's Tulsa rally!!! This was an awesome turnout in spite of all of the threats of violence, threats of Covid, etc!!! MAGA!!!!!' What you shouldn't believe is this Facebook post, which was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've already fact-checked a batch of photos wrongly claiming to show the crowd that gathered for President Donald Trump's June 20 campaign rally at BOK Center in Tulsa, Okla. The images in this post are also being misused to make it look like Trump's rally was packed, when the actual attendance was far lower than the campaign's stated expectations. We used Google Images and TinEye to do reverse image searches of the photos in the Facebook post to figure out what they actually show. The first photo is from a Trump rally at the Florida State Fairgrounds in July 2018. The second photo is from a Trump rally in Manchester, N.H., in February 2020. The third photo is from a rally in Lexington, Ky., in November 2019. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
Says 'showing up at the front doors of people's houses and violating HIPAA laws by requesting private medical information regarding their vaccination status is unacceptable and illegal. | Contradiction | North Carolina's lieutenant governor is speaking out against the federal government's effort to promote COVID-19 vaccines. After Joe Biden's administration fell short of its goal to vaccinate 70% of Americans by July Fourth, the President announced plans to send advocates 'door-to-door' in certain communities. Some Republicans are pushing back on the door-knocking idea, with North Carolina Lt. Governor Mark Robinson saying it's an invasion of privacy. 'There have been many reports of officials making door-to-door visits to encourage people to get vaccinated. I still contest that those who wish to be vaccinated should have every opportunity to be,' Robinson said in a July 9 Facebook post. 'However, showing up at the front doors of people's houses and violating HIPAA laws by requesting private medical information regarding their vaccination status is unacceptable and illegal. We must allow citizens to make decisions of their own free will, and not coerce them into getting the vaccine,' he said. Is Robinson right? Is it against the law for officials to ask about someone's vaccination status? First, it's worth noting that the people going door-to-door are not federal government employees. 'They are not members of the government. They are not federal government employees. They are volunteers. They are clergy. They are trusted voices in communities who are playing this role and door knocking,' White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a July 8 press briefing. And no, experts say they would not be breaking HIPAA laws by asking about someone's vaccination status. Misunderstanding the law HIPAA stands for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and critics of masks and vaccinations have argued it protects them from questions about their healthcare decisions. However, multiple experts have told PolitiFact and other fact checkers that those critics misunderstand the law. The law's 'Privacy Rule' established a set of national standards to address how health care providers, insurers and other entities use and share people's health information. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the law is designed to prevent those companies and groups from disclosing a patient's private health information without that person's permission. PolitiFact previously reported that HIPAA does not prevent businesses from asking if a customer is vaccinated. PolitiFact North Carolina asked experts if a government volunteer would violate the law if they were 'requesting private medical information,' as feared by Robinson. They all said no. Jodi Daniel, a partner in Crowell & Moring's Health Care Group in Washington, D.C., helped draft the first iteration of HIPAA. She says the HIPAA privacy rules only apply to certain types of entities. 'These entities are most healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses,' Daniel wrote in an email to PolitiFact NC.'HIPAA addresses what an entity that holds individually identifiable health information can and cannot do with that information. There is nothing in HIPAA that prohibits the requesting of health information from an individual.' Kirk Nahra, a partner with WilmerHale in Washington, D.C., and an expert in privacy law, wrote about HIPAA last month for the International Association of Privacy Professionals. He responded to Robinson's claim in an email to PolitiFact NC. 'If the mayor's office, or the governor's office, or the president's office sends people out to ask, there is no possible HIPAA violation,' Nahra said. 'The HIPAA rules - even where they would apply - would restrict the doctor from disclosing your medical data, but doesn't by itself prohibit anyone from asking you for information.' Lawrence Gostin, faculty director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown Law, also saw no truth to Robinson's claim. 'First, the person 'knocking the door' isn't a health care provider who has access to your records,' Gostin told PolitiFact NC in an email. 'Second, the individual (who is answering the door) has a choice whether to disclose his or her vaccination status. Thus, it is entirely wrong to suggest any violation of privacy.' We specifically asked: Is there any scenario where a government representative would violate the law by requesting - but not demanding - health information? Thomas Miller, senior fellow studying healthcare at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said no. He noted that the federal government already has 'broader public health protection powers (and emergency powers) that extend beyond the limits of HIPAA on 'covered entities.'' 'It further can take reasonable steps to protect the rest of the public from public health risks posed by others. But it cannot make someone answer if they chose not to do so (although there may be some related consequential responses),' Miller wrote in an email to PolitiFact NC. 'Hypothetically, a federal government agency still 'could' do something else incredibly stupid and actionable, but there's no sign of that happening thus far and no reasonable future likelihood of the imaginary becoming real. We have more serious issues to address well before engaging in that sort of idle speculation.' We emailed Robinson's staff about his Facebook post, but never received a response. | Our ruling Robinson said it would be 'illegal' for government officials to show up at peoples' doors 'requesting private medical information.' An academic, a privacy law attorney, a former government employee who helped draft HIPAA, and a policy expert at a right-leaning think tank say Robinson's claim is inaccurate. It is not a HIPAA violation to ask someone if they're vaccinated. And HIPAA does not prevent someone from answering the question. We rate Robinson's post False. | [
"103427-proof-24-bca3922b110524280a7fa32c8d9dfc4c.jpg",
"103427-proof-51-RobinsonFBpost.jpg"
]
|
Says 'showing up at the front doors of people's houses and violating HIPAA laws by requesting private medical information regarding their vaccination status is unacceptable and illegal. | Contradiction | North Carolina's lieutenant governor is speaking out against the federal government's effort to promote COVID-19 vaccines. After Joe Biden's administration fell short of its goal to vaccinate 70% of Americans by July Fourth, the President announced plans to send advocates 'door-to-door' in certain communities. Some Republicans are pushing back on the door-knocking idea, with North Carolina Lt. Governor Mark Robinson saying it's an invasion of privacy. 'There have been many reports of officials making door-to-door visits to encourage people to get vaccinated. I still contest that those who wish to be vaccinated should have every opportunity to be,' Robinson said in a July 9 Facebook post. 'However, showing up at the front doors of people's houses and violating HIPAA laws by requesting private medical information regarding their vaccination status is unacceptable and illegal. We must allow citizens to make decisions of their own free will, and not coerce them into getting the vaccine,' he said. Is Robinson right? Is it against the law for officials to ask about someone's vaccination status? First, it's worth noting that the people going door-to-door are not federal government employees. 'They are not members of the government. They are not federal government employees. They are volunteers. They are clergy. They are trusted voices in communities who are playing this role and door knocking,' White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a July 8 press briefing. And no, experts say they would not be breaking HIPAA laws by asking about someone's vaccination status. Misunderstanding the law HIPAA stands for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and critics of masks and vaccinations have argued it protects them from questions about their healthcare decisions. However, multiple experts have told PolitiFact and other fact checkers that those critics misunderstand the law. The law's 'Privacy Rule' established a set of national standards to address how health care providers, insurers and other entities use and share people's health information. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the law is designed to prevent those companies and groups from disclosing a patient's private health information without that person's permission. PolitiFact previously reported that HIPAA does not prevent businesses from asking if a customer is vaccinated. PolitiFact North Carolina asked experts if a government volunteer would violate the law if they were 'requesting private medical information,' as feared by Robinson. They all said no. Jodi Daniel, a partner in Crowell & Moring's Health Care Group in Washington, D.C., helped draft the first iteration of HIPAA. She says the HIPAA privacy rules only apply to certain types of entities. 'These entities are most healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses,' Daniel wrote in an email to PolitiFact NC.'HIPAA addresses what an entity that holds individually identifiable health information can and cannot do with that information. There is nothing in HIPAA that prohibits the requesting of health information from an individual.' Kirk Nahra, a partner with WilmerHale in Washington, D.C., and an expert in privacy law, wrote about HIPAA last month for the International Association of Privacy Professionals. He responded to Robinson's claim in an email to PolitiFact NC. 'If the mayor's office, or the governor's office, or the president's office sends people out to ask, there is no possible HIPAA violation,' Nahra said. 'The HIPAA rules - even where they would apply - would restrict the doctor from disclosing your medical data, but doesn't by itself prohibit anyone from asking you for information.' Lawrence Gostin, faculty director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown Law, also saw no truth to Robinson's claim. 'First, the person 'knocking the door' isn't a health care provider who has access to your records,' Gostin told PolitiFact NC in an email. 'Second, the individual (who is answering the door) has a choice whether to disclose his or her vaccination status. Thus, it is entirely wrong to suggest any violation of privacy.' We specifically asked: Is there any scenario where a government representative would violate the law by requesting - but not demanding - health information? Thomas Miller, senior fellow studying healthcare at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said no. He noted that the federal government already has 'broader public health protection powers (and emergency powers) that extend beyond the limits of HIPAA on 'covered entities.'' 'It further can take reasonable steps to protect the rest of the public from public health risks posed by others. But it cannot make someone answer if they chose not to do so (although there may be some related consequential responses),' Miller wrote in an email to PolitiFact NC. 'Hypothetically, a federal government agency still 'could' do something else incredibly stupid and actionable, but there's no sign of that happening thus far and no reasonable future likelihood of the imaginary becoming real. We have more serious issues to address well before engaging in that sort of idle speculation.' We emailed Robinson's staff about his Facebook post, but never received a response. | Our ruling Robinson said it would be 'illegal' for government officials to show up at peoples' doors 'requesting private medical information.' An academic, a privacy law attorney, a former government employee who helped draft HIPAA, and a policy expert at a right-leaning think tank say Robinson's claim is inaccurate. It is not a HIPAA violation to ask someone if they're vaccinated. And HIPAA does not prevent someone from answering the question. We rate Robinson's post False. | [
"103427-proof-24-bca3922b110524280a7fa32c8d9dfc4c.jpg",
"103427-proof-51-RobinsonFBpost.jpg"
]
|
Says 'showing up at the front doors of people's houses and violating HIPAA laws by requesting private medical information regarding their vaccination status is unacceptable and illegal. | Contradiction | North Carolina's lieutenant governor is speaking out against the federal government's effort to promote COVID-19 vaccines. After Joe Biden's administration fell short of its goal to vaccinate 70% of Americans by July Fourth, the President announced plans to send advocates 'door-to-door' in certain communities. Some Republicans are pushing back on the door-knocking idea, with North Carolina Lt. Governor Mark Robinson saying it's an invasion of privacy. 'There have been many reports of officials making door-to-door visits to encourage people to get vaccinated. I still contest that those who wish to be vaccinated should have every opportunity to be,' Robinson said in a July 9 Facebook post. 'However, showing up at the front doors of people's houses and violating HIPAA laws by requesting private medical information regarding their vaccination status is unacceptable and illegal. We must allow citizens to make decisions of their own free will, and not coerce them into getting the vaccine,' he said. Is Robinson right? Is it against the law for officials to ask about someone's vaccination status? First, it's worth noting that the people going door-to-door are not federal government employees. 'They are not members of the government. They are not federal government employees. They are volunteers. They are clergy. They are trusted voices in communities who are playing this role and door knocking,' White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a July 8 press briefing. And no, experts say they would not be breaking HIPAA laws by asking about someone's vaccination status. Misunderstanding the law HIPAA stands for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and critics of masks and vaccinations have argued it protects them from questions about their healthcare decisions. However, multiple experts have told PolitiFact and other fact checkers that those critics misunderstand the law. The law's 'Privacy Rule' established a set of national standards to address how health care providers, insurers and other entities use and share people's health information. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the law is designed to prevent those companies and groups from disclosing a patient's private health information without that person's permission. PolitiFact previously reported that HIPAA does not prevent businesses from asking if a customer is vaccinated. PolitiFact North Carolina asked experts if a government volunteer would violate the law if they were 'requesting private medical information,' as feared by Robinson. They all said no. Jodi Daniel, a partner in Crowell & Moring's Health Care Group in Washington, D.C., helped draft the first iteration of HIPAA. She says the HIPAA privacy rules only apply to certain types of entities. 'These entities are most healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses,' Daniel wrote in an email to PolitiFact NC.'HIPAA addresses what an entity that holds individually identifiable health information can and cannot do with that information. There is nothing in HIPAA that prohibits the requesting of health information from an individual.' Kirk Nahra, a partner with WilmerHale in Washington, D.C., and an expert in privacy law, wrote about HIPAA last month for the International Association of Privacy Professionals. He responded to Robinson's claim in an email to PolitiFact NC. 'If the mayor's office, or the governor's office, or the president's office sends people out to ask, there is no possible HIPAA violation,' Nahra said. 'The HIPAA rules - even where they would apply - would restrict the doctor from disclosing your medical data, but doesn't by itself prohibit anyone from asking you for information.' Lawrence Gostin, faculty director of the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown Law, also saw no truth to Robinson's claim. 'First, the person 'knocking the door' isn't a health care provider who has access to your records,' Gostin told PolitiFact NC in an email. 'Second, the individual (who is answering the door) has a choice whether to disclose his or her vaccination status. Thus, it is entirely wrong to suggest any violation of privacy.' We specifically asked: Is there any scenario where a government representative would violate the law by requesting - but not demanding - health information? Thomas Miller, senior fellow studying healthcare at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said no. He noted that the federal government already has 'broader public health protection powers (and emergency powers) that extend beyond the limits of HIPAA on 'covered entities.'' 'It further can take reasonable steps to protect the rest of the public from public health risks posed by others. But it cannot make someone answer if they chose not to do so (although there may be some related consequential responses),' Miller wrote in an email to PolitiFact NC. 'Hypothetically, a federal government agency still 'could' do something else incredibly stupid and actionable, but there's no sign of that happening thus far and no reasonable future likelihood of the imaginary becoming real. We have more serious issues to address well before engaging in that sort of idle speculation.' We emailed Robinson's staff about his Facebook post, but never received a response. | Our ruling Robinson said it would be 'illegal' for government officials to show up at peoples' doors 'requesting private medical information.' An academic, a privacy law attorney, a former government employee who helped draft HIPAA, and a policy expert at a right-leaning think tank say Robinson's claim is inaccurate. It is not a HIPAA violation to ask someone if they're vaccinated. And HIPAA does not prevent someone from answering the question. We rate Robinson's post False. | [
"103427-proof-24-bca3922b110524280a7fa32c8d9dfc4c.jpg",
"103427-proof-51-RobinsonFBpost.jpg"
]
|
An Illinois couple who received five vote-by-mail applications can vote five times. | Contradiction | A common misconception going around social media is that people who receive multiple mail ballot applications can, in turn, vote multiple times, and no one would know. It's the kind of situation floated by opponents of voting by mail to warn of possible abuse. A Facebook page called 'Just the Facts' shared an image that shows five envelopes marked as Official Election Mail from the Fayette County Clerk & Recorder's Office, which is in Illinois. The caption says the applications were sent to five different people at one address. The post claims that the Illinois couple who received them could easily use the applications to get multiple ballots and cast multiple votes. The post reads: 'A husband and wife received 5 'vote by mail' ballots request. They were unsolicited. All this couple has to do is fill them out, and mail them in. They will be sent 5 ballots. Two people will be able to cast 5 votes with no one the wiser.' This is wrong. Election officials are required to conduct a verification process on ballot applications that makes it highly unlikely that such a scheme would work. It's also illegal, and anyone who tried to do this would be guilty of a felony, and likely get caught. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) RELATED: Trump draws false distinction between absentee ballots, voting by mail Vote-by-mail ballot applications, like the ones in the photo, come from the county clerk and are specific to the voter to whom they are addressed. Voters must sign and return the application to receive a ballot. But before election officials can mail out a ballot to a voter, they check that the signature on the ballot application matches the signature on record. 'In this case, if a voter were to sign applications other than his own, he would be committing voter fraud,' Matt Dietrich, a spokesperson for the Illinois State Board of Elections, told PolitiFact. 'That's a felony, and an easy one to catch since these applications are intended for the specific voters to whom they are addressed.' An Illinois special election law signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker in June requires local election authorities to send a vote-by-mail application to any registered voter who participated in the 2018 general, 2019 consolidated or 2020 primary election, by Aug. 1. The law requires that the applications be mailed 'to the elector's registered address and any other mailing address the election authority may have on file, including a mailing address to which a prior vote-by-mail ballot was mailed.' 'So it's likely that some voters may be sent more than one application,' Dietrich said. 'However, they will only receive one ballot no matter how many applications they return. Applications and ballots are mailed and tracked by a voter's unique voter ID number. Once a voter's application is received, any subsequent applications will be rejected.' Jessica Barker, the clerk for Fayette County, told PolitiFact the post is wrong. She said the county clerks of Illinois were required under the law to mail applications to eligible registered voters, and that it's the voters' responsibility to keep their information current with local election officials. The application-then-ballot process is common for mail-in voting, but not universal. In May, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, ordered all counties to proactively send out mail-in ballots to all registered voters, citing health concerns amid COVID-19. Vermont, Nevada and Montana have passed similar measures. But states have put safeguards in place to deter voter fraud and ensure each ballot is tallied correctly. In California, for example, when election officials receive a vote-by-mail ballot, the voter's signature on the return envelope is compared with the voter's registration card to ensure they match. The ballot is also separated from the envelope before it's tallied to ensure anonymity. Election experts across the country have said that fraudulent mail-in voting is exceedingly rare. For example, the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and public policy institute, found that Oregon - a state that votes primarily by mail - has sent out more than 100 million mail-in ballots since 2000, but has documented only about a dozen cases of proven fraud. | Our ruling A Facebook post says an Illinois couple received five vote-by-mail applications and will be able use them to receive multiple ballots and cast multiple votes. This is inaccurate. Anyone who attempts to do this is committing fraud, and before election officials mail out a ballot to a voter, the signature on the application must match the signature on record. Each voter has a unique voter ID number that's tied to a single ballot, so once a voter's application is received, any subsequent applications will be rejected. We rate this False. | []
|
