claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Photo shows an electric car charging station that uses '12 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, and it takes three hours to fully charge a car to get 200 miles. That's 36 gallons for 200 miles. 5.6 mpg. | Contradiction | A widely circulating Facebook post points to public charging stations as a glaring example of why electric cars are not as environmentally friendly as advertised. The July 11 post includes a picture it identifies as an electric car charging station in Round Rock, Texas. The accompanying text claims electric cars are more inefficient because charging stations use diesel fuel generators to produce electricity. 'That 350kWh generator uses 12 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, and it takes three hours to fully charge a car to get 200 miles,' the text reads. 'That's 36 gallons for 200 Miles! 5.6 mpg.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. Instagram is owned by Facebook. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The charging station shown in the post is located at an outlet mall in Round Rock, an Austin suburb. However, the description of how it operates is wrong. Electrify America, which operates the charging station, called the claim that it uses electricity derived from a diesel generator 'absolutely false.' 'Our direct-current fast electric-vehicle charging station in Round Rock, Texas, is powered by Oncor Electric Delivery Company, one of the largest utility companies in the U.S.,' Mike Moran, a spokesperson for the company, said in an email. Oncor distributes electricity across the Texas electric grid but doesn't generate its own power. An Oncor spokesperson said it's hard to pinpoint exactly what kind of energy is used to power the Round Rock station - whether it's derived from coal, nuclear, wind or solar energy. Similar claims linking electric vehicles to diesel generators have circulated before. A July 1 post used much of the same text, but with a different image and without any mention of Texas. It claimed diesel charging stations are 'popping up everywhere.' The picture used in that post is actually of a diesel-powered charging station, but not anything like the public ones that are being installed around the country. This one was created as an experiment in 2018 in Australia to test the viability of using a diesel generator to charge a car in the desert. Jon Edwards, the man who thought of the experiment, told The Driven he wanted to see whether charging with a diesel generator was viable, and how the fuel consumption for the generator compared with driving a similar-size diesel-powered car. The experiment involved using the charger to charge 10 electric cars - most of them Teslas - for one hour each, and measuring how much energy was added to the battery during charging. Edwards used the lifetime averages for each car to convert that energy figure to an estimate of the added distance the car could travel after charging. The experiment found that when charged this way, a BMW i3 was the most fuel-efficient of the electric cars, consuming 4.39 liters of fuel for every 100 kilometers of range added, equivalent to about 54 mpg. One Tesla model consumed around 7 liters of diesel fuel per 100 km of range, equivalent to about 34 mpg. Edwards' experiment found that, in most instances, using the generator to charge a car consumed less fuel than a similarly sized diesel car would to travel the same distance. A diesel-fueled VW Touareg SUV, for example, used 7.2 liters of fuel per 100 km. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims an electric car charging station in Texas runs on a diesel generator and that a car has to charge for three hours and use 12 gallons of diesel fuel to travel 200 miles. The company that owns the charging station pictured in the post says the station is connected to an electrical grid and does not use diesel fuel. Public chargers are generally connected to the local power supply and do not use diesel generators. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Photo shows an electric car charging station that uses '12 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, and it takes three hours to fully charge a car to get 200 miles. That's 36 gallons for 200 miles. 5.6 mpg. | Contradiction | A widely circulating Facebook post points to public charging stations as a glaring example of why electric cars are not as environmentally friendly as advertised. The July 11 post includes a picture it identifies as an electric car charging station in Round Rock, Texas. The accompanying text claims electric cars are more inefficient because charging stations use diesel fuel generators to produce electricity. 'That 350kWh generator uses 12 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, and it takes three hours to fully charge a car to get 200 miles,' the text reads. 'That's 36 gallons for 200 Miles! 5.6 mpg.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. Instagram is owned by Facebook. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The charging station shown in the post is located at an outlet mall in Round Rock, an Austin suburb. However, the description of how it operates is wrong. Electrify America, which operates the charging station, called the claim that it uses electricity derived from a diesel generator 'absolutely false.' 'Our direct-current fast electric-vehicle charging station in Round Rock, Texas, is powered by Oncor Electric Delivery Company, one of the largest utility companies in the U.S.,' Mike Moran, a spokesperson for the company, said in an email. Oncor distributes electricity across the Texas electric grid but doesn't generate its own power. An Oncor spokesperson said it's hard to pinpoint exactly what kind of energy is used to power the Round Rock station - whether it's derived from coal, nuclear, wind or solar energy. Similar claims linking electric vehicles to diesel generators have circulated before. A July 1 post used much of the same text, but with a different image and without any mention of Texas. It claimed diesel charging stations are 'popping up everywhere.' The picture used in that post is actually of a diesel-powered charging station, but not anything like the public ones that are being installed around the country. This one was created as an experiment in 2018 in Australia to test the viability of using a diesel generator to charge a car in the desert. Jon Edwards, the man who thought of the experiment, told The Driven he wanted to see whether charging with a diesel generator was viable, and how the fuel consumption for the generator compared with driving a similar-size diesel-powered car. The experiment involved using the charger to charge 10 electric cars - most of them Teslas - for one hour each, and measuring how much energy was added to the battery during charging. Edwards used the lifetime averages for each car to convert that energy figure to an estimate of the added distance the car could travel after charging. The experiment found that when charged this way, a BMW i3 was the most fuel-efficient of the electric cars, consuming 4.39 liters of fuel for every 100 kilometers of range added, equivalent to about 54 mpg. One Tesla model consumed around 7 liters of diesel fuel per 100 km of range, equivalent to about 34 mpg. Edwards' experiment found that, in most instances, using the generator to charge a car consumed less fuel than a similarly sized diesel car would to travel the same distance. A diesel-fueled VW Touareg SUV, for example, used 7.2 liters of fuel per 100 km. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims an electric car charging station in Texas runs on a diesel generator and that a car has to charge for three hours and use 12 gallons of diesel fuel to travel 200 miles. The company that owns the charging station pictured in the post says the station is connected to an electrical grid and does not use diesel fuel. Public chargers are generally connected to the local power supply and do not use diesel generators. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Utah OFFICIALLY starts RECALL for Mitt Romney. | Contradiction | After Sen. Mitt Romney voted to impeach former President Donald Trump, those unhappy with the Republican's vote began sharing news of backlash in Romney's home state. 'Utah OFFICIALLY starts RECALL for Mitt Romney.. 124k signatures in 1 hour!!' a Feb. 17 Facebook 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.) It's wrong. While there is a petition circulating to collect enough signatures to put an initiative on an upcoming ballot that would give voters the ability to recall their senators, the state of Utah has not started a recall of Romney, as this post claims. Another hurdle is that there isn't a formal way to recall U.S. senators. The U.S. Constitution 'does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as senators, representatives, or the president or vice president,' according to the Congressional Research Service. 'No member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States.' Though this hasn't been tested at the Supreme Court, other judicial decisions support that the right to remove a senator lies in Congress, which can impeach and expel its members, according to the Congressional Research Service. Since 1789, the Senate has expelled 15 members. In 1797, for example, Sen. William Blount of Tennessee was impeached by the House on charges of conspiring to help Great Britain seize Spanish-controlled territories in what is now Florida and Louisiana, but the Senate expelled him before his trial. In 2020, after Romney voted to convicted Trump during his first impeachment trial, a state representative in Utah filed a bill to allow voters to recall their U.S. senators. But state House and Senate leaders worried about the bill's constitutionality, and the House Speaker decided not to consider the legislation for a vote. While a petition is now circulating in Utah that seeks to collect enough signatures to put a similar initiative on an upcoming ballot, this Facebook post gets it wrong: the state has not - and does not have the ability to - recall its junior senator. We rate it False. | We rate it False. | []
|
'Utah OFFICIALLY starts RECALL for Mitt Romney. | Contradiction | After Sen. Mitt Romney voted to impeach former President Donald Trump, those unhappy with the Republican's vote began sharing news of backlash in Romney's home state. 'Utah OFFICIALLY starts RECALL for Mitt Romney.. 124k signatures in 1 hour!!' a Feb. 17 Facebook 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.) It's wrong. While there is a petition circulating to collect enough signatures to put an initiative on an upcoming ballot that would give voters the ability to recall their senators, the state of Utah has not started a recall of Romney, as this post claims. Another hurdle is that there isn't a formal way to recall U.S. senators. The U.S. Constitution 'does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as senators, representatives, or the president or vice president,' according to the Congressional Research Service. 'No member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States.' Though this hasn't been tested at the Supreme Court, other judicial decisions support that the right to remove a senator lies in Congress, which can impeach and expel its members, according to the Congressional Research Service. Since 1789, the Senate has expelled 15 members. In 1797, for example, Sen. William Blount of Tennessee was impeached by the House on charges of conspiring to help Great Britain seize Spanish-controlled territories in what is now Florida and Louisiana, but the Senate expelled him before his trial. In 2020, after Romney voted to convicted Trump during his first impeachment trial, a state representative in Utah filed a bill to allow voters to recall their U.S. senators. But state House and Senate leaders worried about the bill's constitutionality, and the House Speaker decided not to consider the legislation for a vote. While a petition is now circulating in Utah that seeks to collect enough signatures to put a similar initiative on an upcoming ballot, this Facebook post gets it wrong: the state has not - and does not have the ability to - recall its junior senator. We rate it False. | We rate it False. | []
|
Says City Blue Imaging Services in Rochester, N.Y. 'printed ballots there. If you search them you'll see they're the ones who had ballots misprint errors for the ballots sent to NYC. | Contradiction | A Facebook post falsely claims that a business building in Rochester, N.Y., that burned to the ground was known for printing ballots. 'You know what else happened yesterday??? City Blue Imaging Services in Rochester NY burned to the ground. They printed ballots there. If you search them you'll see they're the ones who had ballots misprint errors for the ballots sent to NYC,' said a Dec. 27 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.) We saw a similar claim through our partnership with TikTok. A building housing City Blue Imaging Services was destroyed in a Christmas Eve fire, according to a Dec. 25 report from WHAM, a TV channel in Rochester. But City Blue Imaging Services isn't in the business of printing ballots. The services advertised on its website include the printing of banners, signs and posters. We found no mention of election ballot printing as one of the services offered. 'NO, we do not do ballot printing. We don't have the equipment and it's not a specialty we would be involved with. We are mainly doing blue printing and marketing,' City Blue Imaging tweeted Dec. 27 in response to a tweet from someone asking it to 'set the record straight.' In a follow-up tweet, the company also said it does not do work for Phoenix Graphics - that's a separate company, also based in Rochester, which New York City election officials picked to print and mail absentee ballots to Brooklyn and Queens voters for the 2020 election. Nearly 100,000 voters, mostly in Brooklyn, received defective absentee ballots, and the New York City Board of Elections blamed Phoenix Graphics for that problem, the New York Times reported. In one of its tweets addressed to 'misinformed people' on Twitter and Instagram, City Blue Imaging Services also said it 'was never owned by the owner of' Phoenix Graphics. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that City Blue Imaging 'printed ballots there. If you search them you'll see they're the ones who had ballots misprint errors for the ballots sent to NYC.' That's not true. City Blue Imaging Services says it does not do ballot printing. Another company, Phoenix Graphics, is the one that was contracted by New York City election officials to print and distribute ballots; thousands of those ballots were defective. We rate the post False. | []
|
Says City Blue Imaging Services in Rochester, N.Y. 'printed ballots there. If you search them you'll see they're the ones who had ballots misprint errors for the ballots sent to NYC. | Contradiction | A Facebook post falsely claims that a business building in Rochester, N.Y., that burned to the ground was known for printing ballots. 'You know what else happened yesterday??? City Blue Imaging Services in Rochester NY burned to the ground. They printed ballots there. If you search them you'll see they're the ones who had ballots misprint errors for the ballots sent to NYC,' said a Dec. 27 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.) We saw a similar claim through our partnership with TikTok. A building housing City Blue Imaging Services was destroyed in a Christmas Eve fire, according to a Dec. 25 report from WHAM, a TV channel in Rochester. But City Blue Imaging Services isn't in the business of printing ballots. The services advertised on its website include the printing of banners, signs and posters. We found no mention of election ballot printing as one of the services offered. 'NO, we do not do ballot printing. We don't have the equipment and it's not a specialty we would be involved with. We are mainly doing blue printing and marketing,' City Blue Imaging tweeted Dec. 27 in response to a tweet from someone asking it to 'set the record straight.' In a follow-up tweet, the company also said it does not do work for Phoenix Graphics - that's a separate company, also based in Rochester, which New York City election officials picked to print and mail absentee ballots to Brooklyn and Queens voters for the 2020 election. Nearly 100,000 voters, mostly in Brooklyn, received defective absentee ballots, and the New York City Board of Elections blamed Phoenix Graphics for that problem, the New York Times reported. In one of its tweets addressed to 'misinformed people' on Twitter and Instagram, City Blue Imaging Services also said it 'was never owned by the owner of' Phoenix Graphics. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that City Blue Imaging 'printed ballots there. If you search them you'll see they're the ones who had ballots misprint errors for the ballots sent to NYC.' That's not true. City Blue Imaging Services says it does not do ballot printing. Another company, Phoenix Graphics, is the one that was contracted by New York City election officials to print and distribute ballots; thousands of those ballots were defective. We rate the post False. | []
|
Says left-wing activist John Sullivan 'incited (the) insurgence of (the) US Capitol. | Contradiction | UPDATE, Jan. 15, 2021: Following the publication of this fact-check, John Sullivan was arrested Jan. 14 in Utah, the U.S. Justice Department announced. He was charged in a criminal complaint with one felony count of interfering with law enforcement in connection with a civil disorder, as well as misdemeanor charges of unlawful entry and disorderly conduct. An affidavit from an FBI agent that was filed in support of the criminal complaint and arrest warrant noted that despite Sullivan's claims that he was present as a journalist, he has no press credentials and is not affiliated with any journalistic organization. The affidavit does not say Sullivan led the mob. Social media users and allies of President Donald Trump have continued pushing the baseless claim that it was antifa activists, not Trump supporters, who mobbed the U.S. Capitol. There's no evidence that the crowd was infiltrated or led by antifa activists in disguise, and specific individuals held up online as antifa activists have turned out to be Trump supporters. One man accused of being an 'antifa thug,' for example, is actually a supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theory. Another man labeled as an antifa activist is really a known neo-Nazi. But claims faulting antifa for the violence at the Capitol keep coming. The latest target is Utah's John Sullivan, the founder of Insurgence USA, an activist group against police brutality. 'Anti-Trump founder of radical left-wing group 'Insurgence USA' John Sullivan incited insurgence of U.S. Capitol,' said the text over one image shared widely on Facebook. The post originated on Parler, a social media platform targeted to conservatives. 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.) Other posts sought to link him to antifa. Sullivan has not been shy about his presence at the Capitol riot. He filmed the events as they happened, and he was nearby when Capitol police fatally shot a woman inside the building. He described the shooting during an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper that night. Sullivan confirmed to PolitiFact that he entered the building with the rioters, and that he is in the photographs shown as part of the Facebook post. But there's no proof that he 'incited (the) insurgence,' and he has denied any affiliation with antifa, a broad coalition of anti-fascist activists. In a Jan. 8 press briefing, FBI Assistant Director Steven D'Antuono said the agency has 'no indication' that antifa played a role. Why was Sullivan there? In interviews with PolitiFact and other national and local news outlets, Sullivan said he went to the riot to document what happened, not to participate. On his two Twitter accounts, Sullivan shared videos he captured as the crowd stormed into the Capitol, including a nearly 40-minute YouTube video that graphically documents Ashli Babbitt's fatal shooting by police. 'I was not leading that in any shape, form or fashion,' Sullivan said of the mob that bashed through windows and doors and stormed the Capitol. 'I didn't organize it. I had no part in planning it. I was only there to experience and witness what went down.' Jade Sacker, a documentary filmmaker working on a project about Sullivan and his brother, was there alongside Sullivan for much of the riot. As she filmed Sullivan and the mob around him, he was in her sight '40 to 50% of the time,' Sacker told PolitiFact. 'I wouldn't say that he was directing the charge or anything. He was certainly actively there and interested in what was going on,' Sacker said. 'He was recording the whole time.' PolitiFact reviewed Sullivan's video of the mob into the Capitol and Babbitt's shooting. It doesn't show Sullivan clearly engaged in the violence or leading the run up to the Capitol, although it does show him animated as he spoke with police and rioters from the frontlines. At points in the video, Sullivan can be heard telling others he was only filming and discouraging violence. At other points, he appeared to encourage what was happening. As rioters scaled a wall outside, for example, he cheered them on. 'We did this s---, together,' he said after the barricades came down. 'This is f------ history. We're all a part of this f------ history.' 'Let's burn this s--- down,' Sullivan can be heard saying on the video before heading inside. It was not clear if the comment was directed to or heard by any specific person or people. He told Deseret News he was trying to blend in. In other videos online, he can be seen filming. 'He was vocal, but I wouldn't say he was inciting violence,' Sacker said. Sullivan spoke with police and FBI agents Jan. 7 about the shooting he witnessed, he said. 'You could say if I were going to be arrested, they would've done so,' he said. Investigations by law enforcement agencies are ongoing, with several arrests made among the thousands of Trump supporters who took part in the chaotic scene. But there's no evidence that Sullivan 'incited (the) insurgence' on his own, as the Facebook post suggests. Sullivan denies antifa affiliation Social media users have linked Sullivan to antifa and Black Lives Matter because of his past protest history and social media activity. His Twitter accounts have frequently used #antifa, #blm, and other anti-Trump or anti-police hashtags, PolitiFact found. The cover photo for one of his accounts advertised a Jan. 6 Insurgence USA event to 'Kick These Fascists Out of DC.' Sullivan has also been filmed using incendiary language in the past. At a small August rally in Washington, D.C., he described the need to 'rip' Trump out of office, according to Fox News. Photos highlighted on his personal website show him holding a firearm. But Sullivan said he's not a part of the antifa coalition often blamed for violent events, noting that Trump supporters at the riot were shouting 'f--- antifa.' Sacker said she has followed Sullivan for four months and accompanied him to many protests, including some affiliated with Black Lives Matter. He is not pro-Trump, she said, but he cares about 'dismantling the system.' She said she had not personally seen him be violent. Sullivan faces criminal charges related to a June 29 protest in Provo, Utah, according to public records. Deseret News reported that he helped organize the event and was seen on recordings kicking and threatening drivers while directing protesters to block intersections. PolitiFact found no other criminal history. Those claiming antifa infiltrated or led the mob at the Capitol have provided no proof. The evidence of Trump supporters participating, however, is indisputable. The march to the Capitol was weeks in the making, with plans indicating the potential for violence drawn up in the open on social media forums and pro-Trump websites. Video and photographs from the scene show Trump-branded paraphernalia and flags. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed Sullivan 'incited (the) insurgence of (the) US Capitol.' Sullivan joined the mob of Trump supporters that entered the Capitol, filming the events as they transpired and posting his videos online. But he was one person among thousands. There's no evidence that he 'incited' the violence himself or led the charge into the Capitol. Sullivan denied any affiliation with antifa, although he has posted related hashtags on Twitter. We rate this statement Mostly False. PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report. UPDATE, Jan. 11, 2021: This fact-check was updated to include more detail from Sullivan's video at the Capitol. Our ruling remains the same. | [
"104658-proof-25-0895bec2ce15ea8f2c3acadee555b18d.jpg"
]
|