An Illinois couple who received five vote-by-mail applications can vote five times. | Contradiction | A common misconception going around social media is that people who receive multiple mail ballot applications can, in turn, vote multiple times, and no one would know. It's the kind of situation floated by opponents of voting by mail to warn of possible abuse. A Facebook page called 'Just the Facts' shared an image that shows five envelopes marked as Official Election Mail from the Fayette County Clerk & Recorder's Office, which is in Illinois. The caption says the applications were sent to five different people at one address. The post claims that the Illinois couple who received them could easily use the applications to get multiple ballots and cast multiple votes. The post reads: 'A husband and wife received 5 'vote by mail' ballots request. They were unsolicited. All this couple has to do is fill them out, and mail them in. They will be sent 5 ballots. Two people will be able to cast 5 votes with no one the wiser.' This is wrong. Election officials are required to conduct a verification process on ballot applications that makes it highly unlikely that such a scheme would work. It's also illegal, and anyone who tried to do this would be guilty of a felony, and likely get caught. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) RELATED: Trump draws false distinction between absentee ballots, voting by mail Vote-by-mail ballot applications, like the ones in the photo, come from the county clerk and are specific to the voter to whom they are addressed. Voters must sign and return the application to receive a ballot. But before election officials can mail out a ballot to a voter, they check that the signature on the ballot application matches the signature on record. 'In this case, if a voter were to sign applications other than his own, he would be committing voter fraud,' Matt Dietrich, a spokesperson for the Illinois State Board of Elections, told PolitiFact. 'That's a felony, and an easy one to catch since these applications are intended for the specific voters to whom they are addressed.' An Illinois special election law signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker in June requires local election authorities to send a vote-by-mail application to any registered voter who participated in the 2018 general, 2019 consolidated or 2020 primary election, by Aug. 1. The law requires that the applications be mailed 'to the elector's registered address and any other mailing address the election authority may have on file, including a mailing address to which a prior vote-by-mail ballot was mailed.' 'So it's likely that some voters may be sent more than one application,' Dietrich said. 'However, they will only receive one ballot no matter how many applications they return. Applications and ballots are mailed and tracked by a voter's unique voter ID number. Once a voter's application is received, any subsequent applications will be rejected.' Jessica Barker, the clerk for Fayette County, told PolitiFact the post is wrong. She said the county clerks of Illinois were required under the law to mail applications to eligible registered voters, and that it's the voters' responsibility to keep their information current with local election officials. The application-then-ballot process is common for mail-in voting, but not universal. In May, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, ordered all counties to proactively send out mail-in ballots to all registered voters, citing health concerns amid COVID-19. Vermont, Nevada and Montana have passed similar measures. But states have put safeguards in place to deter voter fraud and ensure each ballot is tallied correctly. In California, for example, when election officials receive a vote-by-mail ballot, the voter's signature on the return envelope is compared with the voter's registration card to ensure they match. The ballot is also separated from the envelope before it's tallied to ensure anonymity. Election experts across the country have said that fraudulent mail-in voting is exceedingly rare. For example, the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and public policy institute, found that Oregon - a state that votes primarily by mail - has sent out more than 100 million mail-in ballots since 2000, but has documented only about a dozen cases of proven fraud. | Our ruling A Facebook post says an Illinois couple received five vote-by-mail applications and will be able use them to receive multiple ballots and cast multiple votes. This is inaccurate. Anyone who attempts to do this is committing fraud, and before election officials mail out a ballot to a voter, the signature on the application must match the signature on record. Each voter has a unique voter ID number that's tied to a single ballot, so once a voter's application is received, any subsequent applications will be rejected. We rate this False. | []
|
'Biden gets brutal impeachment.' | Contradiction | The impeachments of former President Donald Trump drew widespread and intensive media coverage. So did the trial against President Bill Clinton in 1998. If you haven't heard about the impeachment of the current commander-in-chief, Joe Biden, that's because it didn't happen. But the title of a video being shared on social media suggests otherwise. 'Biden gets BRUTAL impeachment after his 'v.accine for China' FOOL,' the June 7 post says. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The nearly 25-minute video clip in the post is of a Newsmax broadcast, but there's no mention of a Biden impeachment in any of the featured segments. We've previously checked claims like this where the title of a video doesn't match the content of the footage. These are generally big, sensational statements that would understandably draw someone in. But they're not real. Article II of the Constitution gives the U.S. House of Representatives the sole power to impeach an official. Republicans controlled the House when they initiated the impeachment process against Clinton, and Democrats controlled the House when they initiated the impeachment process against Trump in 2020 over his Ukraine call and again in 2021 after the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. Democrats, who still control the House, would break from that precedent if they initiated the impeachment process against a president like Biden from their own party. We rate this post Pants on Fire! | We rate this post Pants on Fire! | []
|
The Astroworld concert was a 'test run on the vaxxed' because people who are injected with graphene oxide can be controlled through magnetic frequencies, including music. | Contradiction | Investigators are still looking into what caused the crowd surge at Houston's Astroworld music festival that killed eight people and injured dozens more during a performance by rapper Travis Scott. Some people on social media claim to have an explanation: the COVID-19 vaccines. 'WHAT HAPPENED AT THE TRAVIS SCOTT CONCERT?' one Facebook post begins. 'They're practicing!! Once they put graphene oxide in you, all they have to do is TUNE THE FREQUENCY!! The post goes on to say that a material called graphene oxide can 'destroy consciousness' and control people through magnetic frequencies, which includes music. 'They will turn people into zombies, literally ... As others have said, this is a test run on the vaxxed,' it concludes. There's no evidence to suggest graphene oxide can literally turn people into zombies. But there's a bigger problem with the theory: None of the vaccines contain graphene oxide. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Graphene-family materials have an array of uses in biotechnology, and there's evidence that the compound can be toxic in certain circumstances. But claims that the COVID-19 vaccines contain the substance have proven untrue. We previously fact-checked a claim that falsely said graphene oxide - a material made by the oxidation of graphite - was used in Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. A company spokesperson told us that the material is used in some vaccines, but none by Pfizer. None of the listed ingredients is another name for graphene oxide, and the material doesn't appear in ingredient lists for the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines. Ron Mertens, founder and CEO of Graphene-Info.com, a graphene news website, said graphene oxide is 'not magnetic and not a conductive material, so it cannot be used in the ways people suggest in such videos.' Full Fact, a fact-checking organization in the United Kingdom, reported that the rumors about graphene oxide in vaccines appear to have originated with a Spanish study from June 2021. The report claimed that, using a microscopic technique, a solution created from a vial of Pfizer's vaccine was observed to be similar in form to graphene oxide. But the study hasn't been published in a journal or peer-reviewed, and it offers no conclusive evidence. It's not even clear that the vial being tested contained a legitimate vaccine sample. Fact-checkers at Health Feedback reported that the person who sent the vial to the researcher has been known to spread anti-vaccine content. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims the AstroWorld concert was a 'test run on the vaxxed' because people who are injected with graphene oxide can be controlled through magnetic frequencies, including music. The vaccines don't contain graphene oxide. We rate this False. | []
|
An image of a newspaper article says 'True Bethel Baptist Church becomes the first church in NYS to receive a liquor license. | Contradiction | Have you ever wanted to sip on a few cocktails during Sunday church? Well, an image of a newspaper headline being shared online would have you believe you could do just that in upstate New York. 'True Bethel Baptist Church becomes the first church in NYS to receive a Liquor License: Rev. Darius Pridgen thanks Mayor Brown,' reads what appears to be the lead headline on the front page of the Buffalo News newspaper. But, perhaps sadly for some, the news report is fake. The church did not receive or apply for a liquor license. There are several online tools people can use to generate fake news articles. | The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on November 3, 2021 in a Facebook post 'Trash bins discovered outside the Gloucester County Board of Elections containing blank ballots as well as bags of shredded ballots from Tuesday's election!' By Samantha Putterman • November 5, 2021 We could find no credible reports, from Buffalo News or any other news organization, that the church was granted a liquor license. A query on the New York State Liquor Authority website also showed no results. True Bethel Baptist Church told PolitiFact that it does not have a liquor license and that the image reflects a fake report. We rate this Pants on Fire! | [
"103481-proof-14-buffalo_news_fake_headline.jpeg"
]
|
'Go to 2020census.gov and fill out this census form so you can get your stimulus check. | Contradiction | The 2020 Census is underway, but responding to the constitutionally mandated count of everyone in the country won't affect whether you receive a check from the federal government as part of a potential economic stimulus plan. A recent Facebook post claims otherwise. 'Go to 2020census.gov and fill out this Census form so you can get your stimulus check,' the March 22 post says. 'That's how they know where to send the checks. Forward this to everyone that you know. If you don't fill it out you will not receive a check in the mail. $1000 per adult $500 per child $3K max per household.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because it's not true, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. By law, the Census Bureau must keep your answers confidential; the information it receives is used only to produce statistics. You can respond to the Census here. Lawmakers, meanwhile, are still working on a stimulus plan to try to shore up the economy during the coronavirus pandemic. On Sunday, Senate Democrats blocked action on the package because they said it didn't have enough protections for workers and needed stricter restrictions on businesses that would be bailed out under the deal. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
A photo shows a 'Center for Global Population Reduction' at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation headquarters. | Contradiction | Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has emerged as a prominent voice in public discussions about how to combat the coronavirus. In 2015, he was already warning Americans that the country was unprepared for an inevitable infectious virus. More recently, he's become a target for misinformation concerning the pandemic. We've debunked several claims, including that he said 'church services can't resume until we're all vaccinated,' that the Gates Foundation paralyzed nearly 500,000 children testing a polio vaccine, and that the foundation has a patent for the coronavirus. An image lurking in certain corners of the internet has a similar theme. It shows what looks like the corner of a foundation building, with the words 'Bill & Melinda Gates foundation' seemingly etched in the facade. Above that? These words: 'Center for Global Human Population Reduction.' 'Right out in front for the world to see their plan,' reads one Facebook post sharing the image. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image appears to be a doctored photo of 500 Fifth Ave N., the foundation's headquarters in Seattle. We searched for that address in Google Maps and found this photo, which shows the foundation's name and the street number 500, just as it appears in the image on the Facebook post, but without the name of the supposed center. The corner of the building is also visible in the Google Maps street view. The 'Center for Global Population Reduction' marking doesn't appear on the building. The foundation's 2018 annual report, the most recent available, makes no mention of such a center or even population. We also didn't find that center searching the foundation's website. But allegations that Bill Gates is wielding vaccines to thin human herds aren't new. In 2018, for example, we fact-checked a false story that he had a 'plan to depopulate the planet.' That claim was wrong, and as several other fact-checkers have found, so is this one. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
A Joe Biden-Bernie Sanders 'unity' policy document shows 'they want to abolish our police departments. They want to abolish our prisons, I guess. | Contradiction | In a break from tradition, President Donald Trump used the White House's Rose Garden as the venue for a lengthy rhetorical shot at his 2020 campaign rival, Joe Biden. Trump particularly targeted a policy document recently agreed to by representatives of the Biden campaign as well as allies of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who gave Biden a strong challenge from the ideological left in the 2020 Democratic primaries. 'The Biden-Sanders agenda is the most extreme platform of any major party nominee, by far, in American history,' he said. Trump went on to call out many parts of the platform, including its policies on criminal justice. 'We could go on for days,' Trump said. 'Incentivize prison closure. So they want to close our prisons. They now want to abolish our police departments. They want to abolish our prisons, I guess.' This is wildly untrue. The Trump campaign didn't respond to our inquiries. Does Biden want to 'abolish our police departments'? As we've reported, some protesters using the term 'defund the police' want to eliminate police departments entirely. But most officials do not want to eliminate the police; they want to revisit the functions of police departments and reroute some of their funding toward social services. But Biden explicitly rejected the 'defund the police' label. 'While I do not believe federal dollars should go to police departments violating people's rights or turning to violence as the first resort, I do not support defunding police,' Biden wrote in an op-ed in USA Today. 'The better answer is to give police departments the resources they need to implement meaningful reforms, and to condition other federal dollars on completing those reforms. So what does Biden support? The unity document backs a wide array of criminal-justice provisions, including decriminalization of marijuana by jurisdictions that want to do so and repealing federal mandatory minimum sentences. Not only does the unity document not say anything about abolishing the police, it includes several passages that are based on the assumption that there will be police going forward. They include: • 'We will require officer training in effective nonviolent tactics, appropriate use of force, implicit bias, and peer intervention, both at the academy and on the job.' • 'Democrats will reinvigorate community policing approaches, so officers on the beat better serve the neighborhoods they work in.' • 'Democrats also support measures to increase diversity among the ranks of police departments, so our law enforcement agencies look more like the communities they serve. And we will seek increased funding for officer health and well-being in police departments across the country, including for personal safety equipment and mental health services.' Does Biden want to 'abolish our prisons'? There is one type of prison that the unity document does support abolishing: privately owned and run prisons. 'Private profit should not motivate the provision of vital public services, including in the criminal justice system,' the unity document says. 'Democrats support ending the use of private prisons and private detention centers.' But to equate that with abolishing all prisons, as Trump did, is highly misleading. Biden wants to change some aspects of prisons. 'We also believe that too many of our jails and prisons subject people to inhumane treatment, and will work to end practices like solitary confinement for adults and juveniles,' the unity document says. Biden also supports reducing what he considers to be the outsized role of prisons in the criminal justice system. 'Democrats know we can end the era of mass incarceration and dramatically reduce the number of Americans held in jails and prisons while continuing to reduce crime rates, which have fallen steadily from their peak nearly three decades ago,' the unity document says. However, the document envisions that prisons will exist in the future, just with a different model of administration and changes for some of the policies they currently enforce. We'll close by highlighting similarities between what Biden hopes to achieve and what Trump has already done. Trump in 2018 signed the First Step Act, a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill. This measure tried to move the law in directions that are similar to aspects of the Biden platform, including efforts to reduce the severity of sentences, a greater emphasis on policies to reduce convict recidivism, and making retroactive the end to the disparity between crack and powder cocaine. | Our ruling Trump said that a Biden-Sanders 'unity' policy document shows that 'they want to abolish our police departments. They want to abolish our prisons, I guess.' The document does not say anything about abolishing police departments or getting rid of all prisons. The document includes several passages that clearly indicate that police and prisons will exist in the future, with proposed changes. Criminologists say some of Biden's policies represent a continuation of policies enacted by Trump himself in the First Step Act. We rate the statement Pants on Fire. | [
"103507-proof-03-d3b935090300563da2650cfa6f80657c.jpg"
]
|
A Joe Biden-Bernie Sanders 'unity' policy document shows 'they want to abolish our police departments. They want to abolish our prisons, I guess. | Contradiction | In a break from tradition, President Donald Trump used the White House's Rose Garden as the venue for a lengthy rhetorical shot at his 2020 campaign rival, Joe Biden. Trump particularly targeted a policy document recently agreed to by representatives of the Biden campaign as well as allies of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who gave Biden a strong challenge from the ideological left in the 2020 Democratic primaries. 'The Biden-Sanders agenda is the most extreme platform of any major party nominee, by far, in American history,' he said. Trump went on to call out many parts of the platform, including its policies on criminal justice. 'We could go on for days,' Trump said. 'Incentivize prison closure. So they want to close our prisons. They now want to abolish our police departments. They want to abolish our prisons, I guess.' This is wildly untrue. The Trump campaign didn't respond to our inquiries. Does Biden want to 'abolish our police departments'? As we've reported, some protesters using the term 'defund the police' want to eliminate police departments entirely. But most officials do not want to eliminate the police; they want to revisit the functions of police departments and reroute some of their funding toward social services. But Biden explicitly rejected the 'defund the police' label. 'While I do not believe federal dollars should go to police departments violating people's rights or turning to violence as the first resort, I do not support defunding police,' Biden wrote in an op-ed in USA Today. 'The better answer is to give police departments the resources they need to implement meaningful reforms, and to condition other federal dollars on completing those reforms. So what does Biden support? The unity document backs a wide array of criminal-justice provisions, including decriminalization of marijuana by jurisdictions that want to do so and repealing federal mandatory minimum sentences. Not only does the unity document not say anything about abolishing the police, it includes several passages that are based on the assumption that there will be police going forward. They include: • 'We will require officer training in effective nonviolent tactics, appropriate use of force, implicit bias, and peer intervention, both at the academy and on the job.' • 'Democrats will reinvigorate community policing approaches, so officers on the beat better serve the neighborhoods they work in.' • 'Democrats also support measures to increase diversity among the ranks of police departments, so our law enforcement agencies look more like the communities they serve. And we will seek increased funding for officer health and well-being in police departments across the country, including for personal safety equipment and mental health services.' Does Biden want to 'abolish our prisons'? There is one type of prison that the unity document does support abolishing: privately owned and run prisons. 'Private profit should not motivate the provision of vital public services, including in the criminal justice system,' the unity document says. 'Democrats support ending the use of private prisons and private detention centers.' But to equate that with abolishing all prisons, as Trump did, is highly misleading. Biden wants to change some aspects of prisons. 'We also believe that too many of our jails and prisons subject people to inhumane treatment, and will work to end practices like solitary confinement for adults and juveniles,' the unity document says. Biden also supports reducing what he considers to be the outsized role of prisons in the criminal justice system. 'Democrats know we can end the era of mass incarceration and dramatically reduce the number of Americans held in jails and prisons while continuing to reduce crime rates, which have fallen steadily from their peak nearly three decades ago,' the unity document says. However, the document envisions that prisons will exist in the future, just with a different model of administration and changes for some of the policies they currently enforce. We'll close by highlighting similarities between what Biden hopes to achieve and what Trump has already done. Trump in 2018 signed the First Step Act, a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill. This measure tried to move the law in directions that are similar to aspects of the Biden platform, including efforts to reduce the severity of sentences, a greater emphasis on policies to reduce convict recidivism, and making retroactive the end to the disparity between crack and powder cocaine. | Our ruling Trump said that a Biden-Sanders 'unity' policy document shows that 'they want to abolish our police departments. They want to abolish our prisons, I guess.' The document does not say anything about abolishing police departments or getting rid of all prisons. The document includes several passages that clearly indicate that police and prisons will exist in the future, with proposed changes. Criminologists say some of Biden's policies represent a continuation of policies enacted by Trump himself in the First Step Act. We rate the statement Pants on Fire. | [
"103507-proof-03-d3b935090300563da2650cfa6f80657c.jpg"
]
|
A Joe Biden-Bernie Sanders 'unity' policy document shows 'they want to abolish our police departments. They want to abolish our prisons, I guess. | Contradiction | In a break from tradition, President Donald Trump used the White House's Rose Garden as the venue for a lengthy rhetorical shot at his 2020 campaign rival, Joe Biden. Trump particularly targeted a policy document recently agreed to by representatives of the Biden campaign as well as allies of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who gave Biden a strong challenge from the ideological left in the 2020 Democratic primaries. 'The Biden-Sanders agenda is the most extreme platform of any major party nominee, by far, in American history,' he said. Trump went on to call out many parts of the platform, including its policies on criminal justice. 'We could go on for days,' Trump said. 'Incentivize prison closure. So they want to close our prisons. They now want to abolish our police departments. They want to abolish our prisons, I guess.' This is wildly untrue. The Trump campaign didn't respond to our inquiries. Does Biden want to 'abolish our police departments'? As we've reported, some protesters using the term 'defund the police' want to eliminate police departments entirely. But most officials do not want to eliminate the police; they want to revisit the functions of police departments and reroute some of their funding toward social services. But Biden explicitly rejected the 'defund the police' label. 'While I do not believe federal dollars should go to police departments violating people's rights or turning to violence as the first resort, I do not support defunding police,' Biden wrote in an op-ed in USA Today. 'The better answer is to give police departments the resources they need to implement meaningful reforms, and to condition other federal dollars on completing those reforms. So what does Biden support? The unity document backs a wide array of criminal-justice provisions, including decriminalization of marijuana by jurisdictions that want to do so and repealing federal mandatory minimum sentences. Not only does the unity document not say anything about abolishing the police, it includes several passages that are based on the assumption that there will be police going forward. They include: • 'We will require officer training in effective nonviolent tactics, appropriate use of force, implicit bias, and peer intervention, both at the academy and on the job.' • 'Democrats will reinvigorate community policing approaches, so officers on the beat better serve the neighborhoods they work in.' • 'Democrats also support measures to increase diversity among the ranks of police departments, so our law enforcement agencies look more like the communities they serve. And we will seek increased funding for officer health and well-being in police departments across the country, including for personal safety equipment and mental health services.' Does Biden want to 'abolish our prisons'? There is one type of prison that the unity document does support abolishing: privately owned and run prisons. 'Private profit should not motivate the provision of vital public services, including in the criminal justice system,' the unity document says. 'Democrats support ending the use of private prisons and private detention centers.' But to equate that with abolishing all prisons, as Trump did, is highly misleading. Biden wants to change some aspects of prisons. 'We also believe that too many of our jails and prisons subject people to inhumane treatment, and will work to end practices like solitary confinement for adults and juveniles,' the unity document says. Biden also supports reducing what he considers to be the outsized role of prisons in the criminal justice system. 'Democrats know we can end the era of mass incarceration and dramatically reduce the number of Americans held in jails and prisons while continuing to reduce crime rates, which have fallen steadily from their peak nearly three decades ago,' the unity document says. However, the document envisions that prisons will exist in the future, just with a different model of administration and changes for some of the policies they currently enforce. We'll close by highlighting similarities between what Biden hopes to achieve and what Trump has already done. Trump in 2018 signed the First Step Act, a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill. This measure tried to move the law in directions that are similar to aspects of the Biden platform, including efforts to reduce the severity of sentences, a greater emphasis on policies to reduce convict recidivism, and making retroactive the end to the disparity between crack and powder cocaine. | Our ruling Trump said that a Biden-Sanders 'unity' policy document shows that 'they want to abolish our police departments. They want to abolish our prisons, I guess.' The document does not say anything about abolishing police departments or getting rid of all prisons. The document includes several passages that clearly indicate that police and prisons will exist in the future, with proposed changes. Criminologists say some of Biden's policies represent a continuation of policies enacted by Trump himself in the First Step Act. We rate the statement Pants on Fire. | [
"103507-proof-03-d3b935090300563da2650cfa6f80657c.jpg"
]
|
'Dr. Fauci: No reason to be wearing a mask. | Contradiction | A video showing Dr. Anthony Fauci telling people not to wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is being taken out of context on social media. It's an outdated video that ignores the fact that the CDC and Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, both recommend most people wear face masks to protect against the spread of the coronavirus. The video post from June 24 was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It shows footage from CBS' '60 Minutes' on March 8, when Fauci said that, in general, people did not need to wear masks when they went outside. The video is framed by the words, 'Dr. Fauci: No reason to be wearing a mask.' The 40-second clip starts off with Fauci saying, 'Right now, people should not be walking, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask.' He said masks do not provide the 'perfect protection' against contracting the virus that people think. The clip ends with Fauci saying, 'When you think masks, you should think of healthcare providers needing them.' The clip ends with Fauci wearing a mask. The Facebook user who posted this video in June said Americans are 'being toyed with.' It is not apparent to many viewers that Fauci's statements were cherry-picked, and the video is four months old. The clip left out, for instance, one reason Fauci gave for some Americans wearing a mask: 'The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else.' A lot changed after that interview. Confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. spiked in April and reached new all-time highs in late June and early July, according to Johns Hopkins University. In April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shifted its recommendations on face coverings for people over 2 years old when leaving their household. While the CDC previously discouraged people who weren't showing symptoms from wearing face coverings, the agency said the switch came after studies about virus transmission by people who are asymptomatic. In a June interview with TheStreet, a financial news website, Fauci said that wearing a mask is better than not wearing one because it can prevent a person from infecting someone else through droplets from coughing, sneezing or talking loudly, for example. Fauci also said that masks can protect, 'to a certain degree,' the person wearing a mask from getting infected. Fauci said that public health officials previously stated that face coverings weren't necessary because they were concerned about a shortage for those who need them most, like medical professionals. 'Right now, unequivocally, the recommendation is when you're out there, particularly if you're in a situation where there's active infection, keep the distance physically and wear a mask,' he said on TheStreet. | Our ruling A viral Facebook post shows Fauci saying people did not need to be wearing face masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. It is framed by text that says, 'Dr. Fauci: No reason to be wearing a mask.' The undated clip lacks significant context. The interview happened in March, amid shortfalls of face masks for hospital workers. The CDC and Fauci have since shifted their recommendations on face masks amid rising coronavirus cases, saying that most people should wear face coverings in public spaces to reduce the spread of the virus. The all-caps summary text is an oversimplification of what Fauci said. He was speaking generally when he said people did not need to be wearing a mask in public in March. However, Fauci said in the same interview that infected people should wear a mask to prevent other people from catching the virus. The clip leaves that out. The video contains an element of truth but leaves the wrong impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"103515-proof-01-04047e2a8889677742b71ac2401a7ca7.jpg"
]
|
'Dr. Fauci: No reason to be wearing a mask. | Contradiction | A video showing Dr. Anthony Fauci telling people not to wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is being taken out of context on social media. It's an outdated video that ignores the fact that the CDC and Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, both recommend most people wear face masks to protect against the spread of the coronavirus. The video post from June 24 was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It shows footage from CBS' '60 Minutes' on March 8, when Fauci said that, in general, people did not need to wear masks when they went outside. The video is framed by the words, 'Dr. Fauci: No reason to be wearing a mask.' The 40-second clip starts off with Fauci saying, 'Right now, people should not be walking, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask.' He said masks do not provide the 'perfect protection' against contracting the virus that people think. The clip ends with Fauci saying, 'When you think masks, you should think of healthcare providers needing them.' The clip ends with Fauci wearing a mask. The Facebook user who posted this video in June said Americans are 'being toyed with.' It is not apparent to many viewers that Fauci's statements were cherry-picked, and the video is four months old. The clip left out, for instance, one reason Fauci gave for some Americans wearing a mask: 'The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else.' A lot changed after that interview. Confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the U.S. spiked in April and reached new all-time highs in late June and early July, according to Johns Hopkins University. In April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shifted its recommendations on face coverings for people over 2 years old when leaving their household. While the CDC previously discouraged people who weren't showing symptoms from wearing face coverings, the agency said the switch came after studies about virus transmission by people who are asymptomatic. In a June interview with TheStreet, a financial news website, Fauci said that wearing a mask is better than not wearing one because it can prevent a person from infecting someone else through droplets from coughing, sneezing or talking loudly, for example. Fauci also said that masks can protect, 'to a certain degree,' the person wearing a mask from getting infected. Fauci said that public health officials previously stated that face coverings weren't necessary because they were concerned about a shortage for those who need them most, like medical professionals. 'Right now, unequivocally, the recommendation is when you're out there, particularly if you're in a situation where there's active infection, keep the distance physically and wear a mask,' he said on TheStreet. | Our ruling A viral Facebook post shows Fauci saying people did not need to be wearing face masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. It is framed by text that says, 'Dr. Fauci: No reason to be wearing a mask.' The undated clip lacks significant context. The interview happened in March, amid shortfalls of face masks for hospital workers. The CDC and Fauci have since shifted their recommendations on face masks amid rising coronavirus cases, saying that most people should wear face coverings in public spaces to reduce the spread of the virus. The all-caps summary text is an oversimplification of what Fauci said. He was speaking generally when he said people did not need to be wearing a mask in public in March. However, Fauci said in the same interview that infected people should wear a mask to prevent other people from catching the virus. The clip leaves that out. The video contains an element of truth but leaves the wrong impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"103515-proof-01-04047e2a8889677742b71ac2401a7ca7.jpg"
]
|
'If you have had a flu shot in the last 3-5 years, you will probably test positive' for COVID-19. | Contradiction | A recent Facebook post is fanning the flames of a conspiracy theory that officials are overstating the number of COVID-19 cases. 'I had a phone appointment with my Dr this afternoon, and I asked the question about testing,' it says. 'He said, 'If you have had a flu shot in the last 3-5 years, you will probably test positive. Coronavirus antibodies have been in the vaccines since H1N1.' This would account for all of 'tested positive (with no symptoms) results.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We reached out to medical experts about the post. Davidson Hamer, a global health and medicine professor at Boston University as well as a faculty member of the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory, called it 'nonsense.' 'Coronaviruses have a completely different antigenic (surface protein and glycoprotein structure) from influenza viruses,' he told PolitiFact in an email. 'They both cause similar syndromes but they are distinct classes of viruses and there is no evidence that I am aware of that would lead to cross reactions between immune responses to the two vaccines.' Plus, he added, there's 'definitely no trace of coronaviruses in influenza vaccines.' Richard Watanabe, a preventive medicine professor at the University of Southern California, told us that since there's no evidence the novel coronavirus existed in humans before last year, 'there is no way antibodies existed before then and therefore could not have been identified and isolated.' 'But more importantly,' he said, 'this post seems to imply that vaccines work by directly giving you antibodies against whatever bug. That's not how vaccines work. Vaccines give you an inactive form of the bug to allow your immune system to create antibodies.' (You can read more about how vaccines do work here.) Several other fact-checkers have also investigated whether a flu shot can result in false positives for COVID-19, and all came to the same conclusion: no. Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia, told FactCheck.org that there's no cross reaction between influenza and the new coronavirus, meaning flu traces wouldn't cause someone to test positive for COVID-19. A spokesperson for the Food and Drug Administration also told FactCheck.org that all FDA-approved COVID-19 tests are checked for cross-reactivity with influenza virus and influenza antibodies and so far, no cross-reactivity has occurred. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. | We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. | []
|
'Virginia Democrat operatives' and Terry McAuliffe campaign staffers posed as white supremacists and stood by Republican Glenn Youngkin's bus. | Contradiction | In the closing days of Virginia's governor race, a group of people carrying tiki torches and wearing white shirts, khaki pants and baseball caps stood outside the bus for Glenn Youngkin, the state's Republican gubernatorial candidate, at a campaign stop in Charlottesville. The Oct. 29 demonstration, aimed at mimicking torch-carrying white supremacists who came to the city in 2017 for a Unite the Right rally, drew condemnation from both political parties and speculation over who was behind the stunt. 'All reports are indicating that Virginia Democrat operatives dressed up as white supremacists and stood by Youngkin's bus,' one Facebook post claimed that day. 'It's clear McAuliffe's campaign is spiraling out of control and they are resorting to last ditch efforts to sneak out a win. These racist acts by the Dems are despicable and this should be covered by the media.' While we don't know the identities of the people involved, we can clarify who organized them. It wasn't the Democratic Party of Virginia or the campaign for Youngkin's Democratic opponent, Terry McAuliffe. It was the Lincoln Project, a Republican group that actively opposed the re-election campaign of former President Donald Trump. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Shortly after people started pointing fingers over the Youngkin campaign trail incident, the Lincoln Project took responsibility for the demonstration. The stunt came during the second day of the civil trial against far-right extremists associated with the 2017 rally, which ended with a man driving a car through a crowd, killing one woman. After images of the five people in front of Youngkin's bus started to circulate on social media - with some reports stating that the group chanted 'we're all in for Glenn' - McAuliffe staffers attacked Youngkin over it, suggesting that the images showed Youngkin's supporters. The Youngkin campaign, in turn, claimed the McAuliffe campaign or the Democratic Party of Virginia were involved. That's around the time when the Lincoln Project released a statement. 'Today's demonstration was our way of reminding Virginians what happened in Charlottesville four years ago, the Republican Party's embrace of those values, and Glenn Youngkin's failure to condemn it,' the statement said. McAuliffe's campaign disavowed the stunt that evening, calling it 'distasteful.' 'What happened today in Charlottesville is disgusting and distasteful and the McAuliffe campaign condemns it in the strongest terms,' campaign manager Chirs Bolling said in a tweet. 'Those involved should immediately apologize.' What happened today in Charlottesville is disgusting and distasteful and the McAuliffe campaign condemns it in the strongest terms. Those involved should immediately apologize.- Chris Bolling (@cboll84) October 29, 2021 The Democratic Party of Virginia also issued a statement on Twitter, saying neither the party nor its 'coordinated partners and affiliates' had anything to do with the demonstration. 'What happened in Charlottesville four years ago was a tragedy and one of the darkest moments in our state's recent memories and is an event not to be taken lightly,' read the statement shared by the party's executive director, Andrew Whitley. 'For anyone to accuse our staff to have a role in this event is shameful and wrong.' Statement on Glenn Youngkin's bus stop earlier today: pic.twitter.com/Hw0svCAW9W- Andrew Whitley (@AndrewWhitleyVA) October 29, 2021 The Lincoln Project told PolitiFact that it did not coordinate 'in any way' with McAuliffe's campaign or the Virginia Democratic Party. During the 2020 presidential election, the Lincoln Project aimed to prevent the re-election of Trump. Today, it prioritizes attacks on Trump-aligned Republicans like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, and candidates like Youngkin. The group also supports these candidates' Democratic challengers. In Virginia, records show it spent $17,100 on pro-McAuliffe efforts and just over $304,000 on anti-Youngkin campaigns. While the group was founded by former Republican staffers, most of its leadership doesn't align with the party anymore, with many registered as Independents. | Our ruling Facebook posts claim that a group of people who dressed up as white supremacists at Youngkin's campaign stop in Charlottesville was a political set-up by 'Virginia Democrat operatives' and McAuliffe's campaign. This is inaccurate. The Lincoln Project, a group founded by anti-Trump Republican consultants, assumed responsiblity for the stunt and said that neither McAuliffe's campaign nor the state's Democratic party were involved. Both groups denied involvement and denounced the incident. We rate this False. | []
|
'Virginia Democrat operatives' and Terry McAuliffe campaign staffers posed as white supremacists and stood by Republican Glenn Youngkin's bus. | Contradiction | In the closing days of Virginia's governor race, a group of people carrying tiki torches and wearing white shirts, khaki pants and baseball caps stood outside the bus for Glenn Youngkin, the state's Republican gubernatorial candidate, at a campaign stop in Charlottesville. The Oct. 29 demonstration, aimed at mimicking torch-carrying white supremacists who came to the city in 2017 for a Unite the Right rally, drew condemnation from both political parties and speculation over who was behind the stunt. 'All reports are indicating that Virginia Democrat operatives dressed up as white supremacists and stood by Youngkin's bus,' one Facebook post claimed that day. 'It's clear McAuliffe's campaign is spiraling out of control and they are resorting to last ditch efforts to sneak out a win. These racist acts by the Dems are despicable and this should be covered by the media.' While we don't know the identities of the people involved, we can clarify who organized them. It wasn't the Democratic Party of Virginia or the campaign for Youngkin's Democratic opponent, Terry McAuliffe. It was the Lincoln Project, a Republican group that actively opposed the re-election campaign of former President Donald Trump. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Shortly after people started pointing fingers over the Youngkin campaign trail incident, the Lincoln Project took responsibility for the demonstration. The stunt came during the second day of the civil trial against far-right extremists associated with the 2017 rally, which ended with a man driving a car through a crowd, killing one woman. After images of the five people in front of Youngkin's bus started to circulate on social media - with some reports stating that the group chanted 'we're all in for Glenn' - McAuliffe staffers attacked Youngkin over it, suggesting that the images showed Youngkin's supporters. The Youngkin campaign, in turn, claimed the McAuliffe campaign or the Democratic Party of Virginia were involved. That's around the time when the Lincoln Project released a statement. 'Today's demonstration was our way of reminding Virginians what happened in Charlottesville four years ago, the Republican Party's embrace of those values, and Glenn Youngkin's failure to condemn it,' the statement said. McAuliffe's campaign disavowed the stunt that evening, calling it 'distasteful.' 'What happened today in Charlottesville is disgusting and distasteful and the McAuliffe campaign condemns it in the strongest terms,' campaign manager Chirs Bolling said in a tweet. 'Those involved should immediately apologize.' What happened today in Charlottesville is disgusting and distasteful and the McAuliffe campaign condemns it in the strongest terms. Those involved should immediately apologize.- Chris Bolling (@cboll84) October 29, 2021 The Democratic Party of Virginia also issued a statement on Twitter, saying neither the party nor its 'coordinated partners and affiliates' had anything to do with the demonstration. 'What happened in Charlottesville four years ago was a tragedy and one of the darkest moments in our state's recent memories and is an event not to be taken lightly,' read the statement shared by the party's executive director, Andrew Whitley. 'For anyone to accuse our staff to have a role in this event is shameful and wrong.' Statement on Glenn Youngkin's bus stop earlier today: pic.twitter.com/Hw0svCAW9W- Andrew Whitley (@AndrewWhitleyVA) October 29, 2021 The Lincoln Project told PolitiFact that it did not coordinate 'in any way' with McAuliffe's campaign or the Virginia Democratic Party. During the 2020 presidential election, the Lincoln Project aimed to prevent the re-election of Trump. Today, it prioritizes attacks on Trump-aligned Republicans like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, and candidates like Youngkin. The group also supports these candidates' Democratic challengers. In Virginia, records show it spent $17,100 on pro-McAuliffe efforts and just over $304,000 on anti-Youngkin campaigns. While the group was founded by former Republican staffers, most of its leadership doesn't align with the party anymore, with many registered as Independents. | Our ruling Facebook posts claim that a group of people who dressed up as white supremacists at Youngkin's campaign stop in Charlottesville was a political set-up by 'Virginia Democrat operatives' and McAuliffe's campaign. This is inaccurate. The Lincoln Project, a group founded by anti-Trump Republican consultants, assumed responsiblity for the stunt and said that neither McAuliffe's campaign nor the state's Democratic party were involved. Both groups denied involvement and denounced the incident. We rate this False. | []