Says left-wing activist John Sullivan 'incited (the) insurgence of (the) US Capitol. | Contradiction | UPDATE, Jan. 15, 2021: Following the publication of this fact-check, John Sullivan was arrested Jan. 14 in Utah, the U.S. Justice Department announced. He was charged in a criminal complaint with one felony count of interfering with law enforcement in connection with a civil disorder, as well as misdemeanor charges of unlawful entry and disorderly conduct. An affidavit from an FBI agent that was filed in support of the criminal complaint and arrest warrant noted that despite Sullivan's claims that he was present as a journalist, he has no press credentials and is not affiliated with any journalistic organization. The affidavit does not say Sullivan led the mob. Social media users and allies of President Donald Trump have continued pushing the baseless claim that it was antifa activists, not Trump supporters, who mobbed the U.S. Capitol. There's no evidence that the crowd was infiltrated or led by antifa activists in disguise, and specific individuals held up online as antifa activists have turned out to be Trump supporters. One man accused of being an 'antifa thug,' for example, is actually a supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theory. Another man labeled as an antifa activist is really a known neo-Nazi. But claims faulting antifa for the violence at the Capitol keep coming. The latest target is Utah's John Sullivan, the founder of Insurgence USA, an activist group against police brutality. 'Anti-Trump founder of radical left-wing group 'Insurgence USA' John Sullivan incited insurgence of U.S. Capitol,' said the text over one image shared widely on Facebook. The post originated on Parler, a social media platform targeted to conservatives. 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.) Other posts sought to link him to antifa. Sullivan has not been shy about his presence at the Capitol riot. He filmed the events as they happened, and he was nearby when Capitol police fatally shot a woman inside the building. He described the shooting during an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper that night. Sullivan confirmed to PolitiFact that he entered the building with the rioters, and that he is in the photographs shown as part of the Facebook post. But there's no proof that he 'incited (the) insurgence,' and he has denied any affiliation with antifa, a broad coalition of anti-fascist activists. In a Jan. 8 press briefing, FBI Assistant Director Steven D'Antuono said the agency has 'no indication' that antifa played a role. Why was Sullivan there? In interviews with PolitiFact and other national and local news outlets, Sullivan said he went to the riot to document what happened, not to participate. On his two Twitter accounts, Sullivan shared videos he captured as the crowd stormed into the Capitol, including a nearly 40-minute YouTube video that graphically documents Ashli Babbitt's fatal shooting by police. 'I was not leading that in any shape, form or fashion,' Sullivan said of the mob that bashed through windows and doors and stormed the Capitol. 'I didn't organize it. I had no part in planning it. I was only there to experience and witness what went down.' Jade Sacker, a documentary filmmaker working on a project about Sullivan and his brother, was there alongside Sullivan for much of the riot. As she filmed Sullivan and the mob around him, he was in her sight '40 to 50% of the time,' Sacker told PolitiFact. 'I wouldn't say that he was directing the charge or anything. He was certainly actively there and interested in what was going on,' Sacker said. 'He was recording the whole time.' PolitiFact reviewed Sullivan's video of the mob into the Capitol and Babbitt's shooting. It doesn't show Sullivan clearly engaged in the violence or leading the run up to the Capitol, although it does show him animated as he spoke with police and rioters from the frontlines. At points in the video, Sullivan can be heard telling others he was only filming and discouraging violence. At other points, he appeared to encourage what was happening. As rioters scaled a wall outside, for example, he cheered them on. 'We did this s---, together,' he said after the barricades came down. 'This is f------ history. We're all a part of this f------ history.' 'Let's burn this s--- down,' Sullivan can be heard saying on the video before heading inside. It was not clear if the comment was directed to or heard by any specific person or people. He told Deseret News he was trying to blend in. In other videos online, he can be seen filming. 'He was vocal, but I wouldn't say he was inciting violence,' Sacker said. Sullivan spoke with police and FBI agents Jan. 7 about the shooting he witnessed, he said. 'You could say if I were going to be arrested, they would've done so,' he said. Investigations by law enforcement agencies are ongoing, with several arrests made among the thousands of Trump supporters who took part in the chaotic scene. But there's no evidence that Sullivan 'incited (the) insurgence' on his own, as the Facebook post suggests. Sullivan denies antifa affiliation Social media users have linked Sullivan to antifa and Black Lives Matter because of his past protest history and social media activity. His Twitter accounts have frequently used #antifa, #blm, and other anti-Trump or anti-police hashtags, PolitiFact found. The cover photo for one of his accounts advertised a Jan. 6 Insurgence USA event to 'Kick These Fascists Out of DC.' Sullivan has also been filmed using incendiary language in the past. At a small August rally in Washington, D.C., he described the need to 'rip' Trump out of office, according to Fox News. Photos highlighted on his personal website show him holding a firearm. But Sullivan said he's not a part of the antifa coalition often blamed for violent events, noting that Trump supporters at the riot were shouting 'f--- antifa.' Sacker said she has followed Sullivan for four months and accompanied him to many protests, including some affiliated with Black Lives Matter. He is not pro-Trump, she said, but he cares about 'dismantling the system.' She said she had not personally seen him be violent. Sullivan faces criminal charges related to a June 29 protest in Provo, Utah, according to public records. Deseret News reported that he helped organize the event and was seen on recordings kicking and threatening drivers while directing protesters to block intersections. PolitiFact found no other criminal history. Those claiming antifa infiltrated or led the mob at the Capitol have provided no proof. The evidence of Trump supporters participating, however, is indisputable. The march to the Capitol was weeks in the making, with plans indicating the potential for violence drawn up in the open on social media forums and pro-Trump websites. Video and photographs from the scene show Trump-branded paraphernalia and flags. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed Sullivan 'incited (the) insurgence of (the) US Capitol.' Sullivan joined the mob of Trump supporters that entered the Capitol, filming the events as they transpired and posting his videos online. But he was one person among thousands. There's no evidence that he 'incited' the violence himself or led the charge into the Capitol. Sullivan denied any affiliation with antifa, although he has posted related hashtags on Twitter. We rate this statement Mostly False. PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report. UPDATE, Jan. 11, 2021: This fact-check was updated to include more detail from Sullivan's video at the Capitol. Our ruling remains the same. | [
"104658-proof-25-0895bec2ce15ea8f2c3acadee555b18d.jpg"
]
|
Says left-wing activist John Sullivan 'incited (the) insurgence of (the) US Capitol. | Contradiction | UPDATE, Jan. 15, 2021: Following the publication of this fact-check, John Sullivan was arrested Jan. 14 in Utah, the U.S. Justice Department announced. He was charged in a criminal complaint with one felony count of interfering with law enforcement in connection with a civil disorder, as well as misdemeanor charges of unlawful entry and disorderly conduct. An affidavit from an FBI agent that was filed in support of the criminal complaint and arrest warrant noted that despite Sullivan's claims that he was present as a journalist, he has no press credentials and is not affiliated with any journalistic organization. The affidavit does not say Sullivan led the mob. Social media users and allies of President Donald Trump have continued pushing the baseless claim that it was antifa activists, not Trump supporters, who mobbed the U.S. Capitol. There's no evidence that the crowd was infiltrated or led by antifa activists in disguise, and specific individuals held up online as antifa activists have turned out to be Trump supporters. One man accused of being an 'antifa thug,' for example, is actually a supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theory. Another man labeled as an antifa activist is really a known neo-Nazi. But claims faulting antifa for the violence at the Capitol keep coming. The latest target is Utah's John Sullivan, the founder of Insurgence USA, an activist group against police brutality. 'Anti-Trump founder of radical left-wing group 'Insurgence USA' John Sullivan incited insurgence of U.S. Capitol,' said the text over one image shared widely on Facebook. The post originated on Parler, a social media platform targeted to conservatives. 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.) Other posts sought to link him to antifa. Sullivan has not been shy about his presence at the Capitol riot. He filmed the events as they happened, and he was nearby when Capitol police fatally shot a woman inside the building. He described the shooting during an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper that night. Sullivan confirmed to PolitiFact that he entered the building with the rioters, and that he is in the photographs shown as part of the Facebook post. But there's no proof that he 'incited (the) insurgence,' and he has denied any affiliation with antifa, a broad coalition of anti-fascist activists. In a Jan. 8 press briefing, FBI Assistant Director Steven D'Antuono said the agency has 'no indication' that antifa played a role. Why was Sullivan there? In interviews with PolitiFact and other national and local news outlets, Sullivan said he went to the riot to document what happened, not to participate. On his two Twitter accounts, Sullivan shared videos he captured as the crowd stormed into the Capitol, including a nearly 40-minute YouTube video that graphically documents Ashli Babbitt's fatal shooting by police. 'I was not leading that in any shape, form or fashion,' Sullivan said of the mob that bashed through windows and doors and stormed the Capitol. 'I didn't organize it. I had no part in planning it. I was only there to experience and witness what went down.' Jade Sacker, a documentary filmmaker working on a project about Sullivan and his brother, was there alongside Sullivan for much of the riot. As she filmed Sullivan and the mob around him, he was in her sight '40 to 50% of the time,' Sacker told PolitiFact. 'I wouldn't say that he was directing the charge or anything. He was certainly actively there and interested in what was going on,' Sacker said. 'He was recording the whole time.' PolitiFact reviewed Sullivan's video of the mob into the Capitol and Babbitt's shooting. It doesn't show Sullivan clearly engaged in the violence or leading the run up to the Capitol, although it does show him animated as he spoke with police and rioters from the frontlines. At points in the video, Sullivan can be heard telling others he was only filming and discouraging violence. At other points, he appeared to encourage what was happening. As rioters scaled a wall outside, for example, he cheered them on. 'We did this s---, together,' he said after the barricades came down. 'This is f------ history. We're all a part of this f------ history.' 'Let's burn this s--- down,' Sullivan can be heard saying on the video before heading inside. It was not clear if the comment was directed to or heard by any specific person or people. He told Deseret News he was trying to blend in. In other videos online, he can be seen filming. 'He was vocal, but I wouldn't say he was inciting violence,' Sacker said. Sullivan spoke with police and FBI agents Jan. 7 about the shooting he witnessed, he said. 'You could say if I were going to be arrested, they would've done so,' he said. Investigations by law enforcement agencies are ongoing, with several arrests made among the thousands of Trump supporters who took part in the chaotic scene. But there's no evidence that Sullivan 'incited (the) insurgence' on his own, as the Facebook post suggests. Sullivan denies antifa affiliation Social media users have linked Sullivan to antifa and Black Lives Matter because of his past protest history and social media activity. His Twitter accounts have frequently used #antifa, #blm, and other anti-Trump or anti-police hashtags, PolitiFact found. The cover photo for one of his accounts advertised a Jan. 6 Insurgence USA event to 'Kick These Fascists Out of DC.' Sullivan has also been filmed using incendiary language in the past. At a small August rally in Washington, D.C., he described the need to 'rip' Trump out of office, according to Fox News. Photos highlighted on his personal website show him holding a firearm. But Sullivan said he's not a part of the antifa coalition often blamed for violent events, noting that Trump supporters at the riot were shouting 'f--- antifa.' Sacker said she has followed Sullivan for four months and accompanied him to many protests, including some affiliated with Black Lives Matter. He is not pro-Trump, she said, but he cares about 'dismantling the system.' She said she had not personally seen him be violent. Sullivan faces criminal charges related to a June 29 protest in Provo, Utah, according to public records. Deseret News reported that he helped organize the event and was seen on recordings kicking and threatening drivers while directing protesters to block intersections. PolitiFact found no other criminal history. Those claiming antifa infiltrated or led the mob at the Capitol have provided no proof. The evidence of Trump supporters participating, however, is indisputable. The march to the Capitol was weeks in the making, with plans indicating the potential for violence drawn up in the open on social media forums and pro-Trump websites. Video and photographs from the scene show Trump-branded paraphernalia and flags. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed Sullivan 'incited (the) insurgence of (the) US Capitol.' Sullivan joined the mob of Trump supporters that entered the Capitol, filming the events as they transpired and posting his videos online. But he was one person among thousands. There's no evidence that he 'incited' the violence himself or led the charge into the Capitol. Sullivan denied any affiliation with antifa, although he has posted related hashtags on Twitter. We rate this statement Mostly False. PolitiFact researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report. UPDATE, Jan. 11, 2021: This fact-check was updated to include more detail from Sullivan's video at the Capitol. Our ruling remains the same. | [
"104658-proof-25-0895bec2ce15ea8f2c3acadee555b18d.jpg"
]
|
'The U.S. Department of State ... released a statement on their website stating that Donald J. Trump's term ended' on Jan. 11, 2021. | Contradiction | Social media was set abuzz Jan. 11 when a U.S. State Department website was updated to read that President Donald Trump's term had ended that day. 'BREAKING NEWS: The U.S. Department of State just released a statement on their website stating that Donald J. Trump's term ended today (at 7:39PM ET),' reads one Facebook post. It includes a screengrab of a State Department webpage that reads 'Donald J. Trump's term ended on 2021-01-11 19:39:00.' The image is legitimate, but the claim in the post is misleading. 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.) Here's what happened: Nine days before President-elect Joe Biden takes office, Trump's biography page on the official State Department website was edited to read what we see in the post, that 'Donald J. Trump's term ended on 2021-01-11.' Mike Pence's biography was also updated to say, 'Michael R. Pence's term ended on 2021-01-11.' But these changes did not amount to an official 'statement' from the State Department, as the claim suggests. Citing two unnamed diplomats, Buzzfeed News reported Jan. 11 that the website edits were the work of a 'disgruntled employee.' CNN confirmed Buzzfeed's report. Both web pages were taken down around 3:50 p.m. Jan. 11 and replaced with error messages. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ordered an internal investigation, according to Buzzfeed. The website changes appeared as Democrats were beginning the impeachment process against Trump on grounds that he incited a mob of his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol. The State Department did not return requests for comment. The claim that the State Department released a statement that Trump's term ended Jan. 11 contains an element of truth in that the agency's website was edited to falsely suggest it had. But the change was not an official statement by the State Department. Rather, reporting indicates this was the action of a rogue employee; Trump is still president. We rate it Mostly False. β | We rate it Mostly False. β | []
|
'The U.S. Department of State ... released a statement on their website stating that Donald J. Trump's term ended' on Jan. 11, 2021. | Contradiction | Social media was set abuzz Jan. 11 when a U.S. State Department website was updated to read that President Donald Trump's term had ended that day. 'BREAKING NEWS: The U.S. Department of State just released a statement on their website stating that Donald J. Trump's term ended today (at 7:39PM ET),' reads one Facebook post. It includes a screengrab of a State Department webpage that reads 'Donald J. Trump's term ended on 2021-01-11 19:39:00.' The image is legitimate, but the claim in the post is misleading. 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.) Here's what happened: Nine days before President-elect Joe Biden takes office, Trump's biography page on the official State Department website was edited to read what we see in the post, that 'Donald J. Trump's term ended on 2021-01-11.' Mike Pence's biography was also updated to say, 'Michael R. Pence's term ended on 2021-01-11.' But these changes did not amount to an official 'statement' from the State Department, as the claim suggests. Citing two unnamed diplomats, Buzzfeed News reported Jan. 11 that the website edits were the work of a 'disgruntled employee.' CNN confirmed Buzzfeed's report. Both web pages were taken down around 3:50 p.m. Jan. 11 and replaced with error messages. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ordered an internal investigation, according to Buzzfeed. The website changes appeared as Democrats were beginning the impeachment process against Trump on grounds that he incited a mob of his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol. The State Department did not return requests for comment. The claim that the State Department released a statement that Trump's term ended Jan. 11 contains an element of truth in that the agency's website was edited to falsely suggest it had. But the change was not an official statement by the State Department. Rather, reporting indicates this was the action of a rogue employee; Trump is still president. We rate it Mostly False. β | We rate it Mostly False. β | []
|
'The U.S. Department of State ... released a statement on their website stating that Donald J. Trump's term ended' on Jan. 11, 2021. | Contradiction | Social media was set abuzz Jan. 11 when a U.S. State Department website was updated to read that President Donald Trump's term had ended that day. 'BREAKING NEWS: The U.S. Department of State just released a statement on their website stating that Donald J. Trump's term ended today (at 7:39PM ET),' reads one Facebook post. It includes a screengrab of a State Department webpage that reads 'Donald J. Trump's term ended on 2021-01-11 19:39:00.' The image is legitimate, but the claim in the post is misleading. 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.) Here's what happened: Nine days before President-elect Joe Biden takes office, Trump's biography page on the official State Department website was edited to read what we see in the post, that 'Donald J. Trump's term ended on 2021-01-11.' Mike Pence's biography was also updated to say, 'Michael R. Pence's term ended on 2021-01-11.' But these changes did not amount to an official 'statement' from the State Department, as the claim suggests. Citing two unnamed diplomats, Buzzfeed News reported Jan. 11 that the website edits were the work of a 'disgruntled employee.' CNN confirmed Buzzfeed's report. Both web pages were taken down around 3:50 p.m. Jan. 11 and replaced with error messages. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ordered an internal investigation, according to Buzzfeed. The website changes appeared as Democrats were beginning the impeachment process against Trump on grounds that he incited a mob of his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol. The State Department did not return requests for comment. The claim that the State Department released a statement that Trump's term ended Jan. 11 contains an element of truth in that the agency's website was edited to falsely suggest it had. But the change was not an official statement by the State Department. Rather, reporting indicates this was the action of a rogue employee; Trump is still president. We rate it Mostly False. β | We rate it Mostly False. β | []
|
'Manufacturing the battery for one electric car produces the same amount of carbon dioxide as running a petrol car for eight years. | Contradiction | Electric vehicles are touted as an environmentally friendly alternative to gasoline powered cars, but one Facebook post claims that the benefits are overblown, and the vehicles are much more harmful to the planet than people assume. A cartoon posted to Facebook on April 29, shows a car in one panel with 'diesel' written on the side and the driver thinking 'I feel so dirty.' In another panel, a car has 'electric' written on its side with the driver thinking 'I feel so clean.' However, the electric vehicle is shown connected to what appears to be a factory that's blowing dark smoke into the air. Below the cartoon is a caption that claims 'manufacturing the battery for one electric car produces the same amount of CO2 as running a petrol car for eight years.' This isn't a new line of criticism against electric vehicles. Similar Facebook posts have taken aim at the carbon dioxide produced in the manufacturing of electric cars - specifically the batteries - to make the case that zero emissions vehicles aren't necessarily clean. Full electric vehicles require a large lithium-ion battery to store energy and power the motor that propels the car, according to Insider. The lithium-ion battery packs in an electric car are chemically similar to the ones found in cell phones and laptops. Because they require a mix of metals that need to be extracted and refined, lithium-ion batteries take more energy to produce than the common lead-acid batteries used in gasoline cars to help start the engine. How much CO2 is emitted in the production depends on where the lithium-ion battery is made - or specifically, how the electricity powering the factory is generated - according to Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research think tank. Producing a 75 kilowatt-hour battery for a Tesla Model 3, considered on the larger end of batteries for electric vehicles, would result in the emission of 4,500 kilograms of CO2 if it was made at Tesla's battery factory in Nevada. That's the emissions equivalent to driving a gas-powered sedan for 1.4 years, at a yearly average distance of 12,000 miles, Hausfather said. If the battery were made in Asia, manufacturing it would produce 7,500 kg of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of driving a gasoline-powered sedan for 2.4 years - but still nowhere near the eight years claimed in the Facebook post. Hausfather said the larger emission amount in Asia can be attributed to its 'higher carbon electricity mix.' The continent relies more on coal for energy production, while Tesla's Nevada factory uses some solar energy. 'More than half the emissions associated with manufacturing the battery are associated with electricity use,' Hausfather said in an email to PolitiFact. 'So, as the electricity grid decarbonizes, emissions associated with battery production will decline. The same is not true for sedan tailpipe emissions.' The Facebook post does not mention the electricity needs and CO2 impact of factories that build gasoline or diesel cars and their components. Another thing the Facebook post omits is that the CO2 emitted in the production of the battery can be offset over a short time in an electric car by the lack of tailpipe emissions when it's in operation. The Union of Concerned Scientists found in a 2015 report that taking into account electricity sources for charging, an electric vehicle ends up reducing greenhouse gas emissions by about 50% compared with a similar size gas-powered car. A midsize vehicle completely negates the carbon dioxide its production emits by the time it travels 4,900 miles, according to the report. For full size cars, it takes 19,000 miles of driving. The U.S. Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy also looked at the life cycle of electric vehicles - which includes a car's production, use and disposal - and concluded they produce less greenhouse gases and smog than gasoline-powered vehicles. The agency also found drivers could further lower CO2 emissions by charging with power generated by a renewable energy source. | Our ruling A cartoon shared on Facebook claims the carbon dioxide emitted from the production of one electric car battery is the equivalent to driving a gas-powered vehicle for eight years. The production of lithium-ion batteries for electric cars emits a significant amount of carbon dioxide, but nowhere near the level claimed in the cartoon. The emissions from battery production are equivalent to driving a gasoline car for one or two years, depending on where it's produced, and those emissions are effectively offset over time by the lack of tailpipe emissions when the car is on the road. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
'Manufacturing the battery for one electric car produces the same amount of carbon dioxide as running a petrol car for eight years. | Contradiction | Electric vehicles are touted as an environmentally friendly alternative to gasoline powered cars, but one Facebook post claims that the benefits are overblown, and the vehicles are much more harmful to the planet than people assume. A cartoon posted to Facebook on April 29, shows a car in one panel with 'diesel' written on the side and the driver thinking 'I feel so dirty.' In another panel, a car has 'electric' written on its side with the driver thinking 'I feel so clean.' However, the electric vehicle is shown connected to what appears to be a factory that's blowing dark smoke into the air. Below the cartoon is a caption that claims 'manufacturing the battery for one electric car produces the same amount of CO2 as running a petrol car for eight years.' This isn't a new line of criticism against electric vehicles. Similar Facebook posts have taken aim at the carbon dioxide produced in the manufacturing of electric cars - specifically the batteries - to make the case that zero emissions vehicles aren't necessarily clean. Full electric vehicles require a large lithium-ion battery to store energy and power the motor that propels the car, according to Insider. The lithium-ion battery packs in an electric car are chemically similar to the ones found in cell phones and laptops. Because they require a mix of metals that need to be extracted and refined, lithium-ion batteries take more energy to produce than the common lead-acid batteries used in gasoline cars to help start the engine. How much CO2 is emitted in the production depends on where the lithium-ion battery is made - or specifically, how the electricity powering the factory is generated - according to Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research think tank. Producing a 75 kilowatt-hour battery for a Tesla Model 3, considered on the larger end of batteries for electric vehicles, would result in the emission of 4,500 kilograms of CO2 if it was made at Tesla's battery factory in Nevada. That's the emissions equivalent to driving a gas-powered sedan for 1.4 years, at a yearly average distance of 12,000 miles, Hausfather said. If the battery were made in Asia, manufacturing it would produce 7,500 kg of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of driving a gasoline-powered sedan for 2.4 years - but still nowhere near the eight years claimed in the Facebook post. Hausfather said the larger emission amount in Asia can be attributed to its 'higher carbon electricity mix.' The continent relies more on coal for energy production, while Tesla's Nevada factory uses some solar energy. 'More than half the emissions associated with manufacturing the battery are associated with electricity use,' Hausfather said in an email to PolitiFact. 'So, as the electricity grid decarbonizes, emissions associated with battery production will decline. The same is not true for sedan tailpipe emissions.' The Facebook post does not mention the electricity needs and CO2 impact of factories that build gasoline or diesel cars and their components. Another thing the Facebook post omits is that the CO2 emitted in the production of the battery can be offset over a short time in an electric car by the lack of tailpipe emissions when it's in operation. The Union of Concerned Scientists found in a 2015 report that taking into account electricity sources for charging, an electric vehicle ends up reducing greenhouse gas emissions by about 50% compared with a similar size gas-powered car. A midsize vehicle completely negates the carbon dioxide its production emits by the time it travels 4,900 miles, according to the report. For full size cars, it takes 19,000 miles of driving. The U.S. Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy also looked at the life cycle of electric vehicles - which includes a car's production, use and disposal - and concluded they produce less greenhouse gases and smog than gasoline-powered vehicles. The agency also found drivers could further lower CO2 emissions by charging with power generated by a renewable energy source. | Our ruling A cartoon shared on Facebook claims the carbon dioxide emitted from the production of one electric car battery is the equivalent to driving a gas-powered vehicle for eight years. The production of lithium-ion batteries for electric cars emits a significant amount of carbon dioxide, but nowhere near the level claimed in the cartoon. The emissions from battery production are equivalent to driving a gasoline car for one or two years, depending on where it's produced, and those emissions are effectively offset over time by the lack of tailpipe emissions when the car is on the road. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is '99% graphene oxide,' which is 'toxic to the human body and causes a number of problems. | Contradiction | An Instagram post with an incendiary video that speaks of murder claims that Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine is dangerously packed with something called graphene oxide. The post, which uses abbreviations for the word vaccine, states: '99% Graphene Oxide in Pfizer V4X? Spanish scientists obtain vial of Pfizer v4xin3 and find that 98-99%.' Graphene oxide, the post continues, 'is toxic to the human body and causes a number of problems.' 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.) A Pfizer spokesperson told PolitiFact that while graphene oxide - a material made by the oxidation of graphite - is used in some vaccines, it is not used at Pfizer. The video with the post The video with the post contains clips of statements made by Jane Ruby, whose Twitter account identifies her as 'Dr. Jane Ruby.' Ruby, is not a medical doctor, describing herself as a health economist and 'New Right political pundit' with a doctorate in psychology. We rated False her claim that the COVID-19 vaccine from Novavax, which is seeking to become the fourth company with a vaccine approved for emergency use in the U.S., 'dumps millions' of dangerous 'spike proteins right into your body.' As Ruby speaks in the video, a message on the screen claims: 'Graphene oxide: 99.99103% of Pfizer jab.' She claims that over 99% of the Pfizer vaccine is graphene oxide, which she calls a poison, adding: 'There's no other reason for this to be in here except to murder people.' Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine Pfizer spokesperson Jerica Pitts said the company does not use graphene oxide, and no graphene oxide is present in its COVID-19 vaccine. Dr. Rebecca Wurtz, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, said none of the ingredients in the list Pfizer provides to caregivers and patients for its COVID-19 vaccine show graphene oxide. None of the listed ingredients is another name for graphene oxide. Graphene oxide does not appear in a list of ingredients published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines. All three are recommended by public health experts, because they are highly effective at preventing COVID-19 infection and reduce the risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death from the disease. More than 331 million doses of all three vaccines have been given in the United States, according to the CDC. More than 182 million Americans (55% of the population) have received at least one dose so far, with minimal complications reported despite the massive sample size. A study published in May by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that graphene oxide nanoparticles would be effective in a flu vaccine, but that more study was needed to determine safety. Another May study also urged further research. It indicated that the use of graphene oxide would be effective for fighting the coronavirus, either with personal protective equipment or in treatment. | Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is '99% graphene oxide,' which is 'toxic to the human body and causes a number of problems.' Pfizer said it does not use the material, and it is not shown in a federal list of ingredients in the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use in the U.S. We rate the post False. | [