|
Nancy Pelosi is no longer the Speaker of the House | Contradiction | Nancy Pelosi was re-elected speaker of the House for the 117th Congress on Jan. 3. Despite a shrinking Democratic House majority, Pelosi won 216 votes to retain her leadership post. A handful of Democrats broke ranks to support someone else or vote present and all House Republicans voted for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Now a viral, 28-second clip from a Jan. 11 House session is being misconstrued on social media. The Facebook user who shared the video inaccurately claims that it shows Pelosi is 'no longer speaker of the House' as of that date. That's a complete misreading of the clip: Pelosi is still the House speaker. The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The clip shows the opening of a pro forma session when representatives were asked for unanimous consent to consider a resolution calling on Vice President Mike Pence to activate the 25th Amendment to remove President Donald Trump from office. A pro forma session is a short period of time when either the House or Senate is technically in legislative session but when no votes are held and no formal business is typically conducted. The video shows House clerk Joe Novotny, reading a letter from Pelosi that appoints Rep. Deborah Dingell, D-Mich., as 'speaker pro tempore,' a short-term assignment that is normal procedure when the usual presiding officer is absent. The assignment is temporary and does not indicate that the speaker of the House has been removed or resigned. Chapter 34, Sec. 6, of the House Practice guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House says: 'The Speaker may appoint a Speaker pro tempore. Such an appointment may not exceed three legislative days, except that in the case of illness the Speaker's appointment may extend to 10 days with the approval of the House.' A video of the full session is available on C-SPAN, which says in its description that Republican Rep. Alex Moone of West Virginia objected to the request for unanimous consent to take up the 25th Amendment resolution, thus blocking the action for now. | Our ruling A Facebook post including a video of a Jan. 11 House session claims that it shows that Pelosi is no longer House speaker. This is wrong. The clip showed the opening of a pro forma session when the presiding officer, in this case Pelosi, was absent and appointed a 'speaker pro tempore.' This is standard procedure and doesn't indicate that Pelosi resigned as speaker eight days after being re-elected to the position. We rate this False. CORRECTION, Jan. 13, 2021: Clerk Joe Novotny read Pelosi's letter before the House. An earlier version erroneously identified the person reading the letter. This story has been updated. | []
|
Nancy Pelosi is no longer the Speaker of the House | Contradiction | Nancy Pelosi was re-elected speaker of the House for the 117th Congress on Jan. 3. Despite a shrinking Democratic House majority, Pelosi won 216 votes to retain her leadership post. A handful of Democrats broke ranks to support someone else or vote present and all House Republicans voted for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Now a viral, 28-second clip from a Jan. 11 House session is being misconstrued on social media. The Facebook user who shared the video inaccurately claims that it shows Pelosi is 'no longer speaker of the House' as of that date. That's a complete misreading of the clip: Pelosi is still the House speaker. The video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The clip shows the opening of a pro forma session when representatives were asked for unanimous consent to consider a resolution calling on Vice President Mike Pence to activate the 25th Amendment to remove President Donald Trump from office. A pro forma session is a short period of time when either the House or Senate is technically in legislative session but when no votes are held and no formal business is typically conducted. The video shows House clerk Joe Novotny, reading a letter from Pelosi that appoints Rep. Deborah Dingell, D-Mich., as 'speaker pro tempore,' a short-term assignment that is normal procedure when the usual presiding officer is absent. The assignment is temporary and does not indicate that the speaker of the House has been removed or resigned. Chapter 34, Sec. 6, of the House Practice guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House says: 'The Speaker may appoint a Speaker pro tempore. Such an appointment may not exceed three legislative days, except that in the case of illness the Speaker's appointment may extend to 10 days with the approval of the House.' A video of the full session is available on C-SPAN, which says in its description that Republican Rep. Alex Moone of West Virginia objected to the request for unanimous consent to take up the 25th Amendment resolution, thus blocking the action for now. | Our ruling A Facebook post including a video of a Jan. 11 House session claims that it shows that Pelosi is no longer House speaker. This is wrong. The clip showed the opening of a pro forma session when the presiding officer, in this case Pelosi, was absent and appointed a 'speaker pro tempore.' This is standard procedure and doesn't indicate that Pelosi resigned as speaker eight days after being re-elected to the position. We rate this False. CORRECTION, Jan. 13, 2021: Clerk Joe Novotny read Pelosi's letter before the House. An earlier version erroneously identified the person reading the letter. This story has been updated. | []
|
'There were no guns whatsoever' at the Capitol riot on Jan. 6. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump claimed on Fox News that there were no guns in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. During an on-air conversation with Trump on July 11, 'Sunday Morning Futures' host Maria Bartiromo twice broached the topic of whether guns were present during the attack at the Capitol. 'They called it an armed insurrection, and yet no guns were seized,' Bartiromo said before describing it as being among the 'misinformation' spread about Trump's presidency. Later, she repeated the assertion: 'They continue to call this an armed insurrection,' Bartiromo said. 'And yet no guns were seized, Mr. President.' 'Right,' Trump answered. 'There were no guns whatsoever.' Trump went on to describe the events of Jan. 6 by saying that 'people with no guns walked down' to the Capitol, that the building's doors were open, and that there was a 'lovefest' between the Capitol police and the insurrectionists. Court documents, video evidence and news coverage directly contradict this characterization. Many of those involved in the attack were armed, and several had guns that police later seized. The event was far from a lovefest: Five people died, including a Capitol Police officer, and more than 140 officers were injured in the day's events. Video evidence shows both police officers and rioters being injured in the brawls. Rioters called for hanging then-Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Damage to the Capitol is estimated at $1.5 million and included ransacked offices, broken windows and doors, broken and stolen photography equipment, ruined statues, murals and furniture. A pending security funding bill provides dollars to cover related expenses, including tightened security and trauma counseling. PolitiFact reviewed the case files of approximately 430 defendants who were arrested and charged for their actions at the Capitol. We found several defendants who police say were found to have brought firearms with them. Some were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds, while others stashed them away while in Washington. They included: Lonnie Coffman of Alabama: Police found multiple firearms and weapons in Coffman's possession. Coffman's truck, which he had parked in the vicinity of the Capitol on the morning of Jan. 6, was packed with weaponry including a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun, each loaded, according to court documents. In addition, the truck held hundreds of rounds of ammunition, several large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, a crossbow with bolts, machetes, camouflage smoke devices, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails. Court records and video surveillance footage show that Coffman, who had ties to militia groups, parked the vehicle near the Capitol at 9:15 a.m. that day. The documents say that after he got out of his pickup truck at 9:20 a.m., he joined a crowd of people who walked directly to the Capitol building. He was detained later that evening as an unnamed woman was driving him back toward his truck. Police questioned Coffman and searched him, finding two more handguns on his person. None of the weapons were registered, documents state. Guy Reffitt of Texas: Reffitt was charged with bringing a handgun onto Capitol grounds. Court documents showed that Reffitt, reported in court documents to be a member of the militia group Three Percenters, told his family he brought his gun with him and that he and others 'stormed the Capitol.' Christopher Michael Alberts of Maryland: Alberts brought his handgun onto Capitol grounds. An officer saw that Alberts had a gun on his hip and alerted fellow officers. When Alberts tried to flee, officers detained him and recovered the loaded handgun along with a separate magazine. The total number of people who carried firearms with them that day may not ever be fully accounted for because the majority of those involved in the siege were not arrested on-site but were tracked down by law enforcement days, weeks and months later. It's also worth noting that the definition of 'armed' is not legally limited to guns - it refers to any weapon used for defense or offense and used as a means of protection. Other items used as weapons Jan. 6 included bats, crutches, flagpoles, skateboards, fire extinguishers and chemical sprays. We reached out to Trump's team to ask for evidence behind his statements but did not hear back. We also reached out to Fox News for comment but did not get a response by deadline. | Our ruling Trump said there were 'no guns whatsoever' at the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and that 'people with no guns' walked down to the Capitol. Court records and news reports show that many insurrectionists were armed, and several were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds or stashed nearby while in Washington D.C. In addition, rioters had weapons other than firearms and used them during the attack. We rate this claim False. | [
"103598-proof-21-226ff63625bc2ed2a8723ca2129533c9.jpg"
]
|
'There were no guns whatsoever' at the Capitol riot on Jan. 6. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump claimed on Fox News that there were no guns in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. During an on-air conversation with Trump on July 11, 'Sunday Morning Futures' host Maria Bartiromo twice broached the topic of whether guns were present during the attack at the Capitol. 'They called it an armed insurrection, and yet no guns were seized,' Bartiromo said before describing it as being among the 'misinformation' spread about Trump's presidency. Later, she repeated the assertion: 'They continue to call this an armed insurrection,' Bartiromo said. 'And yet no guns were seized, Mr. President.' 'Right,' Trump answered. 'There were no guns whatsoever.' Trump went on to describe the events of Jan. 6 by saying that 'people with no guns walked down' to the Capitol, that the building's doors were open, and that there was a 'lovefest' between the Capitol police and the insurrectionists. Court documents, video evidence and news coverage directly contradict this characterization. Many of those involved in the attack were armed, and several had guns that police later seized. The event was far from a lovefest: Five people died, including a Capitol Police officer, and more than 140 officers were injured in the day's events. Video evidence shows both police officers and rioters being injured in the brawls. Rioters called for hanging then-Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Damage to the Capitol is estimated at $1.5 million and included ransacked offices, broken windows and doors, broken and stolen photography equipment, ruined statues, murals and furniture. A pending security funding bill provides dollars to cover related expenses, including tightened security and trauma counseling. PolitiFact reviewed the case files of approximately 430 defendants who were arrested and charged for their actions at the Capitol. We found several defendants who police say were found to have brought firearms with them. Some were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds, while others stashed them away while in Washington. They included: Lonnie Coffman of Alabama: Police found multiple firearms and weapons in Coffman's possession. Coffman's truck, which he had parked in the vicinity of the Capitol on the morning of Jan. 6, was packed with weaponry including a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun, each loaded, according to court documents. In addition, the truck held hundreds of rounds of ammunition, several large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, a crossbow with bolts, machetes, camouflage smoke devices, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails. Court records and video surveillance footage show that Coffman, who had ties to militia groups, parked the vehicle near the Capitol at 9:15 a.m. that day. The documents say that after he got out of his pickup truck at 9:20 a.m., he joined a crowd of people who walked directly to the Capitol building. He was detained later that evening as an unnamed woman was driving him back toward his truck. Police questioned Coffman and searched him, finding two more handguns on his person. None of the weapons were registered, documents state. Guy Reffitt of Texas: Reffitt was charged with bringing a handgun onto Capitol grounds. Court documents showed that Reffitt, reported in court documents to be a member of the militia group Three Percenters, told his family he brought his gun with him and that he and others 'stormed the Capitol.' Christopher Michael Alberts of Maryland: Alberts brought his handgun onto Capitol grounds. An officer saw that Alberts had a gun on his hip and alerted fellow officers. When Alberts tried to flee, officers detained him and recovered the loaded handgun along with a separate magazine. The total number of people who carried firearms with them that day may not ever be fully accounted for because the majority of those involved in the siege were not arrested on-site but were tracked down by law enforcement days, weeks and months later. It's also worth noting that the definition of 'armed' is not legally limited to guns - it refers to any weapon used for defense or offense and used as a means of protection. Other items used as weapons Jan. 6 included bats, crutches, flagpoles, skateboards, fire extinguishers and chemical sprays. We reached out to Trump's team to ask for evidence behind his statements but did not hear back. We also reached out to Fox News for comment but did not get a response by deadline. | Our ruling Trump said there were 'no guns whatsoever' at the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and that 'people with no guns' walked down to the Capitol. Court records and news reports show that many insurrectionists were armed, and several were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds or stashed nearby while in Washington D.C. In addition, rioters had weapons other than firearms and used them during the attack. We rate this claim False. | [
"103598-proof-21-226ff63625bc2ed2a8723ca2129533c9.jpg"
]
|
Says a video shows a 'gay party in Italy few weeks before COVID-19. | Contradiction | A recent Facebook post speculates that COVID-19 is an act of God - and not a natural disaster. 'Gay party in Italy few weeks before COVID-19,' reads the caption of a video posted to Facebook on April 10. 'Maybe God is angry at the world.' The video shows a crowd of men, some without and some wearing rainbow-colored tank tops, gathering close together. Some are kissing. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) First, this video wasn't shot in Italy. We found several tweets from February identifying the footage as a clip from the Bahian Carnival in Brazil. But the clip isn't from this year - it's from 2018. AFP, which reported that 19 seconds into the clip a woman can be heard saying to the crowd, 'This year is a World Cup year.' The last women's World Cup was in 2019 and the last men's World Cup was in 2018. Social media posts from 2018 show attendees wearing the same rainbow colored shirts with the word 'Crocodilo' on the back that the men in the Facebook post video are wearing. According to AFP, such shirts are issued as proof that people paid to attend the event and vary from year to year. Bloco Crocodilo is one of the carnival's street parties. You can see designs from other years here and here. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
The White House doctored a photo of a Donald Trump event 'to make the crowd look bigger. | Contradiction | Someone did a lousy job of doctoring a photo of President Donald Trump's July 31 Tampa, Fla., airport event to make the crowd look bigger than it was. A Facebook user claimed it was the White House. On Aug. 1, the Facebook user posted four images 'borrowed from' a Twitter user that purported to show the Tampa event. The Facebook post included one photo the user said was from the media, showing a modest gathering, and another one, with clear evidence of manipulation, said to be from the White House and depicting a thick crowd. The White House doctored the image 'to make the crowd look bigger,' the post claimed. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Several hundred supporters greeted Trump on the tarmac of Tampa International Airport, the Tampa Bay Times reported. Trump held a fundraiser in Tampa for his re-election campaign that evening. But it turns out the doctored image borrowed from the Twitter user was the work of a prankster trying to make a joke out of the president's sensitivities about crowd size. Despite the shoddy cut-and-paste work, some social media commenters appeared to take the allegation against the White House seriously. One Twitter user wrote: 'This should be pointed out by every major news organization in the country. It should be shown. It matters that the WH is openly engaging in this type of manipulation. I'm so sick of our collective reaction being, 'Meh, it's Donald.'' After observing the reaction, the Twitter user who created the image tweeted: 'I figured that by using Paint (no Photoshop was harmed in the production) the resulting edits would be so obvious that EVERYONE would immediately recognize it as a joke, chuckle and move on. But this has been eye-opening.' Another user tweeted in response: 'It's been labeled now as a joke but it should have been labeled originally because none of us know reality anymore!' We rate the Facebook post False. | We rate the Facebook post False. | []
|
Says John James 'wants to allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. | Contradiction | A major labor union's attack ad targets Michigan Republican Senate candidate John James for his position on health care. The ad features a woman with multiple sclerosis who claims that James 'wants to allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions.' The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees said it ran the ad for two weeks, and reportedly spent at least $1 million on it. The ad lists two sources to support its claim. The first, a 2018 article from the Houston Chronicle, summarizes a study that found that more than 100 million Americans could lose their health coverage if the Affordable Care Act were overturned. The second, a Talking Points Memo article, references a deleted video James posted during his failed 2018 campaign against Sen. Debbie Stabenow, in which James calls the ACA a 'monstrosity' and calls for repealing and replacing the health law. The ad puts those two facts together to reach its conclusion, but it's not an accurate reflection of James' stated position. James, a Detroit-area businessman and combat veteran, has noted his opposition to the ACA, which codified new protections for people with preexisting conditions, ensuring that they could buy health insurance without steep premiums. In the video James posted during the 2018 campaign, James said, 'Our failure to repeal and replace Obamacare is the surest sign that we need new conservative leadership in Washington,' and he called for a 'new, market-based, fair, and patient-centered solutions.' He has not laid out any more detailed policy proposals. But in a 2018 debate with Stabenow, James said his vision for a better health care system would include covering preexisting conditions. And in two different Fox News appearances, James reiterated this position. In his current campaign to unseat incumbent Sen. Gary Peters, James said he remains committed to this vision. In response to a similar ad attack from the pro-Democratic Senate Majority PAC, James released a statement claiming he has 'never supported eliminating protections of preexisting conditions' along with his own ad vowing he 'will always protect anyone with a preexisting condition.' 'John wants to keep the parts of the Affordable Care Act that work, protect seniors and people with preexisting conditions,' wrote Abby Walls, director of communications for James' campaign in an email to PolitiFact Michigan. How the ACA protects people with preexisting conditions Supporters of the Affordable Care Act consider its provisions on preexisting conditions to be one of the law's signature achievements. Before the passage of the ACA, people with a health condition could be denied coverage or charged higher premiums in the individual health insurance market. 'When insurance was a voluntary, competitive market not subsidized, insurers were masterful at cherry-picking,' says Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. The ACA ended this practice, requiring insurance companies to sell coverage to anyone who wants it at a price that does not factor in their health condition. Analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services found that the share of Americans with preexisting conditions who did not have health insurance at any point during the year decreased 22% between 2010 and 2014, when the ACA's signature reforms were enacted. What would repealing the ACA mean for individuals with preexisting conditions? In 2018, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that 27% of nonelderly adults, those age 18-64, in the U.S. have a preexisting health condition - about 53.8 million. In Michigan, the share is slightly higher: An estimated 29% - just over 1.7 million - of nonelderly Michiganders had a preexisting condition in 2018 that would likely have resulted in their being declined coverage under the pre-ACA underwriting practices of the individual health insurance market. Repealing the ACA has been an aim of Republicans for a decade. Just recently, the Trump administration submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in a case seeking to have the ACA ruled unconstitutional. If the administration is successful, the ACA's protections for people with preexisting conditions would fall away. 'If the ACA were gone, the industry would revert back to cherry-picking so fast it would make your head spin,' Pollitz says. Shirin Bidel-Niyat, AFSCME's assistant director for political action, said in a statement that James has 'failed to publicly oppose the Trump administration's lawsuit seeking to gut the ACA. Meanwhile, he continues to advocate for the repeal of Obamacare, the only law that currently offers protections for those with preexisting conditions.' Some Republican proposals to repeal and replace the ACA promised to keep protections for individuals with preexisting conditions in place. Sen. Thom Tillis's Protect Act - introduced in the current Congress - notes 'Obamacare is not the only way to protect Americans with preexisting conditions.' The Republican proposals so far don't ensure the same level of protection and affordability guaranteed under the ACA. But that does not mean that someone who wants to repeal and replace the ACA wants to revert to allowing health insurers to discriminate based on preexisting conditions. James' claims that he would cover and protect individuals with preexisting conditions suggests he does not support letting insurance companies deny someone coverage based on their medical history as the AFSCME ad says. But, it is unclear what specific provisions of the ACA James supports that also offer protections for individuals with preexisting conditions such prohibiting health insurance companies from charging higher prices for those with a preexisting condition or requiring that health care plans offer comprehensive coverage that insures essential health services. | Our ruling The attack ad against James claims he 'wants to allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions.' This claim misstates James' stated positions on health care. James has called for repealing and replacing the ACA. He has not indicated his support for a specific health care reform package. James has not held elective office and so has never had to take a vote on Republican proposals to replace the ACA that would weaken protections for people with preexisting conditions achieved through the ACA. James has said many times that he supports a health insurance system that covers and protects people with preexisting conditions. His critics have a legitimate point that he could provide more detail on how he'd achieve that position, but this ad goes too far in stating that James supports allowing insurance companies to deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
Says John James 'wants to allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. | Contradiction | A major labor union's attack ad targets Michigan Republican Senate candidate John James for his position on health care. The ad features a woman with multiple sclerosis who claims that James 'wants to allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions.' The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees said it ran the ad for two weeks, and reportedly spent at least $1 million on it. The ad lists two sources to support its claim. The first, a 2018 article from the Houston Chronicle, summarizes a study that found that more than 100 million Americans could lose their health coverage if the Affordable Care Act were overturned. The second, a Talking Points Memo article, references a deleted video James posted during his failed 2018 campaign against Sen. Debbie Stabenow, in which James calls the ACA a 'monstrosity' and calls for repealing and replacing the health law. The ad puts those two facts together to reach its conclusion, but it's not an accurate reflection of James' stated position. James, a Detroit-area businessman and combat veteran, has noted his opposition to the ACA, which codified new protections for people with preexisting conditions, ensuring that they could buy health insurance without steep premiums. In the video James posted during the 2018 campaign, James said, 'Our failure to repeal and replace Obamacare is the surest sign that we need new conservative leadership in Washington,' and he called for a 'new, market-based, fair, and patient-centered solutions.' He has not laid out any more detailed policy proposals. But in a 2018 debate with Stabenow, James said his vision for a better health care system would include covering preexisting conditions. And in two different Fox News appearances, James reiterated this position. In his current campaign to unseat incumbent Sen. Gary Peters, James said he remains committed to this vision. In response to a similar ad attack from the pro-Democratic Senate Majority PAC, James released a statement claiming he has 'never supported eliminating protections of preexisting conditions' along with his own ad vowing he 'will always protect anyone with a preexisting condition.' 'John wants to keep the parts of the Affordable Care Act that work, protect seniors and people with preexisting conditions,' wrote Abby Walls, director of communications for James' campaign in an email to PolitiFact Michigan. How the ACA protects people with preexisting conditions Supporters of the Affordable Care Act consider its provisions on preexisting conditions to be one of the law's signature achievements. Before the passage of the ACA, people with a health condition could be denied coverage or charged higher premiums in the individual health insurance market. 'When insurance was a voluntary, competitive market not subsidized, insurers were masterful at cherry-picking,' says Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. The ACA ended this practice, requiring insurance companies to sell coverage to anyone who wants it at a price that does not factor in their health condition. Analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services found that the share of Americans with preexisting conditions who did not have health insurance at any point during the year decreased 22% between 2010 and 2014, when the ACA's signature reforms were enacted. What would repealing the ACA mean for individuals with preexisting conditions? In 2018, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that 27% of nonelderly adults, those age 18-64, in the U.S. have a preexisting health condition - about 53.8 million. In Michigan, the share is slightly higher: An estimated 29% - just over 1.7 million - of nonelderly Michiganders had a preexisting condition in 2018 that would likely have resulted in their being declined coverage under the pre-ACA underwriting practices of the individual health insurance market. Repealing the ACA has been an aim of Republicans for a decade. Just recently, the Trump administration submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in a case seeking to have the ACA ruled unconstitutional. If the administration is successful, the ACA's protections for people with preexisting conditions would fall away. 'If the ACA were gone, the industry would revert back to cherry-picking so fast it would make your head spin,' Pollitz says. Shirin Bidel-Niyat, AFSCME's assistant director for political action, said in a statement that James has 'failed to publicly oppose the Trump administration's lawsuit seeking to gut the ACA. Meanwhile, he continues to advocate for the repeal of Obamacare, the only law that currently offers protections for those with preexisting conditions.' Some Republican proposals to repeal and replace the ACA promised to keep protections for individuals with preexisting conditions in place. Sen. Thom Tillis's Protect Act - introduced in the current Congress - notes 'Obamacare is not the only way to protect Americans with preexisting conditions.' The Republican proposals so far don't ensure the same level of protection and affordability guaranteed under the ACA. But that does not mean that someone who wants to repeal and replace the ACA wants to revert to allowing health insurers to discriminate based on preexisting conditions. James' claims that he would cover and protect individuals with preexisting conditions suggests he does not support letting insurance companies deny someone coverage based on their medical history as the AFSCME ad says. But, it is unclear what specific provisions of the ACA James supports that also offer protections for individuals with preexisting conditions such prohibiting health insurance companies from charging higher prices for those with a preexisting condition or requiring that health care plans offer comprehensive coverage that insures essential health services. | Our ruling The attack ad against James claims he 'wants to allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions.' This claim misstates James' stated positions on health care. James has called for repealing and replacing the ACA. He has not indicated his support for a specific health care reform package. James has not held elective office and so has never had to take a vote on Republican proposals to replace the ACA that would weaken protections for people with preexisting conditions achieved through the ACA. James has said many times that he supports a health insurance system that covers and protects people with preexisting conditions. His critics have a legitimate point that he could provide more detail on how he'd achieve that position, but this ad goes too far in stating that James supports allowing insurance companies to deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
Says John James 'wants to allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. | Contradiction | A major labor union's attack ad targets Michigan Republican Senate candidate John James for his position on health care. The ad features a woman with multiple sclerosis who claims that James 'wants to allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions.' The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees said it ran the ad for two weeks, and reportedly spent at least $1 million on it. The ad lists two sources to support its claim. The first, a 2018 article from the Houston Chronicle, summarizes a study that found that more than 100 million Americans could lose their health coverage if the Affordable Care Act were overturned. The second, a Talking Points Memo article, references a deleted video James posted during his failed 2018 campaign against Sen. Debbie Stabenow, in which James calls the ACA a 'monstrosity' and calls for repealing and replacing the health law. The ad puts those two facts together to reach its conclusion, but it's not an accurate reflection of James' stated position. James, a Detroit-area businessman and combat veteran, has noted his opposition to the ACA, which codified new protections for people with preexisting conditions, ensuring that they could buy health insurance without steep premiums. In the video James posted during the 2018 campaign, James said, 'Our failure to repeal and replace Obamacare is the surest sign that we need new conservative leadership in Washington,' and he called for a 'new, market-based, fair, and patient-centered solutions.' He has not laid out any more detailed policy proposals. But in a 2018 debate with Stabenow, James said his vision for a better health care system would include covering preexisting conditions. And in two different Fox News appearances, James reiterated this position. In his current campaign to unseat incumbent Sen. Gary Peters, James said he remains committed to this vision. In response to a similar ad attack from the pro-Democratic Senate Majority PAC, James released a statement claiming he has 'never supported eliminating protections of preexisting conditions' along with his own ad vowing he 'will always protect anyone with a preexisting condition.' 'John wants to keep the parts of the Affordable Care Act that work, protect seniors and people with preexisting conditions,' wrote Abby Walls, director of communications for James' campaign in an email to PolitiFact Michigan. How the ACA protects people with preexisting conditions Supporters of the Affordable Care Act consider its provisions on preexisting conditions to be one of the law's signature achievements. Before the passage of the ACA, people with a health condition could be denied coverage or charged higher premiums in the individual health insurance market. 'When insurance was a voluntary, competitive market not subsidized, insurers were masterful at cherry-picking,' says Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. The ACA ended this practice, requiring insurance companies to sell coverage to anyone who wants it at a price that does not factor in their health condition. Analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services found that the share of Americans with preexisting conditions who did not have health insurance at any point during the year decreased 22% between 2010 and 2014, when the ACA's signature reforms were enacted. What would repealing the ACA mean for individuals with preexisting conditions? In 2018, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that 27% of nonelderly adults, those age 18-64, in the U.S. have a preexisting health condition - about 53.8 million. In Michigan, the share is slightly higher: An estimated 29% - just over 1.7 million - of nonelderly Michiganders had a preexisting condition in 2018 that would likely have resulted in their being declined coverage under the pre-ACA underwriting practices of the individual health insurance market. Repealing the ACA has been an aim of Republicans for a decade. Just recently, the Trump administration submitted a brief to the Supreme Court in a case seeking to have the ACA ruled unconstitutional. If the administration is successful, the ACA's protections for people with preexisting conditions would fall away. 'If the ACA were gone, the industry would revert back to cherry-picking so fast it would make your head spin,' Pollitz says. Shirin Bidel-Niyat, AFSCME's assistant director for political action, said in a statement that James has 'failed to publicly oppose the Trump administration's lawsuit seeking to gut the ACA. Meanwhile, he continues to advocate for the repeal of Obamacare, the only law that currently offers protections for those with preexisting conditions.' Some Republican proposals to repeal and replace the ACA promised to keep protections for individuals with preexisting conditions in place. Sen. Thom Tillis's Protect Act - introduced in the current Congress - notes 'Obamacare is not the only way to protect Americans with preexisting conditions.' The Republican proposals so far don't ensure the same level of protection and affordability guaranteed under the ACA. But that does not mean that someone who wants to repeal and replace the ACA wants to revert to allowing health insurers to discriminate based on preexisting conditions. James' claims that he would cover and protect individuals with preexisting conditions suggests he does not support letting insurance companies deny someone coverage based on their medical history as the AFSCME ad says. But, it is unclear what specific provisions of the ACA James supports that also offer protections for individuals with preexisting conditions such prohibiting health insurance companies from charging higher prices for those with a preexisting condition or requiring that health care plans offer comprehensive coverage that insures essential health services. | Our ruling The attack ad against James claims he 'wants to allow insurance companies to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions.' This claim misstates James' stated positions on health care. James has called for repealing and replacing the ACA. He has not indicated his support for a specific health care reform package. James has not held elective office and so has never had to take a vote on Republican proposals to replace the ACA that would weaken protections for people with preexisting conditions achieved through the ACA. James has said many times that he supports a health insurance system that covers and protects people with preexisting conditions. His critics have a legitimate point that he could provide more detail on how he'd achieve that position, but this ad goes too far in stating that James supports allowing insurance companies to deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
'If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data. | Contradiction | Speaking about the coronavirus during a CNN town hall less than two months away from Election Day, former Vice President Joe Biden said every one of the nearly 200,000 COVID-19 deaths recorded in the U.S. can be laid at President Donald Trump's feet. 'If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive,' Biden said at the CNN town hall in Moosic, Pa. 'All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data. Look at the data.' The Democratic presidential nominee's remark came as Trump faces criticism for downplaying the threat of the coronavirus early on and admitting on tape that he did so. The U.S. leads the world in confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths, and experts say a fall surge in cases could put fatalities at more than double their current number by the year's end. A more robust handling of the pandemic would likely have seen the country's death count significantly reduced, experts said. But Biden's claim that a different response from Trump would have prevented every coronavirus death goes too far. 'I think it's impossible to say every life could have been saved,' said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. Keeping COVID-19 at zero deaths would have been a difficult achievement 'regardless of who is in charge,' said Brooke Nichols, an assistant professor of global health at Boston University. 'If we had developed testing capacity as soon as we knew of the pathogen, and could rapidly test every one arriving from abroad, then I suppose it's theoretically possible, but unlikely,' Nichols said. Even countries that have found relative success managing the coronavirus - such as South Korea and New Zealand - have seen some deaths. Experts said that faster, more robust measures taken by the federal government could have put the U.S. on par with those countries and others that responded similarly. The right actions in January, February and March would likely have prevented 'a substantial number' of deaths, Adalja said, and could have put the U.S. on 'a trajectory more like Taiwan,' which has recorded just 503 confirmed cases and seven deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University. Those actions might have included a national coordinated strategy across state lines, rapidly scaled up testing, the ramped up production and mobilization of resources, and more clear communications of what was known about the virus and how to prevent it, experts said. 'Obviously, you could logically say that if you had a process that was ongoing and you started mitigation earlier, you could have saved lives,' Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, told CNN in April. 'Obviously, no one is going to deny that.' RELATED: Timeline: How Donald Trump responded to the coronavirus pandemic One May study from Columbia University estimated that the U.S. could have averted roughly 36,000 COVID-19 deaths before May if sweeping mitigation measures imposed on March 15 had instead gone into effect a week earlier. Almost 54,000 deaths would have been avoided in that timeframe had the same interventions started two weeks earlier, the study said. 'Had we mustered the political and public will to act as we did two weeks earlier, 90% of deaths through the beginning of May would have been averted,' said study author Jeffrey Shaman, a professor of environmental health sciences. But the study 'doesn't blame Trump,' Shaman said, although he added that 'the country has witnessed a complete lack of federal leadership.' Other experts have also made estimates. A pair of epidemiologists wrote in an April op-ed for the New York Times that 'an estimated 90% of deaths' from the first wave of U.S. cases 'might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier.' Op-ed co-author Nicholas Jewell, a professor of biostatistics at the University of California, Berkeley, said it would be 'magical thinking' to suggest 100% of COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented. 'I haven't seen any country really succeed to that extent,' Jewell said. In a June op-ed for Stat, researchers compared the U.S. response to similar nations. Accounting for differences in population and the different timings of the outbreaks in each country, they concluded that the U.S. could have prevented many deaths. If, for example, the U.S. 'had acted as effectively as Germany, 70% of U.S. coronavirus deaths might have been prevented' in the four months after the U.S. recorded its first 15 cases of the coronavirus, the researchers wrote. More lives would have been saved had the U.S. mirrored the responses of other countries such as South Korea, they said. The picture hasn't been much rosier of late. 'If you look at May and June 1, since then, we've done dreadfully in the U.S.,' Jewell said. Still, Biden's claim that 'all the people would still be alive' had Trump responded differently is an overstatement. 'I don't see how there is any truth to that,' Nichols said. The Biden campaign did not respond to requests for comment. | Our ruling Biden said, 'If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data.' Experts disagreed with that assessment. A stronger U.S. response could have saved many lives, experts said, but not every one. We rate this statement False. | [
"103650-proof-00-a4256e60d28e1351bca12cf6b264e462.jpg"
]
|