"104713-proof-08-453f8b35b0cade85cdd07df85e46b892.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden and Barack Obama 'directly participated in a plot to have #SealTeam6 MURDERED, then arranged a massive cash deal as part of a cover up. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump retweeted a baseless claim that former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden killed a team of Navy SEALs and covered it up. The allegation has roots in a QAnon-supported conspiracy theory about the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya. The post Trump shared was an Oct. 12 tweet from a now-suspended Twitter account. The tweet shared a link to a story that claims a CIA whistleblower had exposed 'Biden's alleged role' in the deaths of a Navy SEAL team. 'Hiden Biden and Obama may have had Seal Team 6 killed!' wrote the Twitter account, which was created in July. Trump amplified the claim in a retweet of the post Oct. 13. Some took that as confirmation. 'Potus confirms with a retweet the intel that current presidential candidate and former Vice President, Joe Biden, directly participated in a plot to have #SavelTeam6 MURDERED, then arranged a massive cash deal as part of a cover up,' one account wrote on Parler, a website that has likened itself to a conservative version of Twitter. A screenshot of that post then made the rounds on Facebook, where similar claims have been shared thousands of times, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. Several readers messaged PolitiFact asking if the claims were true. (Screenshot from Facebook) Some of 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.) There is no evidence that Obama and Biden conspired to have a team of Navy SEALs killed. Multiple fact-checkers and media outlets have debunked the claim. But where did this conspiracy theory come from - and how do we know it's false? We took a closer look. Claims part of new Benghazi conspiracy Trump's retweet gave airtime to a new conspiracy theory about the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, the death of Osama bin Laden and a 2011 helicopter crash in Afghanistan. Its source is the unsubstantiated claims of a falconer. The article shared in the post that Trump retweeted was published by a conservative political website called DJHJ Media. The site is owned by David James Harris Jr., a Texas entrepreneur and Trump supporter. DJHJ Media's article is based on an interview with Allan Harrow Parrot, whom the website says is a 'CIA whistleblower.' The video was tweeted Oct. 11 by Anna Khait, a former contestant on the reality TV show 'Survivor.' The video shows Parrot speaking virtually with Nick Noe, a conservative personality, and Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, a Navy SEAL who died in a 2012 attack on an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The attacks have been the subject of numerous false claims and conspiracy theories, as well as several congressional investigations. The video was played at the American Priority Conference, an event held at Trump's resort in Miami. In it, Parrot floated a new conspiracy theory related to Benghazi. Here's a quick summary: Parrot claims that the Obama administration made a deal with Iran to stage the death of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, in Pakistan. But Iran double-crossed the United States and swapped bin Laden for a body double, and Iran extorted billions from the Obama administration in exchange for keeping quiet. To cover its tracks about the raid, the administration ordered a Navy SEAL helicopter to be shot down. That's a reference to a real event from 2011, when 15 members of SEAL Team Six died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan. 'Vice President Biden paid with the blood of Seal Team 6,' Parrot said in the video. 'He spent their blood like currency.' What does that conspiracy theory have to do with Benghazi? Later in the video, Noe says Benghazi was attacked to cover up the American origin of the missile used in the helicopter attack. Parrot, who was the subject of a 2010 documentary about international falconry, said he has 'terabytes of documents, video, audio' that prove his theory is correct. We reached out to Parrot and Noe to see the evidence, but we haven't heard back. Since the conspiracy theory took off on social media, the writer of the DJHJ Media article about Parrot has since distanced herself from some of his claims. 'For the record, anyone following my #SEALTeam6 articles, I have no proof that the Whistleblower's claim (sic) are true, but I am suspicious, of course, I am,' she tweeted Oct. 13. No evidence Biden, Obama 'murdered' SEALs The Obama administration did not order the deaths of the 15 SEAL Team Six members who died in 2011. They were killed by insurgents during an assault on a Taliban compound. On Aug. 6, 2011, 38 people - including 30 American troops, 15 of whom were SEAL Team Six operators - died after insurgents downed their helicopter during an operation in the Tangi Valley. The CH-47D Chinook military helicopter, operating with the call sign Extortion 17, crashed during an attempt to reinforce a Joint Special Operations Command unit. It was the deadliest day for American troops during the war in Afghanistan - and it came three months after other SEAL Team Six members carried out the raid that resulted in the death of bin Laden. Ed Darack, author of 'The Final Mission of Extortion 17,' wrote in a 2015 piece for Air & Space magazine that the timeframe gave birth to numerous baseless conspiracy theories about the crash. In his 2017 book about the crash, Darack addressed theories specifically about the Obama administration's alleged involvement. 'The most egregious media reportage transcended the merely ignorant and pushed into maliciousness,' he wrote. 'This small number of theories, often politically motivated or at least tainted, suggested the absurd: that the Obama administration had the SEALs intentionally targeted.' RELATED: 7 ways to avoid misinformation about the election Darack wrote that, based on two military investigations - one conducted by U.S. Central Command and one by the Joint Combat Assessment Team - there is no evidence to back that allegation up. In the former report, known as the Colt Report, Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Colt led a team of investigators that inspected the helicopter wreckage, reviewed documents associated with the crash and interviewed eyewitnesses. He concluded that the helicopter 'was shot down with a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) fired by a Taliban fighter as the helicopter neared its landing zone.' 'The Colt Report correctly identified the sole cause of the downing: a lucky shot,' Darack wrote in 'The Final Mission of Extortion 17.' What about the other two components of Parrot's conspiracy theory: that the Obama administration paid Iran and coordinated the Benghazi attacks? Billions of dollars in Iranian assets were unfrozen following the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, but they weren't a payout. In 2016, the Obama administration sent a $400 million pallet of cash to Iran as part of a resolution to a decades-long financial dispute over the sale of military parts. There's no evidence the money was part of a plan to extort the U.S. The final report of the House Select Committee on Benghazi outlined how a mix of local extremist groups, including Ansar al-Sharia and several al-Qaeda-linked groups, were likely behind the attack that resulted in the death of J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, and three other U.S. citizens. The investigation did not find evidence that the Obama administration somehow coordinated the attack. We reached out to the Biden campaign for a comment on the conspiracy theory that Trump shared, but we haven't heard back. | Our ruling Claims that Obama and Biden 'directly participated in a plot' to murder members of SEAL Team Six are wrong. The conspiracy theory hinges on one man's unproven assertions about the 2012 Benghazi attacks, the death of bin Laden and the 2011 crash of the Extortion 17 helicopter in Afghanistan. There is no evidence to support those assertions. Two military investigations concluded that Extortion 17 crashed after a Taliban fighter shot a grenade at it. The investigations did not uncover a government plot to kill Navy SEALs. The statement is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! Clarification Oct. 20: Anna Khait no longer contributes to the Epoch Times, the publication says. An earlier version of this story was unclear on that point. | [
"104716-proof-01-8e794461ed0cacf60728814ed5c157f6.jpg",
"104716-proof-29-Screen_Shot_2020-10-14_at_18_13_41.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden and Barack Obama 'directly participated in a plot to have #SealTeam6 MURDERED, then arranged a massive cash deal as part of a cover up. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump retweeted a baseless claim that former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden killed a team of Navy SEALs and covered it up. The allegation has roots in a QAnon-supported conspiracy theory about the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya. The post Trump shared was an Oct. 12 tweet from a now-suspended Twitter account. The tweet shared a link to a story that claims a CIA whistleblower had exposed 'Biden's alleged role' in the deaths of a Navy SEAL team. 'Hiden Biden and Obama may have had Seal Team 6 killed!' wrote the Twitter account, which was created in July. Trump amplified the claim in a retweet of the post Oct. 13. Some took that as confirmation. 'Potus confirms with a retweet the intel that current presidential candidate and former Vice President, Joe Biden, directly participated in a plot to have #SavelTeam6 MURDERED, then arranged a massive cash deal as part of a cover up,' one account wrote on Parler, a website that has likened itself to a conservative version of Twitter. A screenshot of that post then made the rounds on Facebook, where similar claims have been shared thousands of times, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. Several readers messaged PolitiFact asking if the claims were true. (Screenshot from Facebook) Some of 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.) There is no evidence that Obama and Biden conspired to have a team of Navy SEALs killed. Multiple fact-checkers and media outlets have debunked the claim. But where did this conspiracy theory come from - and how do we know it's false? We took a closer look. Claims part of new Benghazi conspiracy Trump's retweet gave airtime to a new conspiracy theory about the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, the death of Osama bin Laden and a 2011 helicopter crash in Afghanistan. Its source is the unsubstantiated claims of a falconer. The article shared in the post that Trump retweeted was published by a conservative political website called DJHJ Media. The site is owned by David James Harris Jr., a Texas entrepreneur and Trump supporter. DJHJ Media's article is based on an interview with Allan Harrow Parrot, whom the website says is a 'CIA whistleblower.' The video was tweeted Oct. 11 by Anna Khait, a former contestant on the reality TV show 'Survivor.' The video shows Parrot speaking virtually with Nick Noe, a conservative personality, and Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, a Navy SEAL who died in a 2012 attack on an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The attacks have been the subject of numerous false claims and conspiracy theories, as well as several congressional investigations. The video was played at the American Priority Conference, an event held at Trump's resort in Miami. In it, Parrot floated a new conspiracy theory related to Benghazi. Here's a quick summary: Parrot claims that the Obama administration made a deal with Iran to stage the death of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, in Pakistan. But Iran double-crossed the United States and swapped bin Laden for a body double, and Iran extorted billions from the Obama administration in exchange for keeping quiet. To cover its tracks about the raid, the administration ordered a Navy SEAL helicopter to be shot down. That's a reference to a real event from 2011, when 15 members of SEAL Team Six died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan. 'Vice President Biden paid with the blood of Seal Team 6,' Parrot said in the video. 'He spent their blood like currency.' What does that conspiracy theory have to do with Benghazi? Later in the video, Noe says Benghazi was attacked to cover up the American origin of the missile used in the helicopter attack. Parrot, who was the subject of a 2010 documentary about international falconry, said he has 'terabytes of documents, video, audio' that prove his theory is correct. We reached out to Parrot and Noe to see the evidence, but we haven't heard back. Since the conspiracy theory took off on social media, the writer of the DJHJ Media article about Parrot has since distanced herself from some of his claims. 'For the record, anyone following my #SEALTeam6 articles, I have no proof that the Whistleblower's claim (sic) are true, but I am suspicious, of course, I am,' she tweeted Oct. 13. No evidence Biden, Obama 'murdered' SEALs The Obama administration did not order the deaths of the 15 SEAL Team Six members who died in 2011. They were killed by insurgents during an assault on a Taliban compound. On Aug. 6, 2011, 38 people - including 30 American troops, 15 of whom were SEAL Team Six operators - died after insurgents downed their helicopter during an operation in the Tangi Valley. The CH-47D Chinook military helicopter, operating with the call sign Extortion 17, crashed during an attempt to reinforce a Joint Special Operations Command unit. It was the deadliest day for American troops during the war in Afghanistan - and it came three months after other SEAL Team Six members carried out the raid that resulted in the death of bin Laden. Ed Darack, author of 'The Final Mission of Extortion 17,' wrote in a 2015 piece for Air & Space magazine that the timeframe gave birth to numerous baseless conspiracy theories about the crash. In his 2017 book about the crash, Darack addressed theories specifically about the Obama administration's alleged involvement. 'The most egregious media reportage transcended the merely ignorant and pushed into maliciousness,' he wrote. 'This small number of theories, often politically motivated or at least tainted, suggested the absurd: that the Obama administration had the SEALs intentionally targeted.' RELATED: 7 ways to avoid misinformation about the election Darack wrote that, based on two military investigations - one conducted by U.S. Central Command and one by the Joint Combat Assessment Team - there is no evidence to back that allegation up. In the former report, known as the Colt Report, Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Colt led a team of investigators that inspected the helicopter wreckage, reviewed documents associated with the crash and interviewed eyewitnesses. He concluded that the helicopter 'was shot down with a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) fired by a Taliban fighter as the helicopter neared its landing zone.' 'The Colt Report correctly identified the sole cause of the downing: a lucky shot,' Darack wrote in 'The Final Mission of Extortion 17.' What about the other two components of Parrot's conspiracy theory: that the Obama administration paid Iran and coordinated the Benghazi attacks? Billions of dollars in Iranian assets were unfrozen following the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, but they weren't a payout. In 2016, the Obama administration sent a $400 million pallet of cash to Iran as part of a resolution to a decades-long financial dispute over the sale of military parts. There's no evidence the money was part of a plan to extort the U.S. The final report of the House Select Committee on Benghazi outlined how a mix of local extremist groups, including Ansar al-Sharia and several al-Qaeda-linked groups, were likely behind the attack that resulted in the death of J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, and three other U.S. citizens. The investigation did not find evidence that the Obama administration somehow coordinated the attack. We reached out to the Biden campaign for a comment on the conspiracy theory that Trump shared, but we haven't heard back. | Our ruling Claims that Obama and Biden 'directly participated in a plot' to murder members of SEAL Team Six are wrong. The conspiracy theory hinges on one man's unproven assertions about the 2012 Benghazi attacks, the death of bin Laden and the 2011 crash of the Extortion 17 helicopter in Afghanistan. There is no evidence to support those assertions. Two military investigations concluded that Extortion 17 crashed after a Taliban fighter shot a grenade at it. The investigations did not uncover a government plot to kill Navy SEALs. The statement is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! Clarification Oct. 20: Anna Khait no longer contributes to the Epoch Times, the publication says. An earlier version of this story was unclear on that point. | [
"104716-proof-01-8e794461ed0cacf60728814ed5c157f6.jpg",
"104716-proof-29-Screen_Shot_2020-10-14_at_18_13_41.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden and Barack Obama 'directly participated in a plot to have #SealTeam6 MURDERED, then arranged a massive cash deal as part of a cover up. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump retweeted a baseless claim that former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden killed a team of Navy SEALs and covered it up. The allegation has roots in a QAnon-supported conspiracy theory about the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya. The post Trump shared was an Oct. 12 tweet from a now-suspended Twitter account. The tweet shared a link to a story that claims a CIA whistleblower had exposed 'Biden's alleged role' in the deaths of a Navy SEAL team. 'Hiden Biden and Obama may have had Seal Team 6 killed!' wrote the Twitter account, which was created in July. Trump amplified the claim in a retweet of the post Oct. 13. Some took that as confirmation. 'Potus confirms with a retweet the intel that current presidential candidate and former Vice President, Joe Biden, directly participated in a plot to have #SavelTeam6 MURDERED, then arranged a massive cash deal as part of a cover up,' one account wrote on Parler, a website that has likened itself to a conservative version of Twitter. A screenshot of that post then made the rounds on Facebook, where similar claims have been shared thousands of times, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. Several readers messaged PolitiFact asking if the claims were true. (Screenshot from Facebook) Some of 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.) There is no evidence that Obama and Biden conspired to have a team of Navy SEALs killed. Multiple fact-checkers and media outlets have debunked the claim. But where did this conspiracy theory come from - and how do we know it's false? We took a closer look. Claims part of new Benghazi conspiracy Trump's retweet gave airtime to a new conspiracy theory about the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, the death of Osama bin Laden and a 2011 helicopter crash in Afghanistan. Its source is the unsubstantiated claims of a falconer. The article shared in the post that Trump retweeted was published by a conservative political website called DJHJ Media. The site is owned by David James Harris Jr., a Texas entrepreneur and Trump supporter. DJHJ Media's article is based on an interview with Allan Harrow Parrot, whom the website says is a 'CIA whistleblower.' The video was tweeted Oct. 11 by Anna Khait, a former contestant on the reality TV show 'Survivor.' The video shows Parrot speaking virtually with Nick Noe, a conservative personality, and Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, a Navy SEAL who died in a 2012 attack on an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The attacks have been the subject of numerous false claims and conspiracy theories, as well as several congressional investigations. The video was played at the American Priority Conference, an event held at Trump's resort in Miami. In it, Parrot floated a new conspiracy theory related to Benghazi. Here's a quick summary: Parrot claims that the Obama administration made a deal with Iran to stage the death of Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, in Pakistan. But Iran double-crossed the United States and swapped bin Laden for a body double, and Iran extorted billions from the Obama administration in exchange for keeping quiet. To cover its tracks about the raid, the administration ordered a Navy SEAL helicopter to be shot down. That's a reference to a real event from 2011, when 15 members of SEAL Team Six died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan. 'Vice President Biden paid with the blood of Seal Team 6,' Parrot said in the video. 'He spent their blood like currency.' What does that conspiracy theory have to do with Benghazi? Later in the video, Noe says Benghazi was attacked to cover up the American origin of the missile used in the helicopter attack. Parrot, who was the subject of a 2010 documentary about international falconry, said he has 'terabytes of documents, video, audio' that prove his theory is correct. We reached out to Parrot and Noe to see the evidence, but we haven't heard back. Since the conspiracy theory took off on social media, the writer of the DJHJ Media article about Parrot has since distanced herself from some of his claims. 'For the record, anyone following my #SEALTeam6 articles, I have no proof that the Whistleblower's claim (sic) are true, but I am suspicious, of course, I am,' she tweeted Oct. 13. No evidence Biden, Obama 'murdered' SEALs The Obama administration did not order the deaths of the 15 SEAL Team Six members who died in 2011. They were killed by insurgents during an assault on a Taliban compound. On Aug. 6, 2011, 38 people - including 30 American troops, 15 of whom were SEAL Team Six operators - died after insurgents downed their helicopter during an operation in the Tangi Valley. The CH-47D Chinook military helicopter, operating with the call sign Extortion 17, crashed during an attempt to reinforce a Joint Special Operations Command unit. It was the deadliest day for American troops during the war in Afghanistan - and it came three months after other SEAL Team Six members carried out the raid that resulted in the death of bin Laden. Ed Darack, author of 'The Final Mission of Extortion 17,' wrote in a 2015 piece for Air & Space magazine that the timeframe gave birth to numerous baseless conspiracy theories about the crash. In his 2017 book about the crash, Darack addressed theories specifically about the Obama administration's alleged involvement. 'The most egregious media reportage transcended the merely ignorant and pushed into maliciousness,' he wrote. 'This small number of theories, often politically motivated or at least tainted, suggested the absurd: that the Obama administration had the SEALs intentionally targeted.' RELATED: 7 ways to avoid misinformation about the election Darack wrote that, based on two military investigations - one conducted by U.S. Central Command and one by the Joint Combat Assessment Team - there is no evidence to back that allegation up. In the former report, known as the Colt Report, Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Colt led a team of investigators that inspected the helicopter wreckage, reviewed documents associated with the crash and interviewed eyewitnesses. He concluded that the helicopter 'was shot down with a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) fired by a Taliban fighter as the helicopter neared its landing zone.' 'The Colt Report correctly identified the sole cause of the downing: a lucky shot,' Darack wrote in 'The Final Mission of Extortion 17.' What about the other two components of Parrot's conspiracy theory: that the Obama administration paid Iran and coordinated the Benghazi attacks? Billions of dollars in Iranian assets were unfrozen following the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, but they weren't a payout. In 2016, the Obama administration sent a $400 million pallet of cash to Iran as part of a resolution to a decades-long financial dispute over the sale of military parts. There's no evidence the money was part of a plan to extort the U.S. The final report of the House Select Committee on Benghazi outlined how a mix of local extremist groups, including Ansar al-Sharia and several al-Qaeda-linked groups, were likely behind the attack that resulted in the death of J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, and three other U.S. citizens. The investigation did not find evidence that the Obama administration somehow coordinated the attack. We reached out to the Biden campaign for a comment on the conspiracy theory that Trump shared, but we haven't heard back. | Our ruling Claims that Obama and Biden 'directly participated in a plot' to murder members of SEAL Team Six are wrong. The conspiracy theory hinges on one man's unproven assertions about the 2012 Benghazi attacks, the death of bin Laden and the 2011 crash of the Extortion 17 helicopter in Afghanistan. There is no evidence to support those assertions. Two military investigations concluded that Extortion 17 crashed after a Taliban fighter shot a grenade at it. The investigations did not uncover a government plot to kill Navy SEALs. The statement is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire! Clarification Oct. 20: Anna Khait no longer contributes to the Epoch Times, the publication says. An earlier version of this story was unclear on that point. | [