'If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data. | Contradiction | Speaking about the coronavirus during a CNN town hall less than two months away from Election Day, former Vice President Joe Biden said every one of the nearly 200,000 COVID-19 deaths recorded in the U.S. can be laid at President Donald Trump's feet. 'If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive,' Biden said at the CNN town hall in Moosic, Pa. 'All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data. Look at the data.' The Democratic presidential nominee's remark came as Trump faces criticism for downplaying the threat of the coronavirus early on and admitting on tape that he did so. The U.S. leads the world in confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths, and experts say a fall surge in cases could put fatalities at more than double their current number by the year's end. A more robust handling of the pandemic would likely have seen the country's death count significantly reduced, experts said. But Biden's claim that a different response from Trump would have prevented every coronavirus death goes too far. 'I think it's impossible to say every life could have been saved,' said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. Keeping COVID-19 at zero deaths would have been a difficult achievement 'regardless of who is in charge,' said Brooke Nichols, an assistant professor of global health at Boston University. 'If we had developed testing capacity as soon as we knew of the pathogen, and could rapidly test every one arriving from abroad, then I suppose it's theoretically possible, but unlikely,' Nichols said. Even countries that have found relative success managing the coronavirus - such as South Korea and New Zealand - have seen some deaths. Experts said that faster, more robust measures taken by the federal government could have put the U.S. on par with those countries and others that responded similarly. The right actions in January, February and March would likely have prevented 'a substantial number' of deaths, Adalja said, and could have put the U.S. on 'a trajectory more like Taiwan,' which has recorded just 503 confirmed cases and seven deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University. Those actions might have included a national coordinated strategy across state lines, rapidly scaled up testing, the ramped up production and mobilization of resources, and more clear communications of what was known about the virus and how to prevent it, experts said. 'Obviously, you could logically say that if you had a process that was ongoing and you started mitigation earlier, you could have saved lives,' Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, told CNN in April. 'Obviously, no one is going to deny that.' RELATED: Timeline: How Donald Trump responded to the coronavirus pandemic One May study from Columbia University estimated that the U.S. could have averted roughly 36,000 COVID-19 deaths before May if sweeping mitigation measures imposed on March 15 had instead gone into effect a week earlier. Almost 54,000 deaths would have been avoided in that timeframe had the same interventions started two weeks earlier, the study said. 'Had we mustered the political and public will to act as we did two weeks earlier, 90% of deaths through the beginning of May would have been averted,' said study author Jeffrey Shaman, a professor of environmental health sciences. But the study 'doesn't blame Trump,' Shaman said, although he added that 'the country has witnessed a complete lack of federal leadership.' Other experts have also made estimates. A pair of epidemiologists wrote in an April op-ed for the New York Times that 'an estimated 90% of deaths' from the first wave of U.S. cases 'might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier.' Op-ed co-author Nicholas Jewell, a professor of biostatistics at the University of California, Berkeley, said it would be 'magical thinking' to suggest 100% of COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented. 'I haven't seen any country really succeed to that extent,' Jewell said. In a June op-ed for Stat, researchers compared the U.S. response to similar nations. Accounting for differences in population and the different timings of the outbreaks in each country, they concluded that the U.S. could have prevented many deaths. If, for example, the U.S. 'had acted as effectively as Germany, 70% of U.S. coronavirus deaths might have been prevented' in the four months after the U.S. recorded its first 15 cases of the coronavirus, the researchers wrote. More lives would have been saved had the U.S. mirrored the responses of other countries such as South Korea, they said. The picture hasn't been much rosier of late. 'If you look at May and June 1, since then, we've done dreadfully in the U.S.,' Jewell said. Still, Biden's claim that 'all the people would still be alive' had Trump responded differently is an overstatement. 'I don't see how there is any truth to that,' Nichols said. The Biden campaign did not respond to requests for comment. | Our ruling Biden said, 'If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data.' Experts disagreed with that assessment. A stronger U.S. response could have saved many lives, experts said, but not every one. We rate this statement False. | [
"103650-proof-00-a4256e60d28e1351bca12cf6b264e462.jpg"
]
|
'If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data. | Contradiction | Speaking about the coronavirus during a CNN town hall less than two months away from Election Day, former Vice President Joe Biden said every one of the nearly 200,000 COVID-19 deaths recorded in the U.S. can be laid at President Donald Trump's feet. 'If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive,' Biden said at the CNN town hall in Moosic, Pa. 'All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data. Look at the data.' The Democratic presidential nominee's remark came as Trump faces criticism for downplaying the threat of the coronavirus early on and admitting on tape that he did so. The U.S. leads the world in confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths, and experts say a fall surge in cases could put fatalities at more than double their current number by the year's end. A more robust handling of the pandemic would likely have seen the country's death count significantly reduced, experts said. But Biden's claim that a different response from Trump would have prevented every coronavirus death goes too far. 'I think it's impossible to say every life could have been saved,' said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security. Keeping COVID-19 at zero deaths would have been a difficult achievement 'regardless of who is in charge,' said Brooke Nichols, an assistant professor of global health at Boston University. 'If we had developed testing capacity as soon as we knew of the pathogen, and could rapidly test every one arriving from abroad, then I suppose it's theoretically possible, but unlikely,' Nichols said. Even countries that have found relative success managing the coronavirus - such as South Korea and New Zealand - have seen some deaths. Experts said that faster, more robust measures taken by the federal government could have put the U.S. on par with those countries and others that responded similarly. The right actions in January, February and March would likely have prevented 'a substantial number' of deaths, Adalja said, and could have put the U.S. on 'a trajectory more like Taiwan,' which has recorded just 503 confirmed cases and seven deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University. Those actions might have included a national coordinated strategy across state lines, rapidly scaled up testing, the ramped up production and mobilization of resources, and more clear communications of what was known about the virus and how to prevent it, experts said. 'Obviously, you could logically say that if you had a process that was ongoing and you started mitigation earlier, you could have saved lives,' Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, told CNN in April. 'Obviously, no one is going to deny that.' RELATED: Timeline: How Donald Trump responded to the coronavirus pandemic One May study from Columbia University estimated that the U.S. could have averted roughly 36,000 COVID-19 deaths before May if sweeping mitigation measures imposed on March 15 had instead gone into effect a week earlier. Almost 54,000 deaths would have been avoided in that timeframe had the same interventions started two weeks earlier, the study said. 'Had we mustered the political and public will to act as we did two weeks earlier, 90% of deaths through the beginning of May would have been averted,' said study author Jeffrey Shaman, a professor of environmental health sciences. But the study 'doesn't blame Trump,' Shaman said, although he added that 'the country has witnessed a complete lack of federal leadership.' Other experts have also made estimates. A pair of epidemiologists wrote in an April op-ed for the New York Times that 'an estimated 90% of deaths' from the first wave of U.S. cases 'might have been prevented by putting social distancing policies into effect two weeks earlier.' Op-ed co-author Nicholas Jewell, a professor of biostatistics at the University of California, Berkeley, said it would be 'magical thinking' to suggest 100% of COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented. 'I haven't seen any country really succeed to that extent,' Jewell said. In a June op-ed for Stat, researchers compared the U.S. response to similar nations. Accounting for differences in population and the different timings of the outbreaks in each country, they concluded that the U.S. could have prevented many deaths. If, for example, the U.S. 'had acted as effectively as Germany, 70% of U.S. coronavirus deaths might have been prevented' in the four months after the U.S. recorded its first 15 cases of the coronavirus, the researchers wrote. More lives would have been saved had the U.S. mirrored the responses of other countries such as South Korea, they said. The picture hasn't been much rosier of late. 'If you look at May and June 1, since then, we've done dreadfully in the U.S.,' Jewell said. Still, Biden's claim that 'all the people would still be alive' had Trump responded differently is an overstatement. 'I don't see how there is any truth to that,' Nichols said. The Biden campaign did not respond to requests for comment. | Our ruling Biden said, 'If the president had done his job, had done his job from the beginning, all the people would still be alive. All the people. I'm not making this up. Just look at the data.' Experts disagreed with that assessment. A stronger U.S. response could have saved many lives, experts said, but not every one. We rate this statement False. | [
"103650-proof-00-a4256e60d28e1351bca12cf6b264e462.jpg"
]
|
'This is a 1927 News Article showing America was sold to five Billionaires The Rothschild's, Rockefellers, DuPont's, Harriman's and Warburg's. | Contradiction | The Facebook post begins with this question: 'Do you still think United States is a Country, owned by the people?' The post then shows what appears to be part of the front page of a newspaper, although the name of the paper is not visible. The page includes this headline in all-capital letters: | 'Billionaires Buy U.S. from Millionaires.' The text of the article is too blurry to read. Below that is a caption with grammatical errors that claims: 'This is a 1927 News Article showing America was sold to five Billionaires The Rothschild's, Rockefellers , DuPont's, Harriman's and Warburg's.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) One of the comments on the post says the newspaper page was produced by The Onion, known for its satirical headlines and stories. Featured Fact-check David Cicilline stated on May 12, 2013 in an interview on WPRI's Newsmakers program Historically, the Social Security tax has been assessed on about 90% of U.S. income. Now it captures 83% because there's been such a growth of income among the highest earners. By C. Eugene Emery Jr. • May 19, 2013 That's correct. On Aug. 24, 2005, under the headline 'August 23, 1927,' The Onion posted what looks like the front page of a newspaper from the 1920s. The newspaper's name - The Onion - is clearly visible at the top. Below the main headline are subheads that are further proof that The Onion was merely having fun: 'Future of Nation in Yet Wealthier Hands; Rich Will Regulate Government, Citizenry.' Our ruling A Facebook post claims: 'This is a 1927 News Article showing America was sold to five Billionaires The Rothschild's, Rockefellers , DuPont's, Harriman's and Warburg's.' The article is a spoof from The Onion. We rate the claim Pants on Fire! | []
|
'This is a 1927 News Article showing America was sold to five Billionaires The Rothschild's, Rockefellers, DuPont's, Harriman's and Warburg's. | Contradiction | The Facebook post begins with this question: 'Do you still think United States is a Country, owned by the people?' The post then shows what appears to be part of the front page of a newspaper, although the name of the paper is not visible. The page includes this headline in all-capital letters: | 'Billionaires Buy U.S. from Millionaires.' The text of the article is too blurry to read. Below that is a caption with grammatical errors that claims: 'This is a 1927 News Article showing America was sold to five Billionaires The Rothschild's, Rockefellers , DuPont's, Harriman's and Warburg's.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) One of the comments on the post says the newspaper page was produced by The Onion, known for its satirical headlines and stories. Featured Fact-check David Cicilline stated on May 12, 2013 in an interview on WPRI's Newsmakers program Historically, the Social Security tax has been assessed on about 90% of U.S. income. Now it captures 83% because there's been such a growth of income among the highest earners. By C. Eugene Emery Jr. • May 19, 2013 That's correct. On Aug. 24, 2005, under the headline 'August 23, 1927,' The Onion posted what looks like the front page of a newspaper from the 1920s. The newspaper's name - The Onion - is clearly visible at the top. Below the main headline are subheads that are further proof that The Onion was merely having fun: 'Future of Nation in Yet Wealthier Hands; Rich Will Regulate Government, Citizenry.' Our ruling A Facebook post claims: 'This is a 1927 News Article showing America was sold to five Billionaires The Rothschild's, Rockefellers , DuPont's, Harriman's and Warburg's.' The article is a spoof from The Onion. We rate the claim Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says Kelly Loeffler supports 'raising taxes on Georgia's middle class. | Contradiction | Fighting to oust GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler in one of the two Georgia elections that will decide which party controls the Senate, Democrat Raphael Warnock put out an ad titled, 'The Cayman Islands.' Most of the spot sullies Loeffler for what it says was her previous work, helping banks set up offshore accounts to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Near the end, the narrator adds, 'but Loeffler's for raising taxes on Georgia's middle class.' The reference is to Loeffler's support of the 2017 tax cuts law signed by President Donald Trump, according to a citation in the ad. But the ad's characterization of Loeffler's stance is wrong. For individuals, most of the cuts enacted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expire at the end of 2025 - meaning, after that, taxes will rise. But for the middle class, Loeffler supports making the cuts permanent. The law reduces taxes on individuals - through lower tax rates and other measures - and on corporations. While most of the cuts for individuals expire at the end of 2025, the cuts for businesses are permanent. The vast majority of middle-income taxpayers are getting tax cuts in the initial years of the law and even after the tax cuts expire, the net effect is roughly zero, according to estimates by the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation and the centrist Tax Policy Center. By 2027, though, every income group below $75,000 will see a tax increase. Loeffler has been in the Senate a year, having been appointed to fill a vacancy. Her Senate and campaign offices did not reply to our requests for information. But she has stated support for making the tax cuts 'for working and middle class families' permanent. In April, Loeffler proposed what she called a framework for economic growth that would include making the tax cuts permanent and other efforts, such as aiming to make and grow more products in the U.S., reducing business regulations and expanding eligibility for the Paycheck Protection Program. Warnock's campaign pointed out that Loeffler has not introduced legislation to make the tax cuts permanent. 'I haven't seen extensions featured in much of the discussion yet, but that's not surprising, as Congress usually waits until the very last minute to decide on policies,' said Erica York, an economist with the Tax Foundation's Center for Federal Tax Policy. 'I imagine we will see negotiations over how to handle the expirations really take off closer to 2025.' | Our ruling Warnock said Loeffler supports 'raising taxes on Georgia's middle class.' Loeffler supports a law that contains tax cuts for the middle class that expire at the end of 2025, but she has been clear that she supports making the cuts permanent. We rate the statement False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"103656-proof-09-f16a4200dfaf45b87187daa9b423d00e.jpg"
]
|
Says Kelly Loeffler supports 'raising taxes on Georgia's middle class. | Contradiction | Fighting to oust GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler in one of the two Georgia elections that will decide which party controls the Senate, Democrat Raphael Warnock put out an ad titled, 'The Cayman Islands.' Most of the spot sullies Loeffler for what it says was her previous work, helping banks set up offshore accounts to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Near the end, the narrator adds, 'but Loeffler's for raising taxes on Georgia's middle class.' The reference is to Loeffler's support of the 2017 tax cuts law signed by President Donald Trump, according to a citation in the ad. But the ad's characterization of Loeffler's stance is wrong. For individuals, most of the cuts enacted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expire at the end of 2025 - meaning, after that, taxes will rise. But for the middle class, Loeffler supports making the cuts permanent. The law reduces taxes on individuals - through lower tax rates and other measures - and on corporations. While most of the cuts for individuals expire at the end of 2025, the cuts for businesses are permanent. The vast majority of middle-income taxpayers are getting tax cuts in the initial years of the law and even after the tax cuts expire, the net effect is roughly zero, according to estimates by the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation and the centrist Tax Policy Center. By 2027, though, every income group below $75,000 will see a tax increase. Loeffler has been in the Senate a year, having been appointed to fill a vacancy. Her Senate and campaign offices did not reply to our requests for information. But she has stated support for making the tax cuts 'for working and middle class families' permanent. In April, Loeffler proposed what she called a framework for economic growth that would include making the tax cuts permanent and other efforts, such as aiming to make and grow more products in the U.S., reducing business regulations and expanding eligibility for the Paycheck Protection Program. Warnock's campaign pointed out that Loeffler has not introduced legislation to make the tax cuts permanent. 'I haven't seen extensions featured in much of the discussion yet, but that's not surprising, as Congress usually waits until the very last minute to decide on policies,' said Erica York, an economist with the Tax Foundation's Center for Federal Tax Policy. 'I imagine we will see negotiations over how to handle the expirations really take off closer to 2025.' | Our ruling Warnock said Loeffler supports 'raising taxes on Georgia's middle class.' Loeffler supports a law that contains tax cuts for the middle class that expire at the end of 2025, but she has been clear that she supports making the cuts permanent. We rate the statement False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"103656-proof-09-f16a4200dfaf45b87187daa9b423d00e.jpg"
]
|
'Our legal president, President Trump, has signed a cease and desist order for the COVID vaccines. | Contradiction | TikTok users are sharing an audio recording of a woman telling people to share false information about former President Donald Trump. According to the audio, 'a lot of stuff went down over Memorial weekend' - including the installation of a new (yet familiar) president and a halt to the nation's vaccination effort. 'The main thing that I want to let you know, and I want y'all to share it and get the information out there - President Trump, and we know he's the legal president. He was acknowledged by General Flynn and the military as the Commander in Chief of the United States republic,' the audio says. The audio recording continues, 'Our legal president, President Trump, has signed a cease and desist order for the COVID vaccines.' TikTok identified this video as part of its efforts to counter inauthentic, misleading or false content. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with TikTok.) The recording makes ridiculous claims. First, Biden won the election and is the 'legal' president. Biden remains in power since his January inauguration. Biden won 306 electoral votes in total to Trump's 232, which is less than the required 270 or higher needed to win. Congress formally certified the electoral results on Jan. 6, despite the storming of the Capitol that day by rioters who supported Trump's false claims of fraud. A Defense Department duty officer refuted the first portion of the TikTok claim, stating that Biden is the commander in chief. We looked and did not find any record of Trump issuing such an order against COVID-19 vaccines, when he was president, or since. A press officer for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was unaware of any cease-and-desist order or letters from Trump. As for the TikTok post making wild claims about Trump and the vaccine cease-and-desist order, we rate that Pants on Fire! | As for the TikTok post making wild claims about Trump and the vaccine cease-and-desist order, we rate that Pants on Fire! | [
"103661-proof-33-21eb27741f8bbea6c5c57cb1e23c0046.jpg"
]
|
'Our legal president, President Trump, has signed a cease and desist order for the COVID vaccines. | Contradiction | TikTok users are sharing an audio recording of a woman telling people to share false information about former President Donald Trump. According to the audio, 'a lot of stuff went down over Memorial weekend' - including the installation of a new (yet familiar) president and a halt to the nation's vaccination effort. 'The main thing that I want to let you know, and I want y'all to share it and get the information out there - President Trump, and we know he's the legal president. He was acknowledged by General Flynn and the military as the Commander in Chief of the United States republic,' the audio says. The audio recording continues, 'Our legal president, President Trump, has signed a cease and desist order for the COVID vaccines.' TikTok identified this video as part of its efforts to counter inauthentic, misleading or false content. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with TikTok.) The recording makes ridiculous claims. First, Biden won the election and is the 'legal' president. Biden remains in power since his January inauguration. Biden won 306 electoral votes in total to Trump's 232, which is less than the required 270 or higher needed to win. Congress formally certified the electoral results on Jan. 6, despite the storming of the Capitol that day by rioters who supported Trump's false claims of fraud. A Defense Department duty officer refuted the first portion of the TikTok claim, stating that Biden is the commander in chief. We looked and did not find any record of Trump issuing such an order against COVID-19 vaccines, when he was president, or since. A press officer for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was unaware of any cease-and-desist order or letters from Trump. As for the TikTok post making wild claims about Trump and the vaccine cease-and-desist order, we rate that Pants on Fire! | As for the TikTok post making wild claims about Trump and the vaccine cease-and-desist order, we rate that Pants on Fire! | [
"103661-proof-33-21eb27741f8bbea6c5c57cb1e23c0046.jpg"
]
|