"104716-proof-01-8e794461ed0cacf60728814ed5c157f6.jpg",
"104716-proof-29-Screen_Shot_2020-10-14_at_18_13_41.jpg"
]
|
Sex traffickers are using a zip-tie contraption on the door handles of vehicles 'to trick females into looking down and digging for something in their purse to cut with ... Once they're distracted, boom! They are quickly forced into another vehicle, never to be seen again by their people. | Contradiction | Social media users are warning women to be careful if they discover zip ties looped around the door handles of their cars and the cars parked nearby. 'Sex traffickers are using this contraption to trick females into looking down and digging for something in their purse to cut with after returning to their vehicle and seeing this,' the posts, including one posted to Facebook on Jan. 15, say. 'Once they're distracted, boom! They are quickly forced into another vehicle, never to be seen again by their people.' 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.) Human trafficking is a legitimate threat that affects millions of people. But the method isn't as widespread as the social media posts make it out to be. The posts are similar to another alarmist hoax we debunked related to zip ties and sex trafficking. A screenshot of a viral Facebook post warning women about a zip-tie contraption allegedly used by sex traffickers to distract women. We searched news archives for reports of sex traffickers using zip ties and found no record of the contraption described in the social media posts being used to distract women at their cars. We read about these posts in multiple reports from news outlets in Canada. According to those reports, the image started making the rounds in January, with posters claiming an incident occurred at a mall in the city of Burnaby. A separate post circulating at the same time said sex traffickers were also placing $100 on car doors as a different form of distraction. Burnaby police said on Twitter that they were aware of the posts and that they were 'unable to find any report or investigation that fits this criminal activity.' They said the information in the posts was causing 'unnecessary concern' to city residents. The FBI declined to comment when asked if incidents involving the zip-tie contraption had cropped up in the United States. The Polaris Project, a nonprofit organization that works to combat human trafficking, said they haven't identified the method as a trend. Human trafficking often occurs between people that know each other, rather than complete strangers, and it doesn't always involve a form of physical restraint, the group said. 'By far the most pervasive myth about human trafficking is that it always - or often - involves kidnapping or otherwise physically forcing someone into a situation,' the Polaris Project said. 'In reality, most human traffickers use psychological means such as tricking, defrauding, manipulating or threatening victims.' Shared Hope International, a nonprofit, Christian organization with a similar mission, told us that 'trafficking victims are generally not kidnapped or taken away from their families abruptly.' The bottom line: It's important to stay aware of your surroundings, and should you want to report or seek services related to a case of human trafficking, you can contact the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-888-373-7888 or email [email protected]. But the Facebook posts about zip ties - like similar posts before it - are an example of an unsubstantiated warning. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | [
"104721-proof-17-82151924_10220233191956729_3247604465347330048_n.jpg"
]
|
Sex traffickers are using a zip-tie contraption on the door handles of vehicles 'to trick females into looking down and digging for something in their purse to cut with ... Once they're distracted, boom! They are quickly forced into another vehicle, never to be seen again by their people. | Contradiction | Social media users are warning women to be careful if they discover zip ties looped around the door handles of their cars and the cars parked nearby. 'Sex traffickers are using this contraption to trick females into looking down and digging for something in their purse to cut with after returning to their vehicle and seeing this,' the posts, including one posted to Facebook on Jan. 15, say. 'Once they're distracted, boom! They are quickly forced into another vehicle, never to be seen again by their people.' 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.) Human trafficking is a legitimate threat that affects millions of people. But the method isn't as widespread as the social media posts make it out to be. The posts are similar to another alarmist hoax we debunked related to zip ties and sex trafficking. A screenshot of a viral Facebook post warning women about a zip-tie contraption allegedly used by sex traffickers to distract women. We searched news archives for reports of sex traffickers using zip ties and found no record of the contraption described in the social media posts being used to distract women at their cars. We read about these posts in multiple reports from news outlets in Canada. According to those reports, the image started making the rounds in January, with posters claiming an incident occurred at a mall in the city of Burnaby. A separate post circulating at the same time said sex traffickers were also placing $100 on car doors as a different form of distraction. Burnaby police said on Twitter that they were aware of the posts and that they were 'unable to find any report or investigation that fits this criminal activity.' They said the information in the posts was causing 'unnecessary concern' to city residents. The FBI declined to comment when asked if incidents involving the zip-tie contraption had cropped up in the United States. The Polaris Project, a nonprofit organization that works to combat human trafficking, said they haven't identified the method as a trend. Human trafficking often occurs between people that know each other, rather than complete strangers, and it doesn't always involve a form of physical restraint, the group said. 'By far the most pervasive myth about human trafficking is that it always - or often - involves kidnapping or otherwise physically forcing someone into a situation,' the Polaris Project said. 'In reality, most human traffickers use psychological means such as tricking, defrauding, manipulating or threatening victims.' Shared Hope International, a nonprofit, Christian organization with a similar mission, told us that 'trafficking victims are generally not kidnapped or taken away from their families abruptly.' The bottom line: It's important to stay aware of your surroundings, and should you want to report or seek services related to a case of human trafficking, you can contact the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-888-373-7888 or email [email protected]. But the Facebook posts about zip ties - like similar posts before it - are an example of an unsubstantiated warning. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | [
"104721-proof-17-82151924_10220233191956729_3247604465347330048_n.jpg"
]
|
Sex traffickers are using a zip-tie contraption on the door handles of vehicles 'to trick females into looking down and digging for something in their purse to cut with ... Once they're distracted, boom! They are quickly forced into another vehicle, never to be seen again by their people. | Contradiction | Social media users are warning women to be careful if they discover zip ties looped around the door handles of their cars and the cars parked nearby. 'Sex traffickers are using this contraption to trick females into looking down and digging for something in their purse to cut with after returning to their vehicle and seeing this,' the posts, including one posted to Facebook on Jan. 15, say. 'Once they're distracted, boom! They are quickly forced into another vehicle, never to be seen again by their people.' 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.) Human trafficking is a legitimate threat that affects millions of people. But the method isn't as widespread as the social media posts make it out to be. The posts are similar to another alarmist hoax we debunked related to zip ties and sex trafficking. A screenshot of a viral Facebook post warning women about a zip-tie contraption allegedly used by sex traffickers to distract women. We searched news archives for reports of sex traffickers using zip ties and found no record of the contraption described in the social media posts being used to distract women at their cars. We read about these posts in multiple reports from news outlets in Canada. According to those reports, the image started making the rounds in January, with posters claiming an incident occurred at a mall in the city of Burnaby. A separate post circulating at the same time said sex traffickers were also placing $100 on car doors as a different form of distraction. Burnaby police said on Twitter that they were aware of the posts and that they were 'unable to find any report or investigation that fits this criminal activity.' They said the information in the posts was causing 'unnecessary concern' to city residents. The FBI declined to comment when asked if incidents involving the zip-tie contraption had cropped up in the United States. The Polaris Project, a nonprofit organization that works to combat human trafficking, said they haven't identified the method as a trend. Human trafficking often occurs between people that know each other, rather than complete strangers, and it doesn't always involve a form of physical restraint, the group said. 'By far the most pervasive myth about human trafficking is that it always - or often - involves kidnapping or otherwise physically forcing someone into a situation,' the Polaris Project said. 'In reality, most human traffickers use psychological means such as tricking, defrauding, manipulating or threatening victims.' Shared Hope International, a nonprofit, Christian organization with a similar mission, told us that 'trafficking victims are generally not kidnapped or taken away from their families abruptly.' The bottom line: It's important to stay aware of your surroundings, and should you want to report or seek services related to a case of human trafficking, you can contact the National Human Trafficking Hotline at 1-888-373-7888 or email [email protected]. But the Facebook posts about zip ties - like similar posts before it - are an example of an unsubstantiated warning. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | [
"104721-proof-17-82151924_10220233191956729_3247604465347330048_n.jpg"
]
|
'The Unvaccinated Beware, COVID-19 mRNA Shots Cause Death and Disease Through GMO Shedding' | Contradiction | As COVID-19 vaccine distribution continues, so does the spread of online misinformation about purportedly serious side effects - not just for the people who are vaccinated, but also for the people who come near them. 'The Unvaccinated Beware, COVID-19 mRNA Shots Cause Death and Disease Through GMO Shedding,' reads the title of a nearly 15-minute video posted on Facebook. The video is a screen recording of someone navigating between several articles while providing a voiceover. The video's narrator reads through several anecdotal accounts of women experiencing out-of-the-ordinary menstrual cycles and pregnancy complications - including one death - after being around people who were vaccinated. 'There have been some fatalities from contact with the vaccinated,' the narrator says. 'This does not mean hugging or kissing, necessarily. It means being in the same room, in the same elevator. It's a dangerous time.' These health problems and deaths were attributed to 'shedding of the mRNA,' according to the video narrator. 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.) This is not true. Being close to someone who has been vaccinated against COVID-19 cannot impact those who are unvaccinated. There is no evidence that anyone has died because they were near someone who was vaccinated. Other fact-checking organizations have also debunked the claims in the video. And PolitiFact has debunked similar claims before. Recently, PolitiFact checked a claim about the vaccines affecting the fertility and menstrual cycles of unvaccinated individuals who were near vaccinated people and rated it False. Experts say that there are no parts of the vaccines that can be passed on to unvaccinated people. Dr. Kelly Moore, deputy director of the Immunization Action Coalition, said it is not possible that those who have received the COVID-19 vaccines are 'shedding' materials that could cause unvaccinated individuals to experience side effects such as disease or death. Dr. Jen Gunter, an OB-GYN who writes a New York Times column, wrote in a blog post: 'An mRNA vaccine simply cannot affect other people. We don't shed mRNA or spike proteins.' Similarly, experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told Reuters: 'There is no way for a COVID-19 vaccinated person to 'shed vaccine.'' Andrew Pollard, a professor of pediatric infection and immunity at the University of Oxford and a member of the Oxford Vaccine Group, told Full Fact that he couldn't think of 'any biologically plausible mechanism for shedding' any elements of the Pfizer-BioNTech Moderna vaccines after they've been administered. In addition, there is no evidence the COVID-19 vaccines have been linked to infertility or to pregnancy complications. Those who are pregnant, trying to conceive or would like to get pregnant someday can get vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the CDC. | Our ruling A Facebook video claims that people who aren't vaccinated against COVID-19 should 'beware' because being around people who have received the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could cause 'death and disease.' There is no evidence anyone has died after being close to someone who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Experts say there is no way for people to shed mRNA or spike proteins after they've been vaccinated. The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cannot affect people who are not vaccinated. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'The Unvaccinated Beware, COVID-19 mRNA Shots Cause Death and Disease Through GMO Shedding' | Contradiction | As COVID-19 vaccine distribution continues, so does the spread of online misinformation about purportedly serious side effects - not just for the people who are vaccinated, but also for the people who come near them. 'The Unvaccinated Beware, COVID-19 mRNA Shots Cause Death and Disease Through GMO Shedding,' reads the title of a nearly 15-minute video posted on Facebook. The video is a screen recording of someone navigating between several articles while providing a voiceover. The video's narrator reads through several anecdotal accounts of women experiencing out-of-the-ordinary menstrual cycles and pregnancy complications - including one death - after being around people who were vaccinated. 'There have been some fatalities from contact with the vaccinated,' the narrator says. 'This does not mean hugging or kissing, necessarily. It means being in the same room, in the same elevator. It's a dangerous time.' These health problems and deaths were attributed to 'shedding of the mRNA,' according to the video narrator. 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.) This is not true. Being close to someone who has been vaccinated against COVID-19 cannot impact those who are unvaccinated. There is no evidence that anyone has died because they were near someone who was vaccinated. Other fact-checking organizations have also debunked the claims in the video. And PolitiFact has debunked similar claims before. Recently, PolitiFact checked a claim about the vaccines affecting the fertility and menstrual cycles of unvaccinated individuals who were near vaccinated people and rated it False. Experts say that there are no parts of the vaccines that can be passed on to unvaccinated people. Dr. Kelly Moore, deputy director of the Immunization Action Coalition, said it is not possible that those who have received the COVID-19 vaccines are 'shedding' materials that could cause unvaccinated individuals to experience side effects such as disease or death. Dr. Jen Gunter, an OB-GYN who writes a New York Times column, wrote in a blog post: 'An mRNA vaccine simply cannot affect other people. We don't shed mRNA or spike proteins.' Similarly, experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told Reuters: 'There is no way for a COVID-19 vaccinated person to 'shed vaccine.'' Andrew Pollard, a professor of pediatric infection and immunity at the University of Oxford and a member of the Oxford Vaccine Group, told Full Fact that he couldn't think of 'any biologically plausible mechanism for shedding' any elements of the Pfizer-BioNTech Moderna vaccines after they've been administered. In addition, there is no evidence the COVID-19 vaccines have been linked to infertility or to pregnancy complications. Those who are pregnant, trying to conceive or would like to get pregnant someday can get vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the CDC. | Our ruling A Facebook video claims that people who aren't vaccinated against COVID-19 should 'beware' because being around people who have received the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could cause 'death and disease.' There is no evidence anyone has died after being close to someone who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Experts say there is no way for people to shed mRNA or spike proteins after they've been vaccinated. The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cannot affect people who are not vaccinated. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Trey Gowdy said, 'I'm not saying COVID-19 isn't real.... But pay attention folks, there's much more going on here than what meets the eye. | Contradiction | 'I'm not saying COVID-19 isn't real,' begins a long statement that Facebook posts are attributing to former U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, a Republican from South Carolina. 'But pay attention folks, there's much more going on here than meets the eye.' The missive questions why, when President Donald Trump is up for re-election, the 'stock market tumbles, companies are laying off employees, everything is closed and canceled, CEO's of giant companies are resigning and indictments are coming.' 'There is something larger going on here driving this sudden outbreak right after Trump beats an impeachment,' it says. 'Especially the fact that it (corona virus) originated in China who we are in a global trade war with brought on by Trump.' 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 statement credited to Gowdy said the coronavirus and the chaos it has wrought on the economy 'seems fishy, a little too-well timed if you ask me.' This post seemed a little fishy to us, and perhaps it's because Gowdy never said it. 'Just want to alert folks there is a fraudulent post attributed to me circulating on social media,' he posted on his verified Facebook account on April 22. 'Not the first time, likely not the last. We have enough going on in our country right now without propagating misinformation.' Gowdy has spoken publicly about the coronavirus, including recently saying that China needs to be held accountable for the global pandemic. But he didn't float the conspiracy theory that social media posts are claiming. We rate them False. | We rate them False. | []
|
'McDonald's (makes) you all sign noncompete contracts that you cannot go across town to try to get a job at Burger King. | Contradiction | Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden showed sympathy for a beleaguered McDonald's worker, but his tough words about the fast food giant got nearly every detail wrong. At a roundtable organized by the Service Employees International Union, a single mother told Biden about her struggle to take care of her son as COVID-19 has shuttered his school, while her pay barely allows her to get by. 'I don't get any kind of benefits,' said Adriana Alvarez. 'No parent who works hard and plays by the rules should have to go through what McDonald's is putting us through.' Biden commiserated, saying McDonald's relies on a strategy to suppress wages. 'McDonald's is making billions of dollars, but here's the deal,' Biden said July 22. 'They've made you all sign noncompete contracts that you cannot go across town to try to get a job at Burger King. And maybe, and I'm not saying you could, but you get 25 cents an hour more. People who are hourly workers are required to sign noncompete: 'I will not go anywhere to any business like the one I'm in to get a raise.'' Line employees at McDonald's franchises don't command high wages, but Biden was wrong about the use of noncompete contracts. Factcheck.org found several problems with this claim. Biden campaign spokesman Micheal Gwin said that Biden was making the larger point that low-wage workers face barriers to moving to better paid work. Mixing clauses: noncompete and no-poach Biden said McDonald's workers sign employment contracts with language that blocks them for working for a competing fast food chain such as Burger King. They don't. A noncompete agreement prevents someone from working for a competitor. That was not the case. Any McDonald's worker who quit to work at a Burger King is free to do that. There was a time when they faced a different hurdle. They were blocked from moving from one McDonald's franchise to another McDonald's franchise. That is what economists have dubbed a no-poaching clause, and it applies only among franchises within the same chain. Until 2017, that was part of the agreement between the local franchise owners and McDonald's Corp., the franchiser. The local owners could not lure workers away from each other. The workers would never see that clause, so Biden was incorrect when he said they signed noncompete contracts. A dated allegation In 2017, a McDonald's worker in Illinois sued the company because she was barred from getting a job at another McDonald's restaurant where she would make more money. In March that year, McDonald's announced it would no longer enforce that part of its franchise agreement and would no longer include it in future agreements. For other chains, the change took longer. In January 2018, the Washington state attorney general's office began investigating the no-poach practice among a wide range of franchise companies. The investigation drew heavily on research by two Princeton University economists who found that 58% of franchise operations used this strategy and it likely kept wages down. By July 2018, more chains had agreed to drop the practice, both in Washington state and nationally. The list included Arby's, Cinnabon, Buffalo Wild Wings and others. Burger King, Pizza Hut, Denny's and five other chains signed similar agreements by September 2018. In the October of 2019, Washington's assistant attorney general told Congress that 155 corporate chains representing 160,000 locations nationwide had dropped the practice. The International Franchise Association, a trade group, said in a statement that there's no question that the 'clear trend is the franchise business is moving away from the use of these no-poach contracts.' The Biden campaign said the situation with no-poach clauses has moved in the right direction, but it's hard to say that the practice no longer exists. | Our ruling Biden said that McDonald's workers sign a noncompete agreement that bars them from taking a better paying job with a competing chain. Until three years ago, McDonald's did have a clause in its franchise agreements between the corporation and local owners that blocked them from hiring away staff from each other. McDonald's ended that practice in March 2017, and since then, over 150 national chains have followed suit. That practice involves a no-poach clause, not a noncompete clause, which has to do with working for a competitor. McDonald's workers do not sign a noncompete agreement. We rate this claim False. | [
"104732-proof-41-31b5c103ac430df65224c46bc64e3661.jpg"
]
|
'McDonald's (makes) you all sign noncompete contracts that you cannot go across town to try to get a job at Burger King. | Contradiction | Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden showed sympathy for a beleaguered McDonald's worker, but his tough words about the fast food giant got nearly every detail wrong. At a roundtable organized by the Service Employees International Union, a single mother told Biden about her struggle to take care of her son as COVID-19 has shuttered his school, while her pay barely allows her to get by. 'I don't get any kind of benefits,' said Adriana Alvarez. 'No parent who works hard and plays by the rules should have to go through what McDonald's is putting us through.' Biden commiserated, saying McDonald's relies on a strategy to suppress wages. 'McDonald's is making billions of dollars, but here's the deal,' Biden said July 22. 'They've made you all sign noncompete contracts that you cannot go across town to try to get a job at Burger King. And maybe, and I'm not saying you could, but you get 25 cents an hour more. People who are hourly workers are required to sign noncompete: 'I will not go anywhere to any business like the one I'm in to get a raise.'' Line employees at McDonald's franchises don't command high wages, but Biden was wrong about the use of noncompete contracts. Factcheck.org found several problems with this claim. Biden campaign spokesman Micheal Gwin said that Biden was making the larger point that low-wage workers face barriers to moving to better paid work. Mixing clauses: noncompete and no-poach Biden said McDonald's workers sign employment contracts with language that blocks them for working for a competing fast food chain such as Burger King. They don't. A noncompete agreement prevents someone from working for a competitor. That was not the case. Any McDonald's worker who quit to work at a Burger King is free to do that. There was a time when they faced a different hurdle. They were blocked from moving from one McDonald's franchise to another McDonald's franchise. That is what economists have dubbed a no-poaching clause, and it applies only among franchises within the same chain. Until 2017, that was part of the agreement between the local franchise owners and McDonald's Corp., the franchiser. The local owners could not lure workers away from each other. The workers would never see that clause, so Biden was incorrect when he said they signed noncompete contracts. A dated allegation In 2017, a McDonald's worker in Illinois sued the company because she was barred from getting a job at another McDonald's restaurant where she would make more money. In March that year, McDonald's announced it would no longer enforce that part of its franchise agreement and would no longer include it in future agreements. For other chains, the change took longer. In January 2018, the Washington state attorney general's office began investigating the no-poach practice among a wide range of franchise companies. The investigation drew heavily on research by two Princeton University economists who found that 58% of franchise operations used this strategy and it likely kept wages down. By July 2018, more chains had agreed to drop the practice, both in Washington state and nationally. The list included Arby's, Cinnabon, Buffalo Wild Wings and others. Burger King, Pizza Hut, Denny's and five other chains signed similar agreements by September 2018. In the October of 2019, Washington's assistant attorney general told Congress that 155 corporate chains representing 160,000 locations nationwide had dropped the practice. The International Franchise Association, a trade group, said in a statement that there's no question that the 'clear trend is the franchise business is moving away from the use of these no-poach contracts.' The Biden campaign said the situation with no-poach clauses has moved in the right direction, but it's hard to say that the practice no longer exists. | Our ruling Biden said that McDonald's workers sign a noncompete agreement that bars them from taking a better paying job with a competing chain. Until three years ago, McDonald's did have a clause in its franchise agreements between the corporation and local owners that blocked them from hiring away staff from each other. McDonald's ended that practice in March 2017, and since then, over 150 national chains have followed suit. That practice involves a no-poach clause, not a noncompete clause, which has to do with working for a competitor. McDonald's workers do not sign a noncompete agreement. We rate this claim False. | [
"104732-proof-41-31b5c103ac430df65224c46bc64e3661.jpg"
]
|
'McDonald's (makes) you all sign noncompete contracts that you cannot go across town to try to get a job at Burger King. | Contradiction | Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden showed sympathy for a beleaguered McDonald's worker, but his tough words about the fast food giant got nearly every detail wrong. At a roundtable organized by the Service Employees International Union, a single mother told Biden about her struggle to take care of her son as COVID-19 has shuttered his school, while her pay barely allows her to get by. 'I don't get any kind of benefits,' said Adriana Alvarez. 'No parent who works hard and plays by the rules should have to go through what McDonald's is putting us through.' Biden commiserated, saying McDonald's relies on a strategy to suppress wages. 'McDonald's is making billions of dollars, but here's the deal,' Biden said July 22. 'They've made you all sign noncompete contracts that you cannot go across town to try to get a job at Burger King. And maybe, and I'm not saying you could, but you get 25 cents an hour more. People who are hourly workers are required to sign noncompete: 'I will not go anywhere to any business like the one I'm in to get a raise.'' Line employees at McDonald's franchises don't command high wages, but Biden was wrong about the use of noncompete contracts. Factcheck.org found several problems with this claim. Biden campaign spokesman Micheal Gwin said that Biden was making the larger point that low-wage workers face barriers to moving to better paid work. Mixing clauses: noncompete and no-poach Biden said McDonald's workers sign employment contracts with language that blocks them for working for a competing fast food chain such as Burger King. They don't. A noncompete agreement prevents someone from working for a competitor. That was not the case. Any McDonald's worker who quit to work at a Burger King is free to do that. There was a time when they faced a different hurdle. They were blocked from moving from one McDonald's franchise to another McDonald's franchise. That is what economists have dubbed a no-poaching clause, and it applies only among franchises within the same chain. Until 2017, that was part of the agreement between the local franchise owners and McDonald's Corp., the franchiser. The local owners could not lure workers away from each other. The workers would never see that clause, so Biden was incorrect when he said they signed noncompete contracts. A dated allegation In 2017, a McDonald's worker in Illinois sued the company because she was barred from getting a job at another McDonald's restaurant where she would make more money. In March that year, McDonald's announced it would no longer enforce that part of its franchise agreement and would no longer include it in future agreements. For other chains, the change took longer. In January 2018, the Washington state attorney general's office began investigating the no-poach practice among a wide range of franchise companies. The investigation drew heavily on research by two Princeton University economists who found that 58% of franchise operations used this strategy and it likely kept wages down. By July 2018, more chains had agreed to drop the practice, both in Washington state and nationally. The list included Arby's, Cinnabon, Buffalo Wild Wings and others. Burger King, Pizza Hut, Denny's and five other chains signed similar agreements by September 2018. In the October of 2019, Washington's assistant attorney general told Congress that 155 corporate chains representing 160,000 locations nationwide had dropped the practice. The International Franchise Association, a trade group, said in a statement that there's no question that the 'clear trend is the franchise business is moving away from the use of these no-poach contracts.' The Biden campaign said the situation with no-poach clauses has moved in the right direction, but it's hard to say that the practice no longer exists. | Our ruling Biden said that McDonald's workers sign a noncompete agreement that bars them from taking a better paying job with a competing chain. Until three years ago, McDonald's did have a clause in its franchise agreements between the corporation and local owners that blocked them from hiring away staff from each other. McDonald's ended that practice in March 2017, and since then, over 150 national chains have followed suit. That practice involves a no-poach clause, not a noncompete clause, which has to do with working for a competitor. McDonald's workers do not sign a noncompete agreement. We rate this claim False. | [
"104732-proof-41-31b5c103ac430df65224c46bc64e3661.jpg"
]
|
Says Kaleb Torres, a young spokesperson for Shriners Hospitals for Children, has died. | Contradiction | Shriners Hospitals for Children patient ambassador Kaleb-Wolf De Melo Torres is known for his appearances in publicity campaigns and fundraising commercials for the hospital network. But false rumors spreading on social media say the young spokesperson, who has osteogenesis imperfecta, or brittle bone disease, has died. 'RIP Kaleb,' says a Feb. 25 post says, 'Kaleb died 7 a.m. Wednesday after spending more than three years in hospice care at his South Whitehall Township home. He was 12.' 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 post includes an image of Torres and a description identifying him as a Shriners Hospital spokesman and patient. But it's not true. Torres is alive and well. 'We are happy to report that Kaleb is doing very well,' Shriners said in an emailed statement. 'The story you may have heard or read involves another child with the same name and spelling and is not associated with Shriners Hospitals for Children. Online, our well known Kaleb's story became confused with the other child. We are currently working to dispel this rumor and appreciate your help in doing so.' The other child the hospital was referring to is Kaleb Holder, who died Feb. 19, 2021, in South Whitehall Township, Pa., the Morning Call in Allentown, Pa., reported. The 12-year-old had a progressive neurological disorder. Torres lives in Montreal. On Feb. 27, Shriners shared a new video of Torres on its Twitter account that shows him dancing and wishing its chairman, Jim Smith, a happy birthday. Kaleb is so excited to be the FIRST to wish Imperial Potentate Jim Smith a Happy Birthday, he sent us this video today to share! Join Kaleb by sharing this video and using the hashtag #HappyBirthdayJim οΏΌ pic.twitter.com/48If6wk54d- Shriners Hospitals (@shrinershosp) February 27, 2021 | Our ruling A social media post claims that Shriners patient ambassador Kaleb Torres recently died. This isn't true. The post confuses Torres with another boy, also named Kaleb, who died. We rate it False. | [
"104744-proof-19-38bb0083690263220a212d74f1b3b5c8.jpg"
]
|
Says Kaleb Torres, a young spokesperson for Shriners Hospitals for Children, has died. | Contradiction | Shriners Hospitals for Children patient ambassador Kaleb-Wolf De Melo Torres is known for his appearances in publicity campaigns and fundraising commercials for the hospital network. But false rumors spreading on social media say the young spokesperson, who has osteogenesis imperfecta, or brittle bone disease, has died. 'RIP Kaleb,' says a Feb. 25 post says, 'Kaleb died 7 a.m. Wednesday after spending more than three years in hospice care at his South Whitehall Township home. He was 12.' 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 post includes an image of Torres and a description identifying him as a Shriners Hospital spokesman and patient. But it's not true. Torres is alive and well. 'We are happy to report that Kaleb is doing very well,' Shriners said in an emailed statement. 'The story you may have heard or read involves another child with the same name and spelling and is not associated with Shriners Hospitals for Children. Online, our well known Kaleb's story became confused with the other child. We are currently working to dispel this rumor and appreciate your help in doing so.' The other child the hospital was referring to is Kaleb Holder, who died Feb. 19, 2021, in South Whitehall Township, Pa., the Morning Call in Allentown, Pa., reported. The 12-year-old had a progressive neurological disorder. Torres lives in Montreal. On Feb. 27, Shriners shared a new video of Torres on its Twitter account that shows him dancing and wishing its chairman, Jim Smith, a happy birthday. Kaleb is so excited to be the FIRST to wish Imperial Potentate Jim Smith a Happy Birthday, he sent us this video today to share! Join Kaleb by sharing this video and using the hashtag #HappyBirthdayJim οΏΌ pic.twitter.com/48If6wk54d- Shriners Hospitals (@shrinershosp) February 27, 2021 | Our ruling A social media post claims that Shriners patient ambassador Kaleb Torres recently died. This isn't true. The post confuses Torres with another boy, also named Kaleb, who died. We rate it False. | [
"104744-proof-19-38bb0083690263220a212d74f1b3b5c8.jpg"
]
|
Says Rep. Elissa Slotkin 'voted against condemning cyber attacks by the Chinese Communist Party on American organizations developing COVID-19 treatments. | Contradiction | Paul Junge, the Republican nominee running to unseat incumbent Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Holly, wrote a Facebook post criticizing Slotkin for failing to support action on Chinese cyberattacks targeting American companies and researchers working to develop vaccines and treatments for the coronavirus. 'She voted against condemning cyber attacks by the Chinese Communist Party on American organizations developing COVID-19 treatments,' Junge claimed. Slotkin, a former national-security aide to presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, won election in 2018 in a traditionally Republican district in Southeast Michigan. She is fighting a challenge from Junge, a former prosecutor and TV anchor. Junge is referring to a resolution introduced by Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., condemning the cyberattacks and calling on the administration to punish those engaged in the attacks through sanctions. During debate on whether to take up a major infrastructure bill, Rep. Robert Woodall, R-Ga., attempted to force the House to begin considering Kinzinger's resolution instead. That's where Slotkin joined Democrats and voted to begin considering the infrastructure bill. Junge's claim interprets Slotkin's vote on a procedural move as a vote against the resolution condemning the cyberattacks. But there was no vote on Kinzinger's resolution. What did the House vote on? In May, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security issued a public warning that hackers linked to China are engaged in cyberattacks to steal information from American research institutions and pharmaceutical companies working to develop a coronavirus vaccine. Russian hackers are also attacking universities, companies and other entities working conducting research on a coronavirus vaccine, federal officials have warned. Kinzinger, who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, responded to these warnings with a resolution condemning the attacks. The House has yet to take a vote on it. President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have stepped up their attacks on China as they hone their messages for the fall campaign. On June 30, the House considered a resolution to take up the Moving Forward Act, a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill authorizing funds for federal highway, road safety and transit programs. The bill includes $300 billion for fixing roads and bridges and provides funding to states to expand broadband access. It also includes several water-quality provisions of particular interest to Michiganders, including reauthorizing the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. During debate on the House floor, Rep. Robert Woodall, R-Ga., promised to offer an amendment that would have forced the House to immediately consider Rep. Kinzinger's resolution condemning Chinese cyberattacks. The House then took a vote on whether to end debate on taking up the infrastructure bill. In this case, voting against ending debate would have delayed consideration of the Moving Forward Act and allowed Rep. Woodall to offer his amendment to consider Rep. Kinzinger's resolution. New York Democratic Rep. Joe Morelle, who introduced the resolution to consider the Moving Forward Act, noted his support for 'any resolutions on Chinese and Russian interference in American activities,' adding, 'the work in front of us, however, is a $1.5 trillion transportation bill desperately needed for American citizens throughout this country.' The House cast a party-line vote to begin debating the Moving Forward Act, which passed the next day and is awaiting a vote in the Senate. As a result of this vote, Kinzinger's resolution did not come up for consideration that day. Junge, as well as stories from The Washington Free Beacon and The Federalist, claimed that the House's vote was a rejection of Kinzinger's resolution. Slotkin 'voted against considering a condemnation of Chinese cyber attacks,' said Rob Wagener, Paul Junge's campaign manager. She 'could have demonstrated some of the moderation she promised' by voting against moving forward with a debate on the infrastructure bill 'but she didn't.' Slotkin's campaign defended her move to keep the infrastructure bill on track. 'There is no reason to choose between confronting China's malign cyber activity and fixing our roads and bridges,' said Gordon Trowbridge, Slotkin's campaign spokesperson. Soon after the Free Beacon and Federalist reports, Slotkin was among only 14 Democratic lawmakers to support returning the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 back to the Committee on Armed Services to add an amendment authorizing sanctions against foreign actors conducting cyberattacks on organizations and people engaged in coronavirus research. The motion failed, and the law passed the House without any such amendment. | Our ruling Junge claimed that Slotkin 'voted against condemning cyber attacks by the Chinese Communist Party on American organizations developing COVID-19 treatments.' Slotkin did not vote for or against the Kinzinger resolution to condemn Chinese-linked cyberattacks. That resolution did not come up for a vote. The vote was on moving forward with consideration on an infrastructure bill. Weeks later, she voted for a measure authorizing sanctions for cyberattacks on coronavirus researchers, but it did not pass. Junge's post is not accurate. We rate this claim False. | [
"104747-proof-04-2d4193025ebb290e63496d7397b87b35.jpg"
]
|
Says Rep. Elissa Slotkin 'voted against condemning cyber attacks by the Chinese Communist Party on American organizations developing COVID-19 treatments. | Contradiction | Paul Junge, the Republican nominee running to unseat incumbent Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Holly, wrote a Facebook post criticizing Slotkin for failing to support action on Chinese cyberattacks targeting American companies and researchers working to develop vaccines and treatments for the coronavirus. 'She voted against condemning cyber attacks by the Chinese Communist Party on American organizations developing COVID-19 treatments,' Junge claimed. Slotkin, a former national-security aide to presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, won election in 2018 in a traditionally Republican district in Southeast Michigan. She is fighting a challenge from Junge, a former prosecutor and TV anchor. Junge is referring to a resolution introduced by Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., condemning the cyberattacks and calling on the administration to punish those engaged in the attacks through sanctions. During debate on whether to take up a major infrastructure bill, Rep. Robert Woodall, R-Ga., attempted to force the House to begin considering Kinzinger's resolution instead. That's where Slotkin joined Democrats and voted to begin considering the infrastructure bill. Junge's claim interprets Slotkin's vote on a procedural move as a vote against the resolution condemning the cyberattacks. But there was no vote on Kinzinger's resolution. What did the House vote on? In May, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security issued a public warning that hackers linked to China are engaged in cyberattacks to steal information from American research institutions and pharmaceutical companies working to develop a coronavirus vaccine. Russian hackers are also attacking universities, companies and other entities working conducting research on a coronavirus vaccine, federal officials have warned. Kinzinger, who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, responded to these warnings with a resolution condemning the attacks. The House has yet to take a vote on it. President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have stepped up their attacks on China as they hone their messages for the fall campaign. On June 30, the House considered a resolution to take up the Moving Forward Act, a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill authorizing funds for federal highway, road safety and transit programs. The bill includes $300 billion for fixing roads and bridges and provides funding to states to expand broadband access. It also includes several water-quality provisions of particular interest to Michiganders, including reauthorizing the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. During debate on the House floor, Rep. Robert Woodall, R-Ga., promised to offer an amendment that would have forced the House to immediately consider Rep. Kinzinger's resolution condemning Chinese cyberattacks. The House then took a vote on whether to end debate on taking up the infrastructure bill. In this case, voting against ending debate would have delayed consideration of the Moving Forward Act and allowed Rep. Woodall to offer his amendment to consider Rep. Kinzinger's resolution. New York Democratic Rep. Joe Morelle, who introduced the resolution to consider the Moving Forward Act, noted his support for 'any resolutions on Chinese and Russian interference in American activities,' adding, 'the work in front of us, however, is a $1.5 trillion transportation bill desperately needed for American citizens throughout this country.' The House cast a party-line vote to begin debating the Moving Forward Act, which passed the next day and is awaiting a vote in the Senate. As a result of this vote, Kinzinger's resolution did not come up for consideration that day. Junge, as well as stories from The Washington Free Beacon and The Federalist, claimed that the House's vote was a rejection of Kinzinger's resolution. Slotkin 'voted against considering a condemnation of Chinese cyber attacks,' said Rob Wagener, Paul Junge's campaign manager. She 'could have demonstrated some of the moderation she promised' by voting against moving forward with a debate on the infrastructure bill 'but she didn't.' Slotkin's campaign defended her move to keep the infrastructure bill on track. 'There is no reason to choose between confronting China's malign cyber activity and fixing our roads and bridges,' said Gordon Trowbridge, Slotkin's campaign spokesperson. Soon after the Free Beacon and Federalist reports, Slotkin was among only 14 Democratic lawmakers to support returning the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 back to the Committee on Armed Services to add an amendment authorizing sanctions against foreign actors conducting cyberattacks on organizations and people engaged in coronavirus research. The motion failed, and the law passed the House without any such amendment. | Our ruling Junge claimed that Slotkin 'voted against condemning cyber attacks by the Chinese Communist Party on American organizations developing COVID-19 treatments.' Slotkin did not vote for or against the Kinzinger resolution to condemn Chinese-linked cyberattacks. That resolution did not come up for a vote. The vote was on moving forward with consideration on an infrastructure bill. Weeks later, she voted for a measure authorizing sanctions for cyberattacks on coronavirus researchers, but it did not pass. Junge's post is not accurate. We rate this claim False. | [
"104747-proof-04-2d4193025ebb290e63496d7397b87b35.jpg"
]
|
Says Rep. Elissa Slotkin 'voted against condemning cyber attacks by the Chinese Communist Party on American organizations developing COVID-19 treatments. | Contradiction | Paul Junge, the Republican nominee running to unseat incumbent Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Holly, wrote a Facebook post criticizing Slotkin for failing to support action on Chinese cyberattacks targeting American companies and researchers working to develop vaccines and treatments for the coronavirus. 'She voted against condemning cyber attacks by the Chinese Communist Party on American organizations developing COVID-19 treatments,' Junge claimed. Slotkin, a former national-security aide to presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, won election in 2018 in a traditionally Republican district in Southeast Michigan. She is fighting a challenge from Junge, a former prosecutor and TV anchor. Junge is referring to a resolution introduced by Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., condemning the cyberattacks and calling on the administration to punish those engaged in the attacks through sanctions. During debate on whether to take up a major infrastructure bill, Rep. Robert Woodall, R-Ga., attempted to force the House to begin considering Kinzinger's resolution instead. That's where Slotkin joined Democrats and voted to begin considering the infrastructure bill. Junge's claim interprets Slotkin's vote on a procedural move as a vote against the resolution condemning the cyberattacks. But there was no vote on Kinzinger's resolution. What did the House vote on? In May, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security issued a public warning that hackers linked to China are engaged in cyberattacks to steal information from American research institutions and pharmaceutical companies working to develop a coronavirus vaccine. Russian hackers are also attacking universities, companies and other entities working conducting research on a coronavirus vaccine, federal officials have warned. Kinzinger, who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, responded to these warnings with a resolution condemning the attacks. The House has yet to take a vote on it. President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have stepped up their attacks on China as they hone their messages for the fall campaign. On June 30, the House considered a resolution to take up the Moving Forward Act, a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill authorizing funds for federal highway, road safety and transit programs. The bill includes $300 billion for fixing roads and bridges and provides funding to states to expand broadband access. It also includes several water-quality provisions of particular interest to Michiganders, including reauthorizing the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. During debate on the House floor, Rep. Robert Woodall, R-Ga., promised to offer an amendment that would have forced the House to immediately consider Rep. Kinzinger's resolution condemning Chinese cyberattacks. The House then took a vote on whether to end debate on taking up the infrastructure bill. In this case, voting against ending debate would have delayed consideration of the Moving Forward Act and allowed Rep. Woodall to offer his amendment to consider Rep. Kinzinger's resolution. New York Democratic Rep. Joe Morelle, who introduced the resolution to consider the Moving Forward Act, noted his support for 'any resolutions on Chinese and Russian interference in American activities,' adding, 'the work in front of us, however, is a $1.5 trillion transportation bill desperately needed for American citizens throughout this country.' The House cast a party-line vote to begin debating the Moving Forward Act, which passed the next day and is awaiting a vote in the Senate. As a result of this vote, Kinzinger's resolution did not come up for consideration that day. Junge, as well as stories from The Washington Free Beacon and The Federalist, claimed that the House's vote was a rejection of Kinzinger's resolution. Slotkin 'voted against considering a condemnation of Chinese cyber attacks,' said Rob Wagener, Paul Junge's campaign manager. She 'could have demonstrated some of the moderation she promised' by voting against moving forward with a debate on the infrastructure bill 'but she didn't.' Slotkin's campaign defended her move to keep the infrastructure bill on track. 'There is no reason to choose between confronting China's malign cyber activity and fixing our roads and bridges,' said Gordon Trowbridge, Slotkin's campaign spokesperson. Soon after the Free Beacon and Federalist reports, Slotkin was among only 14 Democratic lawmakers to support returning the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 back to the Committee on Armed Services to add an amendment authorizing sanctions against foreign actors conducting cyberattacks on organizations and people engaged in coronavirus research. The motion failed, and the law passed the House without any such amendment. | Our ruling Junge claimed that Slotkin 'voted against condemning cyber attacks by the Chinese Communist Party on American organizations developing COVID-19 treatments.' Slotkin did not vote for or against the Kinzinger resolution to condemn Chinese-linked cyberattacks. That resolution did not come up for a vote. The vote was on moving forward with consideration on an infrastructure bill. Weeks later, she voted for a measure authorizing sanctions for cyberattacks on coronavirus researchers, but it did not pass. Junge's post is not accurate. We rate this claim False. | [
"104747-proof-04-2d4193025ebb290e63496d7397b87b35.jpg"
]
|