Says a '5G LAW PASSED while everyone was distracted' with the coronavirus pandemic and lists 20 symptoms associated with 5G exposure. | Contradiction | A conspiracy theory with roots in a Russian propaganda campaign is getting new life amid the coronavirus pandemic. In a March 28 post, a Facebook user refers to Public Law No. 116-129 and claims the government is taking advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to distract from the installation of 5G cellular data towers. The technology is the latest upgrade to speed up wireless internet connections. '5G LAW PASSED while everyone was distracted,' the post reads. 'Signed into law 116-129 on 3-23-2020, that will speed up the installation of 5G and protect profits! Children had to be out of schools for the covert installation. Parents are you seeing what's happening?' The post also lists 20 purported symptoms of 5G exposure, including shortness of breath and fever - symptoms similar to those of COVID-19. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Facebook) We've fact-checked other conspiracy theories that falsely connect the coronavirus outbreak to the development of 5G, so we wanted to look into this one, too. There is no evidence that the new law was deliberately passed during the COVID-19 pandemic. And while some experts have speculated that 5G's high-frequency radio waves could have some adverse health effects, such as neurological disorders, other reports say the fear is overblown. Trump signs law to protect 5G systems On March 23, President Donald Trump signed a law that requires the president to work with federal agencies to 'secure and protect' 5G infrastructure in the United States. 'The Act requires the President to develop and implement a strategy for the adoption of secure wireless communications technology in the United States and abroad,' Trump said in a White House statement. 'The strategy will protect the American people from security threats to telecommunications networks and 5G technology.' The Secure 5G and Beyond Act contains a provision to 'protect the competitiveness of United States companies,' but it says nothing about the 'covert installation' of 5G towers, as the Facebook post claims. The legislation is not specifically focused on speeding up the implementation of 5G. By March 23, the coronavirus crisis was well underway in the U.S. The World Health Organization reported 31,573 confirmed cases across the country, and Trump said during a press briefing that the numbers 'are going to increase with time.' However, there is no evidence that Congress waited to pass the 5G law during the coronavirus outbreak. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced the legislation last spring, and the Senate Commerce Committee finalized it in December. The full Senate passed the bill on March 4. Is 5G dangerous? The second part of the Facebook post lists a slew of symptoms purportedly associated with exposure to 5G networks. While some experts are concerned about the potential health effects of 5G, there is no evidence to support the flu-like effects listed in the post. Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, supports a moratorium on 5G development. He wrote in Scientific American that there could be health effects and that research needs to be funded. 'The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G,' he wrote. 'Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation.' Short-term exposure to millimeter waves can cause physiological effects in the nervous system, immune system and cardiovascular system, while long-term exposure could lead to conditions like melanoma and sterility, according to Moskowitz. However, he also wrote that there is no research to confirm a correlation between 5G exposure and those broad health conditions, much less the very specific symptoms listed in the Facebook post. RELATED: No evidence that coronavirus was faked to cover up '5G Syndrome' And other reports say the fears of 5G exposure are overblown: 'The vast majority of evidence says there's no reason to pause deployments.' - Rod Waterhouse, an electrical engineer, wireless-communications entrepreneur and editor of a report on 5G, speaking to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 'There's little reason to think 5G frequencies are any more harmful than other types of electromagnetic radiation, like visible light.' - Wired magazine 'The 5G Health Hazard That Isn't - How one scientist and his inaccurate chart led to unwarranted fears of wireless technology.' - New York Times headline 5G falsehoods echo Russian propaganda False and misleading social media posts about 5G and coronavirus are similar to a Russian propaganda campaign that's aimed at delegitimizing the technology's implementation in the U.S. In May 2019, the New York Times reported that Russian network RT America was airing unsubstantiated reports linking 5G exposure to brain cancer, infertility and autism. 'It's economic warfare,' Ryan Fox, chief operating officer of technology firm New Knowledge, told the New York Times. 'Russia doesn't have a good 5G play, so it tries to undermine and discredit ours.' Hundreds of blogs and websites have republished RT's dubious claims about 5G, according to the newspaper. And over the past week, we've seen dozens of Facebook and Instagram posts build on that misinformation by baselessly linking the coronavirus pandemic to the development of 5G. (Screenshot from Instagram) The conspiracies are particularly popular among anti-vaccine and alternative-health Facebook groups and Instagram accounts. In a March 30 Instagram post, which has more than 146,000 likes, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promoted a conspiracy theory about 5G and the coronavirus. Kennedy, the nephew of former President John F. Kennedy, is among the biggest sources of anti-vaccine advertisements on Facebook. 'The quarantine has facilitated the unobstructed #5G rollout,' Kennedy said in his post, which echoes the claims made in the March 28 Facebook post. According to Google Trends, search queries for 'coronavirus 5G' have spiked since early March. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that the government used the coronavirus pandemic to distract from the passage of a 5G law. Trump signed a law March 23 that aims to 'secure and protect' 5G infrastructure in the U.S. The legislation has a provision to protect American companies, but it says nothing about installing more 5G towers. While some experts have said there could be adverse health effects associated with 5G, other reports say the fears are overblown. Misinformation about 5G and the coronavirus can be traced to a Russian propaganda campaign that seeks to delegitimize the implementation of 5G. The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"103663-proof-18-5ginsta.jpg",
"103663-proof-30-17de33b6620844bcabb6bf867e27c198.jpg",
"103663-proof-36-Screen_Shot_2020-04-03_at_11.14.27_AM.jpg"
]
|
Says a '5G LAW PASSED while everyone was distracted' with the coronavirus pandemic and lists 20 symptoms associated with 5G exposure. | Contradiction | A conspiracy theory with roots in a Russian propaganda campaign is getting new life amid the coronavirus pandemic. In a March 28 post, a Facebook user refers to Public Law No. 116-129 and claims the government is taking advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to distract from the installation of 5G cellular data towers. The technology is the latest upgrade to speed up wireless internet connections. '5G LAW PASSED while everyone was distracted,' the post reads. 'Signed into law 116-129 on 3-23-2020, that will speed up the installation of 5G and protect profits! Children had to be out of schools for the covert installation. Parents are you seeing what's happening?' The post also lists 20 purported symptoms of 5G exposure, including shortness of breath and fever - symptoms similar to those of COVID-19. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Facebook) We've fact-checked other conspiracy theories that falsely connect the coronavirus outbreak to the development of 5G, so we wanted to look into this one, too. There is no evidence that the new law was deliberately passed during the COVID-19 pandemic. And while some experts have speculated that 5G's high-frequency radio waves could have some adverse health effects, such as neurological disorders, other reports say the fear is overblown. Trump signs law to protect 5G systems On March 23, President Donald Trump signed a law that requires the president to work with federal agencies to 'secure and protect' 5G infrastructure in the United States. 'The Act requires the President to develop and implement a strategy for the adoption of secure wireless communications technology in the United States and abroad,' Trump said in a White House statement. 'The strategy will protect the American people from security threats to telecommunications networks and 5G technology.' The Secure 5G and Beyond Act contains a provision to 'protect the competitiveness of United States companies,' but it says nothing about the 'covert installation' of 5G towers, as the Facebook post claims. The legislation is not specifically focused on speeding up the implementation of 5G. By March 23, the coronavirus crisis was well underway in the U.S. The World Health Organization reported 31,573 confirmed cases across the country, and Trump said during a press briefing that the numbers 'are going to increase with time.' However, there is no evidence that Congress waited to pass the 5G law during the coronavirus outbreak. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced the legislation last spring, and the Senate Commerce Committee finalized it in December. The full Senate passed the bill on March 4. Is 5G dangerous? The second part of the Facebook post lists a slew of symptoms purportedly associated with exposure to 5G networks. While some experts are concerned about the potential health effects of 5G, there is no evidence to support the flu-like effects listed in the post. Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, supports a moratorium on 5G development. He wrote in Scientific American that there could be health effects and that research needs to be funded. 'The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G,' he wrote. 'Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation.' Short-term exposure to millimeter waves can cause physiological effects in the nervous system, immune system and cardiovascular system, while long-term exposure could lead to conditions like melanoma and sterility, according to Moskowitz. However, he also wrote that there is no research to confirm a correlation between 5G exposure and those broad health conditions, much less the very specific symptoms listed in the Facebook post. RELATED: No evidence that coronavirus was faked to cover up '5G Syndrome' And other reports say the fears of 5G exposure are overblown: 'The vast majority of evidence says there's no reason to pause deployments.' - Rod Waterhouse, an electrical engineer, wireless-communications entrepreneur and editor of a report on 5G, speaking to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 'There's little reason to think 5G frequencies are any more harmful than other types of electromagnetic radiation, like visible light.' - Wired magazine 'The 5G Health Hazard That Isn't - How one scientist and his inaccurate chart led to unwarranted fears of wireless technology.' - New York Times headline 5G falsehoods echo Russian propaganda False and misleading social media posts about 5G and coronavirus are similar to a Russian propaganda campaign that's aimed at delegitimizing the technology's implementation in the U.S. In May 2019, the New York Times reported that Russian network RT America was airing unsubstantiated reports linking 5G exposure to brain cancer, infertility and autism. 'It's economic warfare,' Ryan Fox, chief operating officer of technology firm New Knowledge, told the New York Times. 'Russia doesn't have a good 5G play, so it tries to undermine and discredit ours.' Hundreds of blogs and websites have republished RT's dubious claims about 5G, according to the newspaper. And over the past week, we've seen dozens of Facebook and Instagram posts build on that misinformation by baselessly linking the coronavirus pandemic to the development of 5G. (Screenshot from Instagram) The conspiracies are particularly popular among anti-vaccine and alternative-health Facebook groups and Instagram accounts. In a March 30 Instagram post, which has more than 146,000 likes, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promoted a conspiracy theory about 5G and the coronavirus. Kennedy, the nephew of former President John F. Kennedy, is among the biggest sources of anti-vaccine advertisements on Facebook. 'The quarantine has facilitated the unobstructed #5G rollout,' Kennedy said in his post, which echoes the claims made in the March 28 Facebook post. According to Google Trends, search queries for 'coronavirus 5G' have spiked since early March. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that the government used the coronavirus pandemic to distract from the passage of a 5G law. Trump signed a law March 23 that aims to 'secure and protect' 5G infrastructure in the U.S. The legislation has a provision to protect American companies, but it says nothing about installing more 5G towers. While some experts have said there could be adverse health effects associated with 5G, other reports say the fears are overblown. Misinformation about 5G and the coronavirus can be traced to a Russian propaganda campaign that seeks to delegitimize the implementation of 5G. The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"103663-proof-18-5ginsta.jpg",
"103663-proof-30-17de33b6620844bcabb6bf867e27c198.jpg",
"103663-proof-36-Screen_Shot_2020-04-03_at_11.14.27_AM.jpg"
]
|
Says a '5G LAW PASSED while everyone was distracted' with the coronavirus pandemic and lists 20 symptoms associated with 5G exposure. | Contradiction | A conspiracy theory with roots in a Russian propaganda campaign is getting new life amid the coronavirus pandemic. In a March 28 post, a Facebook user refers to Public Law No. 116-129 and claims the government is taking advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to distract from the installation of 5G cellular data towers. The technology is the latest upgrade to speed up wireless internet connections. '5G LAW PASSED while everyone was distracted,' the post reads. 'Signed into law 116-129 on 3-23-2020, that will speed up the installation of 5G and protect profits! Children had to be out of schools for the covert installation. Parents are you seeing what's happening?' The post also lists 20 purported symptoms of 5G exposure, including shortness of breath and fever - symptoms similar to those of COVID-19. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Facebook) We've fact-checked other conspiracy theories that falsely connect the coronavirus outbreak to the development of 5G, so we wanted to look into this one, too. There is no evidence that the new law was deliberately passed during the COVID-19 pandemic. And while some experts have speculated that 5G's high-frequency radio waves could have some adverse health effects, such as neurological disorders, other reports say the fear is overblown. Trump signs law to protect 5G systems On March 23, President Donald Trump signed a law that requires the president to work with federal agencies to 'secure and protect' 5G infrastructure in the United States. 'The Act requires the President to develop and implement a strategy for the adoption of secure wireless communications technology in the United States and abroad,' Trump said in a White House statement. 'The strategy will protect the American people from security threats to telecommunications networks and 5G technology.' The Secure 5G and Beyond Act contains a provision to 'protect the competitiveness of United States companies,' but it says nothing about the 'covert installation' of 5G towers, as the Facebook post claims. The legislation is not specifically focused on speeding up the implementation of 5G. By March 23, the coronavirus crisis was well underway in the U.S. The World Health Organization reported 31,573 confirmed cases across the country, and Trump said during a press briefing that the numbers 'are going to increase with time.' However, there is no evidence that Congress waited to pass the 5G law during the coronavirus outbreak. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced the legislation last spring, and the Senate Commerce Committee finalized it in December. The full Senate passed the bill on March 4. Is 5G dangerous? The second part of the Facebook post lists a slew of symptoms purportedly associated with exposure to 5G networks. While some experts are concerned about the potential health effects of 5G, there is no evidence to support the flu-like effects listed in the post. Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, supports a moratorium on 5G development. He wrote in Scientific American that there could be health effects and that research needs to be funded. 'The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G,' he wrote. 'Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation.' Short-term exposure to millimeter waves can cause physiological effects in the nervous system, immune system and cardiovascular system, while long-term exposure could lead to conditions like melanoma and sterility, according to Moskowitz. However, he also wrote that there is no research to confirm a correlation between 5G exposure and those broad health conditions, much less the very specific symptoms listed in the Facebook post. RELATED: No evidence that coronavirus was faked to cover up '5G Syndrome' And other reports say the fears of 5G exposure are overblown: 'The vast majority of evidence says there's no reason to pause deployments.' - Rod Waterhouse, an electrical engineer, wireless-communications entrepreneur and editor of a report on 5G, speaking to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 'There's little reason to think 5G frequencies are any more harmful than other types of electromagnetic radiation, like visible light.' - Wired magazine 'The 5G Health Hazard That Isn't - How one scientist and his inaccurate chart led to unwarranted fears of wireless technology.' - New York Times headline 5G falsehoods echo Russian propaganda False and misleading social media posts about 5G and coronavirus are similar to a Russian propaganda campaign that's aimed at delegitimizing the technology's implementation in the U.S. In May 2019, the New York Times reported that Russian network RT America was airing unsubstantiated reports linking 5G exposure to brain cancer, infertility and autism. 'It's economic warfare,' Ryan Fox, chief operating officer of technology firm New Knowledge, told the New York Times. 'Russia doesn't have a good 5G play, so it tries to undermine and discredit ours.' Hundreds of blogs and websites have republished RT's dubious claims about 5G, according to the newspaper. And over the past week, we've seen dozens of Facebook and Instagram posts build on that misinformation by baselessly linking the coronavirus pandemic to the development of 5G. (Screenshot from Instagram) The conspiracies are particularly popular among anti-vaccine and alternative-health Facebook groups and Instagram accounts. In a March 30 Instagram post, which has more than 146,000 likes, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promoted a conspiracy theory about 5G and the coronavirus. Kennedy, the nephew of former President John F. Kennedy, is among the biggest sources of anti-vaccine advertisements on Facebook. 'The quarantine has facilitated the unobstructed #5G rollout,' Kennedy said in his post, which echoes the claims made in the March 28 Facebook post. According to Google Trends, search queries for 'coronavirus 5G' have spiked since early March. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that the government used the coronavirus pandemic to distract from the passage of a 5G law. Trump signed a law March 23 that aims to 'secure and protect' 5G infrastructure in the U.S. The legislation has a provision to protect American companies, but it says nothing about installing more 5G towers. While some experts have said there could be adverse health effects associated with 5G, other reports say the fears are overblown. Misinformation about 5G and the coronavirus can be traced to a Russian propaganda campaign that seeks to delegitimize the implementation of 5G. The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"103663-proof-18-5ginsta.jpg",
"103663-proof-30-17de33b6620844bcabb6bf867e27c198.jpg",
"103663-proof-36-Screen_Shot_2020-04-03_at_11.14.27_AM.jpg"
]
|