The FBI building in Washington is 'completely closed. No one's in there. | Contradiction | The narrator of a video taken from a city street says he's standing across from an FBI building in Washington at '5:25 on June 14.' 'I'm going to show you here this is the FBI building and it's completely closed,' he says. 'No one's in there. In fact it's even walled off. You can't get inside. So that's what the FBI building looks like here in Washington.' 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 called the FBI headquarters in Washington to ask about the claim. The person who answered the phone told us she was speaking from the agency's Washington building. The FBI later sent PolitiFact this statement: 'The FBI headquarters building at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW is open and fully operational, as are all of our field offices.' The Associated Press reported that a reporter who works near the building confirmed that people were coming and going from the building on June 14 and in the days since. The video wasn't taken from Pennsylvania Avenue but from the side of the FBI building on E St NW. The Google Maps street view from this vantage point - taken in November 2019 - is similar to what appears in the Facebook video. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
The FBI building in Washington is 'completely closed. No one's in there. | Contradiction | The narrator of a video taken from a city street says he's standing across from an FBI building in Washington at '5:25 on June 14.' 'I'm going to show you here this is the FBI building and it's completely closed,' he says. 'No one's in there. In fact it's even walled off. You can't get inside. So that's what the FBI building looks like here in Washington.' 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 called the FBI headquarters in Washington to ask about the claim. The person who answered the phone told us she was speaking from the agency's Washington building. The FBI later sent PolitiFact this statement: 'The FBI headquarters building at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW is open and fully operational, as are all of our field offices.' The Associated Press reported that a reporter who works near the building confirmed that people were coming and going from the building on June 14 and in the days since. The video wasn't taken from Pennsylvania Avenue but from the side of the FBI building on E St NW. The Google Maps street view from this vantage point - taken in November 2019 - is similar to what appears in the Facebook video. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Hillary Clinton is on trial, she (supposed) to have killed' a 10-year-old girl. | Contradiction | A lengthy, emoji-laden Facebook post begins with this claim: 'Did y'all know π€ that Hillary Clinton π§π»β𦳠is on trial βοΈ she suppose to have killed πͺ and tortured πͺ βπ©Έ a little 10yr old girl π§π» π on video π₯ πΏ that's why she deleted over 30,000 π¦ of her emails.' The post only gets more outrageous, with claims such as nine police officers who investigated the case and found a video of the crime 'ended up dead.' Then it goes off on myriad tangents. 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.) Needless to say, there would have been massive news coverage, long before any trial, of such a crime and Clinton being implicated in it. There has been none. 'This is categorically false, and Facebook should take it down,' Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told PolitiFact. In June, we rated False a claim that the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee was on trial over the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, while Clinton was secretary of state. A court hearing was held on whether Clinton should be forced to give a deposition in a lawsuit that is seeking emails and other records regarding the attack, which killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. As for the 30,000 emails, as we've reported: Clinton exclusively used a private email address while serving as secretary of state from 2009-13. Because she didn't use the government email system, the State Department didn't have her emails on hand when the House Select Committee on Benghazi asked to see them. So in 2014, Clinton's lawyers combed through her private server and turned over about 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department and deleted the rest, which Clinton said were about personal matters. An employee managing her server deleted 33,000 of Clinton's emails. The FBI found no evidence that the emails were deleted deliberately to avoid any subpoena or other requests. The statement is false and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire. | In June, we rated False a claim that the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee was on trial over the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, while Clinton was secretary of state. A court hearing was held on whether Clinton should be forced to give a deposition in a lawsuit that is seeking emails and other records regarding the attack, which killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. As for the 30,000 emails, as we've reported: Clinton exclusively used a private email address while serving as secretary of state from 2009-13. Because she didn't use the government email system, the State Department didn't have her emails on hand when the House Select Committee on Benghazi asked to see them. So in 2014, Clinton's lawyers combed through her private server and turned over about 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department and deleted the rest, which Clinton said were about personal matters. An employee managing her server deleted 33,000 of Clinton's emails. The FBI found no evidence that the emails were deleted deliberately to avoid any subpoena or other requests. The statement is false and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire. | []
|
'9,871,525 is the number of registered voters in AZ according to FB. AZ population is 7,270,000. | Contradiction | Facebook recently launched its 2020 voter information initiative, which aims to connect users to information about voting where they live to help bolster registration and turnout. But one post claims the social media platform dramatically overshot the number of registered voters in the state of Arizona. Shared thousands of times, the Sept. 23 post reads: '9,871,525 IS THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS IN AZ ACCORDING TO FB. AZ POPULATION IS 7,270,000.' 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.) While the claim gets the population of Arizona right, it's wrong about the number of registered voters Facebook is reporting there. Here's why. Facebook's tally of registered voters, which users will sometimes see pinned to the top of their newsfeeds, displays the number of people in the U.S. who've used Facebook's interface to share that they have registered to vote. The figure is not representative only of those in Arizona - or any other single state, for that matter. As part of the social media network's 2020 voting initiative, which the company launched this summer, users 18 and older will see a pinned box at the top of their news feeds that contains information about voter registration. The website's voting information center also provides details on how to check your registration status and information on where to register, including a link to the user's state registration website or a voting information organization. A spokesperson for Facebook confirmed to PolitiFact that it hasn't shared the number of registered voters by region or state, and said the post is likely referring to the total number of users around the U.S. who've shared that they registered, which updates in real time. A tally showing that figure appears above the words 'People who shared they registered to vote in the United States.' The user's state is listed above that tally, but the number isn't specific to that state: According to the Arizona Secretary of State's website, as of August 2020 there were 3,989,214 registered voters, with 1,389,960 registered as Republican and 1,293,074 registered as Democrat. The remaining are registered under 'other' or Liberatarian. As of July 2019, the population of Arizona stood just over 7.2 million, with 22.5%, or about 1.6 million, being under the age of 18 and therefore not eligible to vote, according to Census data. This post gets Arizona's population right, but the rest of the claim is wrong. We rate this post Mostly False. | As of July 2019, the population of Arizona stood just over 7.2 million, with 22.5%, or about 1.6 million, being under the age of 18 and therefore not eligible to vote, according to Census data. This post gets Arizona's population right, but the rest of the claim is wrong. We rate this post Mostly False. | []
|
'9,871,525 is the number of registered voters in AZ according to FB. AZ population is 7,270,000. | Contradiction | Facebook recently launched its 2020 voter information initiative, which aims to connect users to information about voting where they live to help bolster registration and turnout. But one post claims the social media platform dramatically overshot the number of registered voters in the state of Arizona. Shared thousands of times, the Sept. 23 post reads: '9,871,525 IS THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS IN AZ ACCORDING TO FB. AZ POPULATION IS 7,270,000.' 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.) While the claim gets the population of Arizona right, it's wrong about the number of registered voters Facebook is reporting there. Here's why. Facebook's tally of registered voters, which users will sometimes see pinned to the top of their newsfeeds, displays the number of people in the U.S. who've used Facebook's interface to share that they have registered to vote. The figure is not representative only of those in Arizona - or any other single state, for that matter. As part of the social media network's 2020 voting initiative, which the company launched this summer, users 18 and older will see a pinned box at the top of their news feeds that contains information about voter registration. The website's voting information center also provides details on how to check your registration status and information on where to register, including a link to the user's state registration website or a voting information organization. A spokesperson for Facebook confirmed to PolitiFact that it hasn't shared the number of registered voters by region or state, and said the post is likely referring to the total number of users around the U.S. who've shared that they registered, which updates in real time. A tally showing that figure appears above the words 'People who shared they registered to vote in the United States.' The user's state is listed above that tally, but the number isn't specific to that state: According to the Arizona Secretary of State's website, as of August 2020 there were 3,989,214 registered voters, with 1,389,960 registered as Republican and 1,293,074 registered as Democrat. The remaining are registered under 'other' or Liberatarian. As of July 2019, the population of Arizona stood just over 7.2 million, with 22.5%, or about 1.6 million, being under the age of 18 and therefore not eligible to vote, according to Census data. This post gets Arizona's population right, but the rest of the claim is wrong. We rate this post Mostly False. | As of July 2019, the population of Arizona stood just over 7.2 million, with 22.5%, or about 1.6 million, being under the age of 18 and therefore not eligible to vote, according to Census data. This post gets Arizona's population right, but the rest of the claim is wrong. We rate this post Mostly False. | []
|
'9,871,525 is the number of registered voters in AZ according to FB. AZ population is 7,270,000. | Contradiction | Facebook recently launched its 2020 voter information initiative, which aims to connect users to information about voting where they live to help bolster registration and turnout. But one post claims the social media platform dramatically overshot the number of registered voters in the state of Arizona. Shared thousands of times, the Sept. 23 post reads: '9,871,525 IS THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS IN AZ ACCORDING TO FB. AZ POPULATION IS 7,270,000.' 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.) While the claim gets the population of Arizona right, it's wrong about the number of registered voters Facebook is reporting there. Here's why. Facebook's tally of registered voters, which users will sometimes see pinned to the top of their newsfeeds, displays the number of people in the U.S. who've used Facebook's interface to share that they have registered to vote. The figure is not representative only of those in Arizona - or any other single state, for that matter. As part of the social media network's 2020 voting initiative, which the company launched this summer, users 18 and older will see a pinned box at the top of their news feeds that contains information about voter registration. The website's voting information center also provides details on how to check your registration status and information on where to register, including a link to the user's state registration website or a voting information organization. A spokesperson for Facebook confirmed to PolitiFact that it hasn't shared the number of registered voters by region or state, and said the post is likely referring to the total number of users around the U.S. who've shared that they registered, which updates in real time. A tally showing that figure appears above the words 'People who shared they registered to vote in the United States.' The user's state is listed above that tally, but the number isn't specific to that state: According to the Arizona Secretary of State's website, as of August 2020 there were 3,989,214 registered voters, with 1,389,960 registered as Republican and 1,293,074 registered as Democrat. The remaining are registered under 'other' or Liberatarian. As of July 2019, the population of Arizona stood just over 7.2 million, with 22.5%, or about 1.6 million, being under the age of 18 and therefore not eligible to vote, according to Census data. This post gets Arizona's population right, but the rest of the claim is wrong. We rate this post Mostly False. | As of July 2019, the population of Arizona stood just over 7.2 million, with 22.5%, or about 1.6 million, being under the age of 18 and therefore not eligible to vote, according to Census data. This post gets Arizona's population right, but the rest of the claim is wrong. We rate this post Mostly False. | []
|
Says Joe Biden 'tried to cut Social Security and Medicare for decades. ... Now Biden's promising your benefits to illegal immigrants. | Contradiction | An ad seeking to sway Florida voters to President Donald Trump's side claims that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has long attempted to take away benefits from Americans and now wants to give them to immigrants illegally in the country. The ad's claims are inaccurate and misleading. 'Joe Biden tried to cut Social Security and Medicare for decades. ... Now, Biden is promising your benefits to illegal immigrants,' says the narrator in the ad posted by Trump for Florida, an official Facebook page for Trump's reelection campaign. Here's an overview of the inaccurate elements in the 30-second video posted Sept. 16. 'Joe Biden tried to cut Social Security and Medicare for decades' This is not a complete reflection of Biden's record, which has changed over time. Starting in the 1970s, Biden called for an increase in monthly benefits, then for a one-year freeze, then floated raising the retirement age, then backed a change in how benefits would increase, and now calls for higher monthly checks for the oldest beneficiaries. In the 1980s and 1990s, Biden spoke in favor of freezes to Social Security as part of an effort to rein in all spending to reduce the deficit. In a 1995 speech, Biden said: 'When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once. I tried it twice. I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.' The Trump ad features a clip of that 1995 speech, but it cut out the part where Biden said he meant freezing 'every single solitary thing in the government.' Biden's campaign told PolitiFact that throughout his career in Congress, Biden cast nearly 50 votes to increase Social Security benefits or block Republican plans to curtail benefits. As vice president during the Obama administration, Biden generally focused on protecting Social Security, and resisted moves to privatize Social Security. However, the administration in 2014, proposed changing how Social Security cost-of-living increases were calculated. The method, which the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities found would have reduced benefits by 1% to 2% over the course of the average retirement, received push-back and was later dropped. Biden as a presidential candidate says action is 'urgently' needed 'to make the program solvent and prevent cuts to American retirees.' The Trump ad cites as evidence for its claim a Jan. 13 article from The Intercept, headlined, 'Fact Check: Joe Biden Has Advocated Cutting Social Security for 40 Years.' The story said that Biden's 2020 position to increase Social Security benefits is 'at odds with decades of his own advocacy.' It cited his stance in the 1980s and 1990s among evidence of his interest in practicing fiscal restraint. During the Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., similarly claimed that Biden 'has advocated cutting Social Security for 40 years.' Based on Biden's nuanced record, we rated that Mostly False. 'Now, Biden is promising your benefits to illegal immigrants' This is not Biden's promise. There is no evidence Biden seeks to deprive Americans of their Social Security and Medicare benefits and give them to immigrants who are violating immigration laws. Biden's plans related to health care and seniors do not call for the elimination of Social Security benefits or Medicare for Americans. And Biden has not put forward a policy to entitle immigrants illegally in the country to Social Security benefits, or to give them access to Medicare, his campaign said. Biden favors allowing immigrants illegally in the country to buy health care plans under the Affordable Care Act marketplace, but without financial help from the government. This would not invalidate U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents' ability to also buy health care plans in the exchange. The Trump ad cited May 10, 2019, Fox News reporting. That day, Fox News said Biden supported health care for immigrants illegally in the country. The story said that in response to a question on whether immigrants illegally in the country should 'should be entitled to federal benefits' like Medicare or Medicaid, Biden said: 'Look, I think that anyone who is in a situation where they are in need of health care, regardless of whether they are documented or undocumented, we have an obligation to see that they are cared for.' Video of that response doesn't show Biden explicitly mentioning Medicare or Medicaid. Trump in July falsely claimed that under Biden's policy, immigrants in the country illegally 'get welfare benefits. United States citizens don't get what they're looking to give illegal immigrants.' Trump's campaign did not respond to our queries, and neither did the White House. But a Trump campaign official told the Washington Post's Fact Checker that Biden supported Obama-era programs that defer deportation for immigrants and make them eligible for Social Security. As the Washington Post pointed out, people receive Social Security benefits if they pay into the system, and immigrants wouldn't be taking away 'your benefits,' as the ad implied. | Our ruling A Trump campaign ad claimed, 'Joe Biden tried to cut Social Security and Medicare for decades. ... Now Biden's promising your benefits to illegal immigrants.' It's misleading to say that Biden for decades tried to cut Social Security and Medicare. His overall record is mixed. The ad also gives the wrong impression that Biden is trying to take benefits away from Americans and grant them to immigrants illegally in the country. That's not Biden's plan. Biden wants to allow immigrants illegally in the country to buy health insurance, without subsidies. That would not take away Ameicans ability to buy their own insurance. We rate the ad's claims Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"104789-proof-24-2c519a94fb81108ca5a38647423037c9.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden 'tried to cut Social Security and Medicare for decades. ... Now Biden's promising your benefits to illegal immigrants. | Contradiction | An ad seeking to sway Florida voters to President Donald Trump's side claims that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has long attempted to take away benefits from Americans and now wants to give them to immigrants illegally in the country. The ad's claims are inaccurate and misleading. 'Joe Biden tried to cut Social Security and Medicare for decades. ... Now, Biden is promising your benefits to illegal immigrants,' says the narrator in the ad posted by Trump for Florida, an official Facebook page for Trump's reelection campaign. Here's an overview of the inaccurate elements in the 30-second video posted Sept. 16. 'Joe Biden tried to cut Social Security and Medicare for decades' This is not a complete reflection of Biden's record, which has changed over time. Starting in the 1970s, Biden called for an increase in monthly benefits, then for a one-year freeze, then floated raising the retirement age, then backed a change in how benefits would increase, and now calls for higher monthly checks for the oldest beneficiaries. In the 1980s and 1990s, Biden spoke in favor of freezes to Social Security as part of an effort to rein in all spending to reduce the deficit. In a 1995 speech, Biden said: 'When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once. I tried it twice. I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.' The Trump ad features a clip of that 1995 speech, but it cut out the part where Biden said he meant freezing 'every single solitary thing in the government.' Biden's campaign told PolitiFact that throughout his career in Congress, Biden cast nearly 50 votes to increase Social Security benefits or block Republican plans to curtail benefits. As vice president during the Obama administration, Biden generally focused on protecting Social Security, and resisted moves to privatize Social Security. However, the administration in 2014, proposed changing how Social Security cost-of-living increases were calculated. The method, which the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities found would have reduced benefits by 1% to 2% over the course of the average retirement, received push-back and was later dropped. Biden as a presidential candidate says action is 'urgently' needed 'to make the program solvent and prevent cuts to American retirees.' The Trump ad cites as evidence for its claim a Jan. 13 article from The Intercept, headlined, 'Fact Check: Joe Biden Has Advocated Cutting Social Security for 40 Years.' The story said that Biden's 2020 position to increase Social Security benefits is 'at odds with decades of his own advocacy.' It cited his stance in the 1980s and 1990s among evidence of his interest in practicing fiscal restraint. During the Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., similarly claimed that Biden 'has advocated cutting Social Security for 40 years.' Based on Biden's nuanced record, we rated that Mostly False. 'Now, Biden is promising your benefits to illegal immigrants' This is not Biden's promise. There is no evidence Biden seeks to deprive Americans of their Social Security and Medicare benefits and give them to immigrants who are violating immigration laws. Biden's plans related to health care and seniors do not call for the elimination of Social Security benefits or Medicare for Americans. And Biden has not put forward a policy to entitle immigrants illegally in the country to Social Security benefits, or to give them access to Medicare, his campaign said. Biden favors allowing immigrants illegally in the country to buy health care plans under the Affordable Care Act marketplace, but without financial help from the government. This would not invalidate U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents' ability to also buy health care plans in the exchange. The Trump ad cited May 10, 2019, Fox News reporting. That day, Fox News said Biden supported health care for immigrants illegally in the country. The story said that in response to a question on whether immigrants illegally in the country should 'should be entitled to federal benefits' like Medicare or Medicaid, Biden said: 'Look, I think that anyone who is in a situation where they are in need of health care, regardless of whether they are documented or undocumented, we have an obligation to see that they are cared for.' Video of that response doesn't show Biden explicitly mentioning Medicare or Medicaid. Trump in July falsely claimed that under Biden's policy, immigrants in the country illegally 'get welfare benefits. United States citizens don't get what they're looking to give illegal immigrants.' Trump's campaign did not respond to our queries, and neither did the White House. But a Trump campaign official told the Washington Post's Fact Checker that Biden supported Obama-era programs that defer deportation for immigrants and make them eligible for Social Security. As the Washington Post pointed out, people receive Social Security benefits if they pay into the system, and immigrants wouldn't be taking away 'your benefits,' as the ad implied. | Our ruling A Trump campaign ad claimed, 'Joe Biden tried to cut Social Security and Medicare for decades. ... Now Biden's promising your benefits to illegal immigrants.' It's misleading to say that Biden for decades tried to cut Social Security and Medicare. His overall record is mixed. The ad also gives the wrong impression that Biden is trying to take benefits away from Americans and grant them to immigrants illegally in the country. That's not Biden's plan. Biden wants to allow immigrants illegally in the country to buy health insurance, without subsidies. That would not take away Ameicans ability to buy their own insurance. We rate the ad's claims Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"104789-proof-24-2c519a94fb81108ca5a38647423037c9.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden 'tried to cut Social Security and Medicare for decades. ... Now Biden's promising your benefits to illegal immigrants. | Contradiction | An ad seeking to sway Florida voters to President Donald Trump's side claims that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has long attempted to take away benefits from Americans and now wants to give them to immigrants illegally in the country. The ad's claims are inaccurate and misleading. 'Joe Biden tried to cut Social Security and Medicare for decades. ... Now, Biden is promising your benefits to illegal immigrants,' says the narrator in the ad posted by Trump for Florida, an official Facebook page for Trump's reelection campaign. Here's an overview of the inaccurate elements in the 30-second video posted Sept. 16. 'Joe Biden tried to cut Social Security and Medicare for decades' This is not a complete reflection of Biden's record, which has changed over time. Starting in the 1970s, Biden called for an increase in monthly benefits, then for a one-year freeze, then floated raising the retirement age, then backed a change in how benefits would increase, and now calls for higher monthly checks for the oldest beneficiaries. In the 1980s and 1990s, Biden spoke in favor of freezes to Social Security as part of an effort to rein in all spending to reduce the deficit. In a 1995 speech, Biden said: 'When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once. I tried it twice. I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.' The Trump ad features a clip of that 1995 speech, but it cut out the part where Biden said he meant freezing 'every single solitary thing in the government.' Biden's campaign told PolitiFact that throughout his career in Congress, Biden cast nearly 50 votes to increase Social Security benefits or block Republican plans to curtail benefits. As vice president during the Obama administration, Biden generally focused on protecting Social Security, and resisted moves to privatize Social Security. However, the administration in 2014, proposed changing how Social Security cost-of-living increases were calculated. The method, which the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities found would have reduced benefits by 1% to 2% over the course of the average retirement, received push-back and was later dropped. Biden as a presidential candidate says action is 'urgently' needed 'to make the program solvent and prevent cuts to American retirees.' The Trump ad cites as evidence for its claim a Jan. 13 article from The Intercept, headlined, 'Fact Check: Joe Biden Has Advocated Cutting Social Security for 40 Years.' The story said that Biden's 2020 position to increase Social Security benefits is 'at odds with decades of his own advocacy.' It cited his stance in the 1980s and 1990s among evidence of his interest in practicing fiscal restraint. During the Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., similarly claimed that Biden 'has advocated cutting Social Security for 40 years.' Based on Biden's nuanced record, we rated that Mostly False. 'Now, Biden is promising your benefits to illegal immigrants' This is not Biden's promise. There is no evidence Biden seeks to deprive Americans of their Social Security and Medicare benefits and give them to immigrants who are violating immigration laws. Biden's plans related to health care and seniors do not call for the elimination of Social Security benefits or Medicare for Americans. And Biden has not put forward a policy to entitle immigrants illegally in the country to Social Security benefits, or to give them access to Medicare, his campaign said. Biden favors allowing immigrants illegally in the country to buy health care plans under the Affordable Care Act marketplace, but without financial help from the government. This would not invalidate U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents' ability to also buy health care plans in the exchange. The Trump ad cited May 10, 2019, Fox News reporting. That day, Fox News said Biden supported health care for immigrants illegally in the country. The story said that in response to a question on whether immigrants illegally in the country should 'should be entitled to federal benefits' like Medicare or Medicaid, Biden said: 'Look, I think that anyone who is in a situation where they are in need of health care, regardless of whether they are documented or undocumented, we have an obligation to see that they are cared for.' Video of that response doesn't show Biden explicitly mentioning Medicare or Medicaid. Trump in July falsely claimed that under Biden's policy, immigrants in the country illegally 'get welfare benefits. United States citizens don't get what they're looking to give illegal immigrants.' Trump's campaign did not respond to our queries, and neither did the White House. But a Trump campaign official told the Washington Post's Fact Checker that Biden supported Obama-era programs that defer deportation for immigrants and make them eligible for Social Security. As the Washington Post pointed out, people receive Social Security benefits if they pay into the system, and immigrants wouldn't be taking away 'your benefits,' as the ad implied. | Our ruling A Trump campaign ad claimed, 'Joe Biden tried to cut Social Security and Medicare for decades. ... Now Biden's promising your benefits to illegal immigrants.' It's misleading to say that Biden for decades tried to cut Social Security and Medicare. His overall record is mixed. The ad also gives the wrong impression that Biden is trying to take benefits away from Americans and grant them to immigrants illegally in the country. That's not Biden's plan. Biden wants to allow immigrants illegally in the country to buy health insurance, without subsidies. That would not take away Ameicans ability to buy their own insurance. We rate the ad's claims Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"104789-proof-24-2c519a94fb81108ca5a38647423037c9.jpg"
]
|
Says Denzel Washington left the Democratic Party because he's 'had it with the lies. | Contradiction | Misinformation that spreads on social media often stars the actor Denzel Washington. In 2016, for example, we wrote about a fabricated story that said Washington backed Donald Trump 'in the most epic way.' In 2018, we debunked a claim that Washington praised Trump for avoiding a war with Russia. Now, a screenshot being shared on Instagram claims: 'Denzel Washington leaves Democrat Party: 'I've had it with the lies'.' Some people commenting on the Instagram post applauded Washington's move. Others wondered if it was real. It's not. 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.) Text below an image of the actor in the Instagram post says: 'Denzel Washington, who has never stepped outside the realm of acting to engage in politics, has taken a stand. It won't be very popular with Democrats. In an interview with America's Last Line of Defense, Denzel said that he couldn't handle the constant lies and that he's turning his attention to helping team Trump.' The actor 'did not say this to any publication,' Alan Nierob, a representative for Washington, told Reuters in March. The post traces back to a story published in 2019 on bustatroll.org, which describes itself as a satire site and is connected to a similar site, 'America's Last Line of Defense.' Washington has been private about his politics. In 2016, he told reporters that it was none of their business who he supported in the presidential election. That year, he also criticized a fabricated story that said he had switched his support from then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to Trump. According to OpenSecrets' database of political donations, Washington has donated to Barack Obama, Clinton and the Democratic National Committee. But he didn't make the statements that appear in the Instagram post. We rate it Pants on Fire. | We rate it Pants on Fire. | []
|
'DEA agent Mark Ibrahim was forced from his job and later indicted simply because he was near the Capitol protest on Jan. 6. | Contradiction | In a new conspiratorial documentary series about the Jan. 6 insurrection, Fox News host Tucker Carlson makes an array of dubious claims over an ominous soundtrack, cutting away to sympathetic interviews with people who he says have been unfairly targeted since the Capitol attack. Carlson's film attempts to rewrite the history of Jan. 6 with wild, unsupported claims that the U.S. government is using the day's events to entrap Americans who voted for former President Donald Trump. In part two of the three-part 'Patriot Purge' series, Carlson tells a story about a man named Mark Ibrahim - a former agent with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration who faces multiple charges in the Capitol breach. Ibrahim, 32, is shown running along the Arlington Memorial Bridge with his dog and completing a tactical training course. Then Carlson claims: 'DEA agent Mark Ibrahim was forced from his job and later indicted simply because he was near the Capitol protest on Jan. 6.' This is wrong. Court documents show that Ibrahim had already submitted his intent to resign from the DEA weeks before Jan. 6. He was considered a probationary employee on leave from the agency the day of the insurrection. Ibrahim was indicted on federal charges because investigators found he brought a gun with him onto Capitol grounds and then made false statements to federal agents in a recorded interview. None of these details are mentioned in Carlson's piece. PolitiFact reached out to Fox News for comment but did not hear back. A DEA spokesperson confirmed that Ibrahim is no longer employed with the agency but did not provide further details. Carlson's documentary claims that Ibrahim was invited to the Capitol by a friend - an FBI informant attending the day's events to assist the FBI. Carlson repeats this claim, saying that the friend 'strongly encouraged' Ibrahim to go inside the Capitol. 'Ibrahim knew it was illegal so he refused to do it,' Carlson says in the video. 'Mark Ibrahim now faces 15 years in federal prison.' Federal investigators interviewed the friend, who is not named in the court filing, and heard a different story that is not disclosed in Carlson's piece. The friend said Ibrahim crafted the story to 'cover his a--' and went to the rally in order to promote himself in preparation for launching a possible 'Liberty Tavern' political podcast and cigar brand, court documents said. The friend told investigators they were not at the Capitol in any formal capacity for the FBI. Carlson doesn't mention any details about Ibrahim's charges, which include making a false statement and carrying a firearm on restricted grounds. While Ibrahim did not enter the Capitol, investigators say he climbed onto Peace Monument, which is located on the Capitol grounds, to film himself as he delivered a 'monologue' and presented several photos that show Ibrahim posing while flashing his DEA badge and firearm. He also sent photos of himself at the Capitol to a group chat on WhatsApp that included at least five other law enforcement officers, according to court documents. Source: U.S. Justice Department In a recorded interview, Ibrahim admitted to federal investigators that he was at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and that he had his DEA credentials with him, as well as his badge and firearm. He said, 'I had my creds. I had my firearm, and my badge on me ... But never exposed ... Not that I know of.' Pictures show that to be false. He was arrested in July 2021 and faces charges that include entering or remaining in a restricted building or on Capitol grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon, and making false statements. | Our ruling Carlson said Ibrahim was 'forced' from his DEA job and 'later indicted simply because he was near the Capitol protest on Jan. 6.' Court documents show that Ibrahim had been a probationary DEA employee on leave on Jan. 6 and had given a notice of his intent to resign from the agency several weeks earlier. He was indicted for bringing a firearm on Capitol grounds and for making false statements to federal agents, not 'simply because he was near the Capitol.' We rate this False. | []
|
'DEA agent Mark Ibrahim was forced from his job and later indicted simply because he was near the Capitol protest on Jan. 6. | Contradiction | In a new conspiratorial documentary series about the Jan. 6 insurrection, Fox News host Tucker Carlson makes an array of dubious claims over an ominous soundtrack, cutting away to sympathetic interviews with people who he says have been unfairly targeted since the Capitol attack. Carlson's film attempts to rewrite the history of Jan. 6 with wild, unsupported claims that the U.S. government is using the day's events to entrap Americans who voted for former President Donald Trump. In part two of the three-part 'Patriot Purge' series, Carlson tells a story about a man named Mark Ibrahim - a former agent with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration who faces multiple charges in the Capitol breach. Ibrahim, 32, is shown running along the Arlington Memorial Bridge with his dog and completing a tactical training course. Then Carlson claims: 'DEA agent Mark Ibrahim was forced from his job and later indicted simply because he was near the Capitol protest on Jan. 6.' This is wrong. Court documents show that Ibrahim had already submitted his intent to resign from the DEA weeks before Jan. 6. He was considered a probationary employee on leave from the agency the day of the insurrection. Ibrahim was indicted on federal charges because investigators found he brought a gun with him onto Capitol grounds and then made false statements to federal agents in a recorded interview. None of these details are mentioned in Carlson's piece. PolitiFact reached out to Fox News for comment but did not hear back. A DEA spokesperson confirmed that Ibrahim is no longer employed with the agency but did not provide further details. Carlson's documentary claims that Ibrahim was invited to the Capitol by a friend - an FBI informant attending the day's events to assist the FBI. Carlson repeats this claim, saying that the friend 'strongly encouraged' Ibrahim to go inside the Capitol. 'Ibrahim knew it was illegal so he refused to do it,' Carlson says in the video. 'Mark Ibrahim now faces 15 years in federal prison.' Federal investigators interviewed the friend, who is not named in the court filing, and heard a different story that is not disclosed in Carlson's piece. The friend said Ibrahim crafted the story to 'cover his a--' and went to the rally in order to promote himself in preparation for launching a possible 'Liberty Tavern' political podcast and cigar brand, court documents said. The friend told investigators they were not at the Capitol in any formal capacity for the FBI. Carlson doesn't mention any details about Ibrahim's charges, which include making a false statement and carrying a firearm on restricted grounds. While Ibrahim did not enter the Capitol, investigators say he climbed onto Peace Monument, which is located on the Capitol grounds, to film himself as he delivered a 'monologue' and presented several photos that show Ibrahim posing while flashing his DEA badge and firearm. He also sent photos of himself at the Capitol to a group chat on WhatsApp that included at least five other law enforcement officers, according to court documents. Source: U.S. Justice Department In a recorded interview, Ibrahim admitted to federal investigators that he was at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and that he had his DEA credentials with him, as well as his badge and firearm. He said, 'I had my creds. I had my firearm, and my badge on me ... But never exposed ... Not that I know of.' Pictures show that to be false. He was arrested in July 2021 and faces charges that include entering or remaining in a restricted building or on Capitol grounds with a deadly or dangerous weapon, and making false statements. | Our ruling Carlson said Ibrahim was 'forced' from his DEA job and 'later indicted simply because he was near the Capitol protest on Jan. 6.' Court documents show that Ibrahim had been a probationary DEA employee on leave on Jan. 6 and had given a notice of his intent to resign from the agency several weeks earlier. He was indicted for bringing a firearm on Capitol grounds and for making false statements to federal agents, not 'simply because he was near the Capitol.' We rate this False. | []
|
'The media is pretty quiet about Florida's decline in COVID cases. No mask mandates or vaccine mandates. | Contradiction | Conservative podcast host Joey Saladino took a shot at the media while touting a decrease in COVID-19 infections in Florida. 'The Media is pretty quiet about Florida's Decline in COVID cases. No Mask Mandates or Vaccine Mandates,' Saladino wrote on Instagram, where he has 148,000 followers. The Oct. 10 post included a chart, with data attributed to the New York Times, indicating that the rate of daily cases of COVID-19 in Florida had dropped sharply starting in late-August 2021. 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 news media have reported for weeks on the drop in cases - which occurred only after a period in which Florida led the nation in new cases. Moreover, while it does have measures restricting mask and proof of vaccination mandates, it still ranks among the states with the highest case rates. Restricts mask mandates, vaccination proof Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has signed COVID-19 measures to prohibit requirements to prove vaccination in certain places and to ban mask mandates in schools. In May, DeSantis signed a bill that prohibits requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination to gain entrance to, or services from businesses, governmental bodies and educational institutions. Violators are subject to a $5,000 fine per violation. On Oct. 12, the state fined Leon County, home to the capital, $3.5 million for requiring its employees to get COVID-19 vaccines and for firing 14 workers who failed to get the shots. In July, DeSantis issued an executive order to ban mask mandates in schools. So far, it has prevailed in court challenges. The order states that schools cannot mandate that their students wear masks and that the state can deny funding to districts that don't comply. On Oct. 7, the state Board of Education voted to sanction eight school districts, exposing them to potential funding cuts, because the districts allow parents to decide whether the students wear masks. COVID-19 cases declining from highs COVID-19 cases in Florida are decreasing - but from staggering heights. In late July, we rated Pants on Fire a claim that reports of Florida's cases being up were 'a blatant lie.' Florida accounted for more than one-fifth of new COVID-19 cases in the U.S. at the time and recorded more COVID-19 deaths than any other state. The seven day-average positivity rate for testing rose from 0.83% on June 11 to 24.3% on July 25. In each of the past six weeks, counts of new cases have declined sharply, according to the latest figures from the Florida Health Department. There were 151,789 new cases during the week starting Aug. 20 and 25,792 during the week starting Oct. 1. But Florida still ranks high in the cumulative number of COVID-19 cases per 1 million population, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. As of Oct. 14, North Dakota was first, at 183,176; Florida was fifth, at 167,728; the U.S. average was 135,767. Media coverage of the decline Our Google searches found that the decline has produced headlines like these for weeks, though primarily in Florida media: South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 'COVID in Florida: 3974 new cases as steep drop continues,' Oct. 6 WPLG-TV in South Florida, 'Florida COVID cases dip to lowest since early July,' Sept. 28, 2021 Palm Beach Post, 'COVID cases across Florida drop by 40% since last week; pandemic fatalities also down,' Sept. 24, 2021 Fox 13 TV in Tampa Bay, ''Work to be done' as Florida's COVID-19 numbers continue decline from summertime peak,' Sept. 20, 2021 Tampa Bay Times, 'Florida schools shift pandemic protocols as new cases decrease,' Sept. 20, 2021 The Associated Press news service, 'New daily virus cases in Florida is lowest since July,' Sept. 18, 2021 Fortune magazine, 'Florida sees new COVID cases drop by 47% in the past two weeks,' Sept. 16, 2021 Action News TV in Jacksonville, 'Florida's COVID cases drop again,' Sept. 13, 2021 CBS 12 TV in West Palm Beach, 'New COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations drop in Florida,' Sept. 7, 2021 | Our ruling An Instagram post stated: 'The media is pretty quiet about Florida's decline in COVID cases. No mask mandates or vaccine mandates.' News media have reported for weeks on the recent decline in COVID-19 cases in Florida. Florida does have measures that restrict mask mandates in schools and limit requirements to show proof of vaccination. But the decline in cases occurred only after Florida led the nation, and Florida still ranks among states with the highest case rate. The statement contains only an element of truth. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"104830-proof-19-f8a439bc613f637430577dd498512d52.jpg"
]
|
'The media is pretty quiet about Florida's decline in COVID cases. No mask mandates or vaccine mandates. | Contradiction | Conservative podcast host Joey Saladino took a shot at the media while touting a decrease in COVID-19 infections in Florida. 'The Media is pretty quiet about Florida's Decline in COVID cases. No Mask Mandates or Vaccine Mandates,' Saladino wrote on Instagram, where he has 148,000 followers. The Oct. 10 post included a chart, with data attributed to the New York Times, indicating that the rate of daily cases of COVID-19 in Florida had dropped sharply starting in late-August 2021. 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 news media have reported for weeks on the drop in cases - which occurred only after a period in which Florida led the nation in new cases. Moreover, while it does have measures restricting mask and proof of vaccination mandates, it still ranks among the states with the highest case rates. Restricts mask mandates, vaccination proof Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has signed COVID-19 measures to prohibit requirements to prove vaccination in certain places and to ban mask mandates in schools. In May, DeSantis signed a bill that prohibits requiring proof of COVID-19 vaccination to gain entrance to, or services from businesses, governmental bodies and educational institutions. Violators are subject to a $5,000 fine per violation. On Oct. 12, the state fined Leon County, home to the capital, $3.5 million for requiring its employees to get COVID-19 vaccines and for firing 14 workers who failed to get the shots. In July, DeSantis issued an executive order to ban mask mandates in schools. So far, it has prevailed in court challenges. The order states that schools cannot mandate that their students wear masks and that the state can deny funding to districts that don't comply. On Oct. 7, the state Board of Education voted to sanction eight school districts, exposing them to potential funding cuts, because the districts allow parents to decide whether the students wear masks. COVID-19 cases declining from highs COVID-19 cases in Florida are decreasing - but from staggering heights. In late July, we rated Pants on Fire a claim that reports of Florida's cases being up were 'a blatant lie.' Florida accounted for more than one-fifth of new COVID-19 cases in the U.S. at the time and recorded more COVID-19 deaths than any other state. The seven day-average positivity rate for testing rose from 0.83% on June 11 to 24.3% on July 25. In each of the past six weeks, counts of new cases have declined sharply, according to the latest figures from the Florida Health Department. There were 151,789 new cases during the week starting Aug. 20 and 25,792 during the week starting Oct. 1. But Florida still ranks high in the cumulative number of COVID-19 cases per 1 million population, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. As of Oct. 14, North Dakota was first, at 183,176; Florida was fifth, at 167,728; the U.S. average was 135,767. Media coverage of the decline Our Google searches found that the decline has produced headlines like these for weeks, though primarily in Florida media: South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 'COVID in Florida: 3974 new cases as steep drop continues,' Oct. 6 WPLG-TV in South Florida, 'Florida COVID cases dip to lowest since early July,' Sept. 28, 2021 Palm Beach Post, 'COVID cases across Florida drop by 40% since last week; pandemic fatalities also down,' Sept. 24, 2021 Fox 13 TV in Tampa Bay, ''Work to be done' as Florida's COVID-19 numbers continue decline from summertime peak,' Sept. 20, 2021 Tampa Bay Times, 'Florida schools shift pandemic protocols as new cases decrease,' Sept. 20, 2021 The Associated Press news service, 'New daily virus cases in Florida is lowest since July,' Sept. 18, 2021 Fortune magazine, 'Florida sees new COVID cases drop by 47% in the past two weeks,' Sept. 16, 2021 Action News TV in Jacksonville, 'Florida's COVID cases drop again,' Sept. 13, 2021 CBS 12 TV in West Palm Beach, 'New COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations drop in Florida,' Sept. 7, 2021 | Our ruling An Instagram post stated: 'The media is pretty quiet about Florida's decline in COVID cases. No mask mandates or vaccine mandates.' News media have reported for weeks on the recent decline in COVID-19 cases in Florida. Florida does have measures that restrict mask mandates in schools and limit requirements to show proof of vaccination. But the decline in cases occurred only after Florida led the nation, and Florida still ranks among states with the highest case rate. The statement contains only an element of truth. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"104830-proof-19-f8a439bc613f637430577dd498512d52.jpg"
]
|
Says 'Fallon (Fox), a transgender MMA fighter, has now broken 2 female opponents' skulls,' and shows a photo of Fox alongside an MMA fighter with a severely bloodied face. | Contradiction | With federal efforts underway to expand transgender rights, claims about transgender people have been rampant, and participation in sports is one particular area of focus. One claim making the rounds on social media takes aim at retired transgender MMA fighter Fallon Fox, whose last bout was in 2014. The Facebook post says, 'Fallon (Fox), a transgender MMA fighter, has now broken 2 female opponents' skulls,' and shows a photo of Fox alongside an MMA fighter with a severely bloodied face. 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.) During her two-year MMA career, Fox had one bout that resulted in facial injuries to her opponent - which is not uncommon in MMA - but the Facebook post gets most details wrong. Fox did not break two people's skulls. And she did not cause the injuries of or ever fight the bloodied person pictured in the post. Fox is a transgender woman whose sex at birth was male; she underwent gender reassignment surgery in 2006. When she went public with her story in 2013, she became the first openly transgender woman athlete to compete in MMA. The Facebook post implies that because Fox's sex at birth was male, she maintains a physical advantage over her opponents and, as a result, is causing serious injuries. But a study in the Journal of Sports Science & Medicine found that MMA fights have an overall high rate of injury, and that the majority of recorded injuries were to the face. During a 2014 fight, Fox defeated Tamikka Brents by knockout. One report at the time from a news outlet that covers MMA said that Brents had a concussion, broken orbital bone and required seven staples in her head. Fox has commented on her bout against Brents several times on Twitter. In June 2020, when someone accused her of smashing two women's skulls open, Fox tweeted, 'For the record, I knocked two out. One woman's skull was fractured, the other not. And just so you know, I enjoyed it.' In October 2020, replying to a tweet that has since been deleted, Fox tweeted, 'I fractured Tamikka Brents skull. And other women have done the same in the sport. You try to make it seem as if I'm the only one who could do that. Why?' Then, in February 2021, Fox described Brents' injuries in different terms. Responding to a claim that seems to mirror the one we are checking, Fox tweeted, 'The rumor's kinda based on another fight where I fractured opponent Tamikka Brents orbital bone years ago. They said I 'broke her skull.' As if it split in half & she died. Now there's rumors that I broke 2 women's skulls. Never broken anyone's skull. It's an orbital fracture!' In the Facebook post about Fox, the photo that accompanies the claim juxtaposes images of a bloodied fighter and Fox giving thumbs-up signs. The bloodied person pictured is Kay Hansen, who started fighting in MMA bouts in 2017, three years after Fox's last bout. The fight that caused those injuries to Hansen took place in March 2018 against Kal Schwartz, and a media report at the time said that Schwartz 'paint(ed) her opponent red' when blood poured out of a wound. Fox addressed the photo in a series of tweets last month, saying, 'So tired of the fake news circulating that I broke this woman's skull. The upper photo is fake. ...It was Kal Schwartz - a cis woman - who caused the damage to opponent Kay Hansen that I'm being blamed for!' | Our ruling A Facebook post says, 'Fallon (Fox), a transgender MMA fighter, has now broken 2 female opponents' skulls,' and shows a photo of Fox alongside an MMA fighter with a severely bloodied face. Fox fractured one opponent's orbital bone; she did not break two people's skulls. The photo that juxtaposes Fox with bloodied MMA fighter Kay Hansen is misleading and inaccurate. Hansen's injuries were sustained in a 2018 fight with Kal Schwartz, and the fight took place years after Fox's last MMA bout. The claim contains an element of truth because one person sustained a head injury in a fight with Fox, but it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression and includes a photo that has no association with Fox. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