'NYT is correcting their lies..Trump paid $1M in 2016 & $3.8M in 2017-18..THEY LIED..AGAIN. INFO ON TWITTER THIS AM. | Contradiction | The New York Times recently published a blockbuster series of stories detailing for the first time President Donald Trump's recent tax-return data showing he paid no federal income taxes for 11 years and paid $750 in both 2016 and 2017. Now a Facebook post shared thousands of times claims the news organization is taking it all back: 'NYT is correcting their lies..Trump paid $1M in 2016 & $3.8M in 2017-18..THEY LIED..AGAIN. INFO ON TWITTER THIS AM,' reads the Sept. 29 Facebook post. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The New York Time released a multi-part investigation of Trump's taxes beginning Sept. 27, based on 'decades of personal and corporate tax records' for the president' that were provided by unnamed sources, according to the Times. The newspaper said it is not making the records public in order to protect those who provided them. The investigation found that Trump paid little or no federal income taxes for 18 years and his signature businesses have suffered severe losses that helped him achieve a lower tax bill. Despite the Facebook claim that the Times is 'correcting their lies,' the newspaper has not published any corrections for the Trump tax stories, which it would do if information was found to be inaccurate. Trump has disputed the reporting but provided no evidence to support his position. During the first presidential debate on Sept. 29, moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump if the Times stories were accurate. 'I paid millions of dollars in taxes. Millions of dollars of income tax,' Trump replied, according to a transcript of the debate. When Joe Biden interjected, 'Show us your tax returns,' Trump responded: 'You'll see it as soon as it's finished, you'll see it.' Trump has for years cited a pending audit as reason for not making his tax returns public. Trump likely has paid other types of taxes, but PolitiFact found no evidence he has paid millions in income taxes. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims the New York Times 'is correcting their lies' and that Trump 'paid $1M in 2016 & $3.8M in 2017-18. The New York Times has not issued any corrections or retractions about its recent reporting about Trump's income taxes and there is no evidence that Trump paid millions in taxes in 2016, 2017 and 2018. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'NYT is correcting their lies..Trump paid $1M in 2016 & $3.8M in 2017-18..THEY LIED..AGAIN. INFO ON TWITTER THIS AM. | Contradiction | The New York Times recently published a blockbuster series of stories detailing for the first time President Donald Trump's recent tax-return data showing he paid no federal income taxes for 11 years and paid $750 in both 2016 and 2017. Now a Facebook post shared thousands of times claims the news organization is taking it all back: 'NYT is correcting their lies..Trump paid $1M in 2016 & $3.8M in 2017-18..THEY LIED..AGAIN. INFO ON TWITTER THIS AM,' reads the Sept. 29 Facebook post. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The New York Time released a multi-part investigation of Trump's taxes beginning Sept. 27, based on 'decades of personal and corporate tax records' for the president' that were provided by unnamed sources, according to the Times. The newspaper said it is not making the records public in order to protect those who provided them. The investigation found that Trump paid little or no federal income taxes for 18 years and his signature businesses have suffered severe losses that helped him achieve a lower tax bill. Despite the Facebook claim that the Times is 'correcting their lies,' the newspaper has not published any corrections for the Trump tax stories, which it would do if information was found to be inaccurate. Trump has disputed the reporting but provided no evidence to support his position. During the first presidential debate on Sept. 29, moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump if the Times stories were accurate. 'I paid millions of dollars in taxes. Millions of dollars of income tax,' Trump replied, according to a transcript of the debate. When Joe Biden interjected, 'Show us your tax returns,' Trump responded: 'You'll see it as soon as it's finished, you'll see it.' Trump has for years cited a pending audit as reason for not making his tax returns public. Trump likely has paid other types of taxes, but PolitiFact found no evidence he has paid millions in income taxes. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims the New York Times 'is correcting their lies' and that Trump 'paid $1M in 2016 & $3.8M in 2017-18. The New York Times has not issued any corrections or retractions about its recent reporting about Trump's income taxes and there is no evidence that Trump paid millions in taxes in 2016, 2017 and 2018. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'NYT is correcting their lies..Trump paid $1M in 2016 & $3.8M in 2017-18..THEY LIED..AGAIN. INFO ON TWITTER THIS AM. | Contradiction | The New York Times recently published a blockbuster series of stories detailing for the first time President Donald Trump's recent tax-return data showing he paid no federal income taxes for 11 years and paid $750 in both 2016 and 2017. Now a Facebook post shared thousands of times claims the news organization is taking it all back: 'NYT is correcting their lies..Trump paid $1M in 2016 & $3.8M in 2017-18..THEY LIED..AGAIN. INFO ON TWITTER THIS AM,' reads the Sept. 29 Facebook post. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The New York Time released a multi-part investigation of Trump's taxes beginning Sept. 27, based on 'decades of personal and corporate tax records' for the president' that were provided by unnamed sources, according to the Times. The newspaper said it is not making the records public in order to protect those who provided them. The investigation found that Trump paid little or no federal income taxes for 18 years and his signature businesses have suffered severe losses that helped him achieve a lower tax bill. Despite the Facebook claim that the Times is 'correcting their lies,' the newspaper has not published any corrections for the Trump tax stories, which it would do if information was found to be inaccurate. Trump has disputed the reporting but provided no evidence to support his position. During the first presidential debate on Sept. 29, moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump if the Times stories were accurate. 'I paid millions of dollars in taxes. Millions of dollars of income tax,' Trump replied, according to a transcript of the debate. When Joe Biden interjected, 'Show us your tax returns,' Trump responded: 'You'll see it as soon as it's finished, you'll see it.' Trump has for years cited a pending audit as reason for not making his tax returns public. Trump likely has paid other types of taxes, but PolitiFact found no evidence he has paid millions in income taxes. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims the New York Times 'is correcting their lies' and that Trump 'paid $1M in 2016 & $3.8M in 2017-18. The New York Times has not issued any corrections or retractions about its recent reporting about Trump's income taxes and there is no evidence that Trump paid millions in taxes in 2016, 2017 and 2018. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Video montage shows Kamala Harris and others faking vaccination. | Contradiction | The December 2020 rollout of COVID-19 vaccines prompted campaigns in which public officials and health care workers got their shots in front of TV cameras to help promote vaccination. These campaigns also ushered in a new wave of misinformation, including false claims about 'disappearing needles' and staged public vaccinations. Months after they were debunked, some of the same claims are still making the rounds. A July 19 Facebook post - with the caption 'Watch carefully.... so you think you haven't been brainwashed' - includes a video montage that suggests people who got COVID-19 shots while on camera, including Vice President Kamala Harris, were faking being vaccinated. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Of six vaccinations shown in the montage, at least five are depicted in false or misleading ways; the montage incorporates one claim that first circulated and was debunked in December 2020. The first segment of the video shows Christine Elliott, minister of health for the Canadian province of Ontario, getting a shot. However, the footage is from October 2019 when Elliott received a routine flu vaccine, which was documented at that time in a Facebook post and video from a local TV station. The second segment in the Facebook video purports to depict Israeli politician Beni Ben Muvchar receiving a vaccine in December 2020. The video zooms in on the syringe being used, which appears to have no needle, and a Spanish-language text overlay says, 'does not have a needle, isn't loaded' and 'she doesn't push the plunger.' Muvchar, in fact, did not receive a vaccine at that time. The clip of Muvchar is from a short promotional video intended to encourage others to get vaccinated, and 'for the purposes of the video, a nurse pretends to give (Muvchar) the vaccine,' according to The Observers/France 24. The video had 2.8 million views on Facebook and was shared more than 70,000 times. Because of the furor over the staged demonstration, Muvchar posted a different video on Facebook of his actual vaccination. For the third segment, about five seconds long, we were unable to identify the person being vaccinated or the setting. The fourth segment in the Facebook video shows a health care worker administering a vaccine, and after the syringe is removed from the patient's arm, the needle is no longer visible. A Spanish-language text overlay on the Facebook video says, 'Now you see the needle ... and now you don't.' The footage was from a real news story by BBC News, but the claim about the disappearing needles was debunked by the media outlet in December 2020. The syringe in the footage is a safety syringe, 'in which the needle retracts into the body of the device after use,' BBC News reported. The fifth segment shows a nurse getting the shot at University Medical Center in El Paso, Texas, and the video zooms in on the syringe, which appeared to have had the plunger already depressed. TV station KFOX14 said the footage was captured by its photojournalist during a public vaccination event, and the empty syringe appears to have been a mistake. The medical center said the nurse was vaccinated again properly after the center was alerted about it. The TV station reviewed footage of other nurses being vaccinated at the same event and did not see the same issue in any other case. The final segment in the Facebook video shows then-Vice President-elect Harris being vaccinated. The video zooms in on the nurse pushing the syringe against the arm of the chair where Harris is seated. Reuters reported that the nurse was using the arm rest to snap the cap back onto the syringe. The nurse wasn't able to use her other hand to do this because it was on Harris' arm. Reuters reported that the exposed needle was visible in videos of Harris' vaccination and that media photos clearly show the needle in her arm. | Our ruling A Facebook post includes a video montage that purports to show that people who got COVID-19 shots while on camera, including Harris, were faking being vaccinated. The video clips included in the montage are of real events, but they are depicted and labeled in misleading ways. One of the video segments shows a flu shot that was administered in 2019, and another shows a staged promotional event. Other parts of the video mischaracterize the type of medical equipment used or mistakes that occurred during vaccinations and were later corrected. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Video montage shows Kamala Harris and others faking vaccination. | Contradiction | The December 2020 rollout of COVID-19 vaccines prompted campaigns in which public officials and health care workers got their shots in front of TV cameras to help promote vaccination. These campaigns also ushered in a new wave of misinformation, including false claims about 'disappearing needles' and staged public vaccinations. Months after they were debunked, some of the same claims are still making the rounds. A July 19 Facebook post - with the caption 'Watch carefully.... so you think you haven't been brainwashed' - includes a video montage that suggests people who got COVID-19 shots while on camera, including Vice President Kamala Harris, were faking being vaccinated. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Of six vaccinations shown in the montage, at least five are depicted in false or misleading ways; the montage incorporates one claim that first circulated and was debunked in December 2020. The first segment of the video shows Christine Elliott, minister of health for the Canadian province of Ontario, getting a shot. However, the footage is from October 2019 when Elliott received a routine flu vaccine, which was documented at that time in a Facebook post and video from a local TV station. The second segment in the Facebook video purports to depict Israeli politician Beni Ben Muvchar receiving a vaccine in December 2020. The video zooms in on the syringe being used, which appears to have no needle, and a Spanish-language text overlay says, 'does not have a needle, isn't loaded' and 'she doesn't push the plunger.' Muvchar, in fact, did not receive a vaccine at that time. The clip of Muvchar is from a short promotional video intended to encourage others to get vaccinated, and 'for the purposes of the video, a nurse pretends to give (Muvchar) the vaccine,' according to The Observers/France 24. The video had 2.8 million views on Facebook and was shared more than 70,000 times. Because of the furor over the staged demonstration, Muvchar posted a different video on Facebook of his actual vaccination. For the third segment, about five seconds long, we were unable to identify the person being vaccinated or the setting. The fourth segment in the Facebook video shows a health care worker administering a vaccine, and after the syringe is removed from the patient's arm, the needle is no longer visible. A Spanish-language text overlay on the Facebook video says, 'Now you see the needle ... and now you don't.' The footage was from a real news story by BBC News, but the claim about the disappearing needles was debunked by the media outlet in December 2020. The syringe in the footage is a safety syringe, 'in which the needle retracts into the body of the device after use,' BBC News reported. The fifth segment shows a nurse getting the shot at University Medical Center in El Paso, Texas, and the video zooms in on the syringe, which appeared to have had the plunger already depressed. TV station KFOX14 said the footage was captured by its photojournalist during a public vaccination event, and the empty syringe appears to have been a mistake. The medical center said the nurse was vaccinated again properly after the center was alerted about it. The TV station reviewed footage of other nurses being vaccinated at the same event and did not see the same issue in any other case. The final segment in the Facebook video shows then-Vice President-elect Harris being vaccinated. The video zooms in on the nurse pushing the syringe against the arm of the chair where Harris is seated. Reuters reported that the nurse was using the arm rest to snap the cap back onto the syringe. The nurse wasn't able to use her other hand to do this because it was on Harris' arm. Reuters reported that the exposed needle was visible in videos of Harris' vaccination and that media photos clearly show the needle in her arm. | Our ruling A Facebook post includes a video montage that purports to show that people who got COVID-19 shots while on camera, including Harris, were faking being vaccinated. The video clips included in the montage are of real events, but they are depicted and labeled in misleading ways. One of the video segments shows a flu shot that was administered in 2019, and another shows a staged promotional event. Other parts of the video mischaracterize the type of medical equipment used or mistakes that occurred during vaccinations and were later corrected. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Says Joe Biden 'was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump went on Twitter to applaud his administration's response to the coronavirus and shift attention to another pandemic that happened when Joe Biden was vice president. The first U.S. case of a new H1N1 influenza virus (also called swine flu) was detected in April 2009, three months after the Obama administration began. The pandemic took a toll on Americans, with an estimated 60.8 million H1N1 cases and 12,469 deaths from April 2009 to April 2010. Worldwide, it's estimated the virus killed between 151,700 to 575,400 people during its first year. (By August 2010, the World Health Organization said the virus had largely run its course.) Trump said Biden, a top Democratic presidential candidate, led an ineffective effort to combat the outbreak. 'Sleepy Joe Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest!' Trump tweeted March 12. Sleepy Joe Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest!- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2020 Trump previously falsely claimed the Obama administration 'didn't do anything about' swine flu. How does his recent tweet line up with the facts? He's wrong about Biden's role and omitted important context about his polling. 'Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people.' Biden was the vice president, but he was not in charge of the Obama administration's handling of the H1N1 pandemic. That responsibility mainly fell on the leaders of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Trump enlisted Vice President Mike Pence to helm the country's response to COVID-19.) Health policy experts told PolitiFact they did not recall Biden having a prominent leadership role. PolitiFact also reviewed archives of Obama's public statements on H1N1 and found that Obama generally mentioned the leadership of department heads and of his homeland security adviser, not Biden. RELATED FACT-CHECK: Trump wrongly blames Obama for limits on coronavirus testing At the same time, Biden's website mentions the Obama administration's record to make the argument to voters that he could manage the current response better. Biden's coronavirus response plan says he 'helped lead' the Obama administration's response to H1N1 in 2009 and the Ebola virus in 2014. It does not offer further detail. The H1N1 response 'was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest!' Neither the White House nor Trump's campaign responded to our requests for information backing Trump's claim. If Trump was talking about public confidence in the federal government's ability to handle outbreaks, he might have been referring to a Gallup poll taken Feb. 3-16. But he isn't correct about its findings and ignores key context. A lot has happened since Gallup asked a random sample of 1,028 adults how confident they were that the federal government would be able to handle a coronavirus outbreak. Trump's '78% approval rating' could be alluding to the combined 77% who were very confident (31%) or somewhat confident (46%). The poll had a margin of error of 4 percentage points. Gallup in February said that the 77% figure showed a higher level of confidence than Gallup had found for previous health scares during other administrations. But confidence in the 2009 H1N1 response was the second highest, not 'one of the worst on record.' The averages of two polls in 2009 showed that 67% of respondents were very confident or somewhat confident in the federal government's ability to handle the H1N1 outbreak. Those two polls were released in May and August of that year, about a month and four months into the outbreak. Public confidence in the federal government's handling of the Zika virus, Ebola virus, and bird flu were lower than for H1N1. Gallup's February poll began days after the Trump administration announced restrictions on travelers who had been in China in the prior two weeks, and at that time, no one had died within the United States from the disease caused by the new coronavirus. 'This high level of confidence may be related to the fact that all deaths from COVID-19 have occurred abroad, rather than on U.S. soil,' Gallup said in February. By the time of Trump's March 12 tweet, there were more than 1,600 coronavirus cases in the United States and at least 41 deaths. Polling done after Gallup's shows a drop in confidence in the Trump administration's handling of the coronavirus. A Feb. 28-March 1 Morning Consult survey showed that 49% of voters approved of Trump's response to the outbreak, down from 56% in a Feb. 24-26 survey - a decline fueled by drops among independents and Democrats. The poll surveyed 1,997 registered voters and had a margin of error of 2 percentage points. | Our ruling Trump said, 'Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest! Biden was not in charge of the Obama administration's H1N1 response. A Gallup poll in February - before any coronavirus deaths in the United States - showed that 77% of respondents had confidence in the administration's handling of the outbreak. It ranked higher than averages of two 2009 polls on confidence in the Obama administration's handling of H1N1. Public confidence in H1N1 was the second highest, not 'one of the worst' or the 'lowest.' Polling done after the Gallup poll showed a decline in approval of Trump's response to the coronavirus outbreak. Trump's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"103694-proof-22-d9f97fbb575bc5ac79675088779c6d4f.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden 'was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump went on Twitter to applaud his administration's response to the coronavirus and shift attention to another pandemic that happened when Joe Biden was vice president. The first U.S. case of a new H1N1 influenza virus (also called swine flu) was detected in April 2009, three months after the Obama administration began. The pandemic took a toll on Americans, with an estimated 60.8 million H1N1 cases and 12,469 deaths from April 2009 to April 2010. Worldwide, it's estimated the virus killed between 151,700 to 575,400 people during its first year. (By August 2010, the World Health Organization said the virus had largely run its course.) Trump said Biden, a top Democratic presidential candidate, led an ineffective effort to combat the outbreak. 'Sleepy Joe Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest!' Trump tweeted March 12. Sleepy Joe Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest!- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2020 Trump previously falsely claimed the Obama administration 'didn't do anything about' swine flu. How does his recent tweet line up with the facts? He's wrong about Biden's role and omitted important context about his polling. 'Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people.' Biden was the vice president, but he was not in charge of the Obama administration's handling of the H1N1 pandemic. That responsibility mainly fell on the leaders of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Trump enlisted Vice President Mike Pence to helm the country's response to COVID-19.) Health policy experts told PolitiFact they did not recall Biden having a prominent leadership role. PolitiFact also reviewed archives of Obama's public statements on H1N1 and found that Obama generally mentioned the leadership of department heads and of his homeland security adviser, not Biden. RELATED FACT-CHECK: Trump wrongly blames Obama for limits on coronavirus testing At the same time, Biden's website mentions the Obama administration's record to make the argument to voters that he could manage the current response better. Biden's coronavirus response plan says he 'helped lead' the Obama administration's response to H1N1 in 2009 and the Ebola virus in 2014. It does not offer further detail. The H1N1 response 'was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest!' Neither the White House nor Trump's campaign responded to our requests for information backing Trump's claim. If Trump was talking about public confidence in the federal government's ability to handle outbreaks, he might have been referring to a Gallup poll taken Feb. 3-16. But he isn't correct about its findings and ignores key context. A lot has happened since Gallup asked a random sample of 1,028 adults how confident they were that the federal government would be able to handle a coronavirus outbreak. Trump's '78% approval rating' could be alluding to the combined 77% who were very confident (31%) or somewhat confident (46%). The poll had a margin of error of 4 percentage points. Gallup in February said that the 77% figure showed a higher level of confidence than Gallup had found for previous health scares during other administrations. But confidence in the 2009 H1N1 response was the second highest, not 'one of the worst on record.' The averages of two polls in 2009 showed that 67% of respondents were very confident or somewhat confident in the federal government's ability to handle the H1N1 outbreak. Those two polls were released in May and August of that year, about a month and four months into the outbreak. Public confidence in the federal government's handling of the Zika virus, Ebola virus, and bird flu were lower than for H1N1. Gallup's February poll began days after the Trump administration announced restrictions on travelers who had been in China in the prior two weeks, and at that time, no one had died within the United States from the disease caused by the new coronavirus. 'This high level of confidence may be related to the fact that all deaths from COVID-19 have occurred abroad, rather than on U.S. soil,' Gallup said in February. By the time of Trump's March 12 tweet, there were more than 1,600 coronavirus cases in the United States and at least 41 deaths. Polling done after Gallup's shows a drop in confidence in the Trump administration's handling of the coronavirus. A Feb. 28-March 1 Morning Consult survey showed that 49% of voters approved of Trump's response to the outbreak, down from 56% in a Feb. 24-26 survey - a decline fueled by drops among independents and Democrats. The poll surveyed 1,997 registered voters and had a margin of error of 2 percentage points. | Our ruling Trump said, 'Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest! Biden was not in charge of the Obama administration's H1N1 response. A Gallup poll in February - before any coronavirus deaths in the United States - showed that 77% of respondents had confidence in the administration's handling of the outbreak. It ranked higher than averages of two 2009 polls on confidence in the Obama administration's handling of H1N1. Public confidence in H1N1 was the second highest, not 'one of the worst' or the 'lowest.' Polling done after the Gallup poll showed a decline in approval of Trump's response to the coronavirus outbreak. Trump's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"103694-proof-22-d9f97fbb575bc5ac79675088779c6d4f.jpg"
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.