Says 'Fallon (Fox), a transgender MMA fighter, has now broken 2 female opponents' skulls,' and shows a photo of Fox alongside an MMA fighter with a severely bloodied face. | Contradiction | With federal efforts underway to expand transgender rights, claims about transgender people have been rampant, and participation in sports is one particular area of focus. One claim making the rounds on social media takes aim at retired transgender MMA fighter Fallon Fox, whose last bout was in 2014. The Facebook post says, 'Fallon (Fox), a transgender MMA fighter, has now broken 2 female opponents' skulls,' and shows a photo of Fox alongside an MMA fighter with a severely bloodied face. 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.) During her two-year MMA career, Fox had one bout that resulted in facial injuries to her opponent - which is not uncommon in MMA - but the Facebook post gets most details wrong. Fox did not break two people's skulls. And she did not cause the injuries of or ever fight the bloodied person pictured in the post. Fox is a transgender woman whose sex at birth was male; she underwent gender reassignment surgery in 2006. When she went public with her story in 2013, she became the first openly transgender woman athlete to compete in MMA. The Facebook post implies that because Fox's sex at birth was male, she maintains a physical advantage over her opponents and, as a result, is causing serious injuries. But a study in the Journal of Sports Science & Medicine found that MMA fights have an overall high rate of injury, and that the majority of recorded injuries were to the face. During a 2014 fight, Fox defeated Tamikka Brents by knockout. One report at the time from a news outlet that covers MMA said that Brents had a concussion, broken orbital bone and required seven staples in her head. Fox has commented on her bout against Brents several times on Twitter. In June 2020, when someone accused her of smashing two women's skulls open, Fox tweeted, 'For the record, I knocked two out. One woman's skull was fractured, the other not. And just so you know, I enjoyed it.' In October 2020, replying to a tweet that has since been deleted, Fox tweeted, 'I fractured Tamikka Brents skull. And other women have done the same in the sport. You try to make it seem as if I'm the only one who could do that. Why?' Then, in February 2021, Fox described Brents' injuries in different terms. Responding to a claim that seems to mirror the one we are checking, Fox tweeted, 'The rumor's kinda based on another fight where I fractured opponent Tamikka Brents orbital bone years ago. They said I 'broke her skull.' As if it split in half & she died. Now there's rumors that I broke 2 women's skulls. Never broken anyone's skull. It's an orbital fracture!' In the Facebook post about Fox, the photo that accompanies the claim juxtaposes images of a bloodied fighter and Fox giving thumbs-up signs. The bloodied person pictured is Kay Hansen, who started fighting in MMA bouts in 2017, three years after Fox's last bout. The fight that caused those injuries to Hansen took place in March 2018 against Kal Schwartz, and a media report at the time said that Schwartz 'paint(ed) her opponent red' when blood poured out of a wound. Fox addressed the photo in a series of tweets last month, saying, 'So tired of the fake news circulating that I broke this woman's skull. The upper photo is fake. ...It was Kal Schwartz - a cis woman - who caused the damage to opponent Kay Hansen that I'm being blamed for!' | Our ruling A Facebook post says, 'Fallon (Fox), a transgender MMA fighter, has now broken 2 female opponents' skulls,' and shows a photo of Fox alongside an MMA fighter with a severely bloodied face. Fox fractured one opponent's orbital bone; she did not break two people's skulls. The photo that juxtaposes Fox with bloodied MMA fighter Kay Hansen is misleading and inaccurate. Hansen's injuries were sustained in a 2018 fight with Kal Schwartz, and the fight took place years after Fox's last MMA bout. The claim contains an element of truth because one person sustained a head injury in a fight with Fox, but it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression and includes a photo that has no association with Fox. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
Says 'Fallon (Fox), a transgender MMA fighter, has now broken 2 female opponents' skulls,' and shows a photo of Fox alongside an MMA fighter with a severely bloodied face. | Contradiction | With federal efforts underway to expand transgender rights, claims about transgender people have been rampant, and participation in sports is one particular area of focus. One claim making the rounds on social media takes aim at retired transgender MMA fighter Fallon Fox, whose last bout was in 2014. The Facebook post says, 'Fallon (Fox), a transgender MMA fighter, has now broken 2 female opponents' skulls,' and shows a photo of Fox alongside an MMA fighter with a severely bloodied face. 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.) During her two-year MMA career, Fox had one bout that resulted in facial injuries to her opponent - which is not uncommon in MMA - but the Facebook post gets most details wrong. Fox did not break two people's skulls. And she did not cause the injuries of or ever fight the bloodied person pictured in the post. Fox is a transgender woman whose sex at birth was male; she underwent gender reassignment surgery in 2006. When she went public with her story in 2013, she became the first openly transgender woman athlete to compete in MMA. The Facebook post implies that because Fox's sex at birth was male, she maintains a physical advantage over her opponents and, as a result, is causing serious injuries. But a study in the Journal of Sports Science & Medicine found that MMA fights have an overall high rate of injury, and that the majority of recorded injuries were to the face. During a 2014 fight, Fox defeated Tamikka Brents by knockout. One report at the time from a news outlet that covers MMA said that Brents had a concussion, broken orbital bone and required seven staples in her head. Fox has commented on her bout against Brents several times on Twitter. In June 2020, when someone accused her of smashing two women's skulls open, Fox tweeted, 'For the record, I knocked two out. One woman's skull was fractured, the other not. And just so you know, I enjoyed it.' In October 2020, replying to a tweet that has since been deleted, Fox tweeted, 'I fractured Tamikka Brents skull. And other women have done the same in the sport. You try to make it seem as if I'm the only one who could do that. Why?' Then, in February 2021, Fox described Brents' injuries in different terms. Responding to a claim that seems to mirror the one we are checking, Fox tweeted, 'The rumor's kinda based on another fight where I fractured opponent Tamikka Brents orbital bone years ago. They said I 'broke her skull.' As if it split in half & she died. Now there's rumors that I broke 2 women's skulls. Never broken anyone's skull. It's an orbital fracture!' In the Facebook post about Fox, the photo that accompanies the claim juxtaposes images of a bloodied fighter and Fox giving thumbs-up signs. The bloodied person pictured is Kay Hansen, who started fighting in MMA bouts in 2017, three years after Fox's last bout. The fight that caused those injuries to Hansen took place in March 2018 against Kal Schwartz, and a media report at the time said that Schwartz 'paint(ed) her opponent red' when blood poured out of a wound. Fox addressed the photo in a series of tweets last month, saying, 'So tired of the fake news circulating that I broke this woman's skull. The upper photo is fake. ...It was Kal Schwartz - a cis woman - who caused the damage to opponent Kay Hansen that I'm being blamed for!' | Our ruling A Facebook post says, 'Fallon (Fox), a transgender MMA fighter, has now broken 2 female opponents' skulls,' and shows a photo of Fox alongside an MMA fighter with a severely bloodied face. Fox fractured one opponent's orbital bone; she did not break two people's skulls. The photo that juxtaposes Fox with bloodied MMA fighter Kay Hansen is misleading and inaccurate. Hansen's injuries were sustained in a 2018 fight with Kal Schwartz, and the fight took place years after Fox's last MMA bout. The claim contains an element of truth because one person sustained a head injury in a fight with Fox, but it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression and includes a photo that has no association with Fox. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
'Biden's Air Force One is not the same as Trump's Air Force One,' which indicates Biden is not the real president. | Contradiction | On Friday, Feb. 5, President Joe Biden boarded Air Force One and flew to his home state of Delaware. As images of the trip emerged, some social media users seized on the fact that Biden was taking a plane different from the one that often transported Donald Trump when he was president. 'Biden's Air Force One is not the same as Trump's Air Force One,' reads the title of a video published Feb. 6 on Bitchute, which shows the photos of the different planes sandwiched between graphics that show the word 'LIE' stamped across headlines declaring 'Biden Wins.' 'Media lied to you about Joe flying on AF1,' reads a Feb. 7 Facebook post with a similar claim. 'Notice the difference... AF1 is in the top photo complete with seal. The bottom plane is a Boeing C-40 the one Joe flew on ... used for high profile government officials to fly on but NOT the President. President flies on AF1 or Marine 1. Notice the little things... and you'll catch them in their lies!' These posts imply that Biden is not flying on Air Force One because he is not the real commander-in-chief, furthering a baseless conspiracy theory that the November election was not legitimate. This theory is not based in fact, and it rests on a flawed understanding of Air Force One. Air Force One isn't the name of a particular plane. It's the air traffic control sign designating any Air Force aircraft carrying the president. In other words, any Air Force plane carrying the president is called Air Force One. There are two types of planes typically designated for carrying the president: a Boeing VC-25A and a Boeing C-32. The VC-25A is the iconic military plane most commonly associated with Air Force One, while the C-32 is typically used for shorter domestic flights and flights to small airports that can't support the much larger VC-25A. Biden's flight from Washington, D.C. to Delaware lasted only 25 minutes, so he took the C-32 plane. Images from Feb. 5 show him disembarking from the plane at Wilmington Airport. Former President Donald Trump was frequently filmed and photographed taking the C-32 plane as well. So was President Barack Obama. Joe Biden is the president of the United States. He was duly inaugurated as the 46th U.S. president on Jan. 20. The day's events were witnessed and documented by elected officials, former presidents, military members, reporters, photographers and performers. They were also broadcast and live-streamed by several outlets including ABC, CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News, NBC and PBS. | Our ruling Posts claim that 'Biden's Air Force One is not the same as Trump's Air Force One,' which means that Biden is not the real president. Any Air Force plane transporting the president is designated with the Air Force One call sign. On a trip to Delaware, Biden took a small plane the president uses for short domestic flights and flights to small airports. Trump also took that plane when he was president. These posts are inaccurate and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! RELATED: Biden took a private plane to his inauguration. He's still the legitimate president | [
"104839-proof-18-c8451ac4b30c152a19a04bbb61c110ff.jpg"
]
|
'Biden's Air Force One is not the same as Trump's Air Force One,' which indicates Biden is not the real president. | Contradiction | On Friday, Feb. 5, President Joe Biden boarded Air Force One and flew to his home state of Delaware. As images of the trip emerged, some social media users seized on the fact that Biden was taking a plane different from the one that often transported Donald Trump when he was president. 'Biden's Air Force One is not the same as Trump's Air Force One,' reads the title of a video published Feb. 6 on Bitchute, which shows the photos of the different planes sandwiched between graphics that show the word 'LIE' stamped across headlines declaring 'Biden Wins.' 'Media lied to you about Joe flying on AF1,' reads a Feb. 7 Facebook post with a similar claim. 'Notice the difference... AF1 is in the top photo complete with seal. The bottom plane is a Boeing C-40 the one Joe flew on ... used for high profile government officials to fly on but NOT the President. President flies on AF1 or Marine 1. Notice the little things... and you'll catch them in their lies!' These posts imply that Biden is not flying on Air Force One because he is not the real commander-in-chief, furthering a baseless conspiracy theory that the November election was not legitimate. This theory is not based in fact, and it rests on a flawed understanding of Air Force One. Air Force One isn't the name of a particular plane. It's the air traffic control sign designating any Air Force aircraft carrying the president. In other words, any Air Force plane carrying the president is called Air Force One. There are two types of planes typically designated for carrying the president: a Boeing VC-25A and a Boeing C-32. The VC-25A is the iconic military plane most commonly associated with Air Force One, while the C-32 is typically used for shorter domestic flights and flights to small airports that can't support the much larger VC-25A. Biden's flight from Washington, D.C. to Delaware lasted only 25 minutes, so he took the C-32 plane. Images from Feb. 5 show him disembarking from the plane at Wilmington Airport. Former President Donald Trump was frequently filmed and photographed taking the C-32 plane as well. So was President Barack Obama. Joe Biden is the president of the United States. He was duly inaugurated as the 46th U.S. president on Jan. 20. The day's events were witnessed and documented by elected officials, former presidents, military members, reporters, photographers and performers. They were also broadcast and live-streamed by several outlets including ABC, CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News, NBC and PBS. | Our ruling Posts claim that 'Biden's Air Force One is not the same as Trump's Air Force One,' which means that Biden is not the real president. Any Air Force plane transporting the president is designated with the Air Force One call sign. On a trip to Delaware, Biden took a small plane the president uses for short domestic flights and flights to small airports. Trump also took that plane when he was president. These posts are inaccurate and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! RELATED: Biden took a private plane to his inauguration. He's still the legitimate president | [
"104839-proof-18-c8451ac4b30c152a19a04bbb61c110ff.jpg"
]
|
'Biden's Air Force One is not the same as Trump's Air Force One,' which indicates Biden is not the real president. | Contradiction | On Friday, Feb. 5, President Joe Biden boarded Air Force One and flew to his home state of Delaware. As images of the trip emerged, some social media users seized on the fact that Biden was taking a plane different from the one that often transported Donald Trump when he was president. 'Biden's Air Force One is not the same as Trump's Air Force One,' reads the title of a video published Feb. 6 on Bitchute, which shows the photos of the different planes sandwiched between graphics that show the word 'LIE' stamped across headlines declaring 'Biden Wins.' 'Media lied to you about Joe flying on AF1,' reads a Feb. 7 Facebook post with a similar claim. 'Notice the difference... AF1 is in the top photo complete with seal. The bottom plane is a Boeing C-40 the one Joe flew on ... used for high profile government officials to fly on but NOT the President. President flies on AF1 or Marine 1. Notice the little things... and you'll catch them in their lies!' These posts imply that Biden is not flying on Air Force One because he is not the real commander-in-chief, furthering a baseless conspiracy theory that the November election was not legitimate. This theory is not based in fact, and it rests on a flawed understanding of Air Force One. Air Force One isn't the name of a particular plane. It's the air traffic control sign designating any Air Force aircraft carrying the president. In other words, any Air Force plane carrying the president is called Air Force One. There are two types of planes typically designated for carrying the president: a Boeing VC-25A and a Boeing C-32. The VC-25A is the iconic military plane most commonly associated with Air Force One, while the C-32 is typically used for shorter domestic flights and flights to small airports that can't support the much larger VC-25A. Biden's flight from Washington, D.C. to Delaware lasted only 25 minutes, so he took the C-32 plane. Images from Feb. 5 show him disembarking from the plane at Wilmington Airport. Former President Donald Trump was frequently filmed and photographed taking the C-32 plane as well. So was President Barack Obama. Joe Biden is the president of the United States. He was duly inaugurated as the 46th U.S. president on Jan. 20. The day's events were witnessed and documented by elected officials, former presidents, military members, reporters, photographers and performers. They were also broadcast and live-streamed by several outlets including ABC, CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News, NBC and PBS. | Our ruling Posts claim that 'Biden's Air Force One is not the same as Trump's Air Force One,' which means that Biden is not the real president. Any Air Force plane transporting the president is designated with the Air Force One call sign. On a trip to Delaware, Biden took a small plane the president uses for short domestic flights and flights to small airports. Trump also took that plane when he was president. These posts are inaccurate and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! RELATED: Biden took a private plane to his inauguration. He's still the legitimate president | [
"104839-proof-18-c8451ac4b30c152a19a04bbb61c110ff.jpg"
]
|
'BLM rioters just burned down a black church in a black community with a BLM sign out front. | Contradiction | Amid the unrest over the shooting of Jacob Blake by a white police officer in Kenosha, Wis., on Aug. 23, misinformation has spread on social media. One Facebook post shows a fiery scene behind a sign that says 'Bradford Community Church Unitarian Universalist' with 'Black Lives Matter' on the marquee. 'BLM rioters just burned down a black church in a black community with a BLM sign out front,' the Aug. 25 post says, describing the image. 'Remind me what the protests are about again...? 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 image in the Facebook post also appears on the homepage of the Kenosha church's website. The church was not burned during protests, according to its minister, the Rev. Erik David Carlson. 'Despite the fact that we cannot condone the violent response to injustice, we understand and appreciate the anger and frustration that fueled the events of last night,' Carlson wrote in a message on the church's website. 'While we are relieved that our church home mostly survived the inferno in the lot next door, we affirm that we would rather lose 100 buildings than one more life to police violence.' In the photo that appears on Facebook, the fire behind the church's sign is burning a used-car dealership next door, not the church. Ultimately, the church sign in the photo burned, but the church itself - which is to the left of the sign in the image - was only singed on one side. Everything else appears in working order, Carlson told us. 'There is no indication the sign or the church were targets of the arsonists,' Carlson said. He credited a couple of journalists who saw the fire in the car lot and realized it could spread to the church, dousing flames closest to the building using the church's rain barrels and piling dirt on sparks using snow shovels from a shed behind the building. The Facebook post claims that Bradford Community Church 'is a Black church in a Black community with a BLM sign out front.' The church's sign did say 'Black Lives Matter,' but Carlson, who is white, said 'we are far from a 'Black' church.' The vast majority of its members - historically and now - are white. The church is located in the city's historic downtown area. It's not really residential, Carlson said, though it is relatively close to what would be considered a Black neighborhood. 'But I wouldn't say that we're in the middle of a Black community,' he said. 'We're more in the commerce district.' We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'BLM rioters just burned down a black church in a black community with a BLM sign out front. | Contradiction | Amid the unrest over the shooting of Jacob Blake by a white police officer in Kenosha, Wis., on Aug. 23, misinformation has spread on social media. One Facebook post shows a fiery scene behind a sign that says 'Bradford Community Church Unitarian Universalist' with 'Black Lives Matter' on the marquee. 'BLM rioters just burned down a black church in a black community with a BLM sign out front,' the Aug. 25 post says, describing the image. 'Remind me what the protests are about again...? 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 image in the Facebook post also appears on the homepage of the Kenosha church's website. The church was not burned during protests, according to its minister, the Rev. Erik David Carlson. 'Despite the fact that we cannot condone the violent response to injustice, we understand and appreciate the anger and frustration that fueled the events of last night,' Carlson wrote in a message on the church's website. 'While we are relieved that our church home mostly survived the inferno in the lot next door, we affirm that we would rather lose 100 buildings than one more life to police violence.' In the photo that appears on Facebook, the fire behind the church's sign is burning a used-car dealership next door, not the church. Ultimately, the church sign in the photo burned, but the church itself - which is to the left of the sign in the image - was only singed on one side. Everything else appears in working order, Carlson told us. 'There is no indication the sign or the church were targets of the arsonists,' Carlson said. He credited a couple of journalists who saw the fire in the car lot and realized it could spread to the church, dousing flames closest to the building using the church's rain barrels and piling dirt on sparks using snow shovels from a shed behind the building. The Facebook post claims that Bradford Community Church 'is a Black church in a Black community with a BLM sign out front.' The church's sign did say 'Black Lives Matter,' but Carlson, who is white, said 'we are far from a 'Black' church.' The vast majority of its members - historically and now - are white. The church is located in the city's historic downtown area. It's not really residential, Carlson said, though it is relatively close to what would be considered a Black neighborhood. 'But I wouldn't say that we're in the middle of a Black community,' he said. 'We're more in the commerce district.' We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'BLM rioters just burned down a black church in a black community with a BLM sign out front. | Contradiction | Amid the unrest over the shooting of Jacob Blake by a white police officer in Kenosha, Wis., on Aug. 23, misinformation has spread on social media. One Facebook post shows a fiery scene behind a sign that says 'Bradford Community Church Unitarian Universalist' with 'Black Lives Matter' on the marquee. 'BLM rioters just burned down a black church in a black community with a BLM sign out front,' the Aug. 25 post says, describing the image. 'Remind me what the protests are about again...? 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 image in the Facebook post also appears on the homepage of the Kenosha church's website. The church was not burned during protests, according to its minister, the Rev. Erik David Carlson. 'Despite the fact that we cannot condone the violent response to injustice, we understand and appreciate the anger and frustration that fueled the events of last night,' Carlson wrote in a message on the church's website. 'While we are relieved that our church home mostly survived the inferno in the lot next door, we affirm that we would rather lose 100 buildings than one more life to police violence.' In the photo that appears on Facebook, the fire behind the church's sign is burning a used-car dealership next door, not the church. Ultimately, the church sign in the photo burned, but the church itself - which is to the left of the sign in the image - was only singed on one side. Everything else appears in working order, Carlson told us. 'There is no indication the sign or the church were targets of the arsonists,' Carlson said. He credited a couple of journalists who saw the fire in the car lot and realized it could spread to the church, dousing flames closest to the building using the church's rain barrels and piling dirt on sparks using snow shovels from a shed behind the building. The Facebook post claims that Bradford Community Church 'is a Black church in a Black community with a BLM sign out front.' The church's sign did say 'Black Lives Matter,' but Carlson, who is white, said 'we are far from a 'Black' church.' The vast majority of its members - historically and now - are white. The church is located in the city's historic downtown area. It's not really residential, Carlson said, though it is relatively close to what would be considered a Black neighborhood. 'But I wouldn't say that we're in the middle of a Black community,' he said. 'We're more in the commerce district.' We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Charcoal activated tablets 'will counteract most date rape drugs. | Contradiction | Activated charcoal - a processed form of carbon - has been touted widely for its purported health benefits, particularly its ability to absorb toxins. It has a spot on the World Health Organization's Model List of Essential Medicines, it can be regularly found in emergency rescue service supply kits in some parts of the world, and can be purchased from a local pharmacy - or online - without a doctor's prescription. But social media claims on the ability of activated charcoal to counteract 'date rape drugs' mix medicine with pseudoscience. A date rape drug is a broad label for various drugs and alcohol that can impair someone's ability to give consent to sexual activity. A Facebook post implores social media users to buy activated charcoal tablets and bring them to gatherings or night clubs. 'Should you feel like you aren't yourself or out of place, drink one tablet & it will counteract most date rape drugs,' said the post, which dates back to 2019 and continues to be shared. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) Theoretically, a sufficient dose of activated charcoal could be effective if it is taken before the drug is absorbed by the bloodstream. But drugs commonly used to facilitate rape and other sexual assaults rapidly take effect - and it's contrary to medical advice to ingest activated charcoal if someone is already experiencing symptoms, since by then the drug has already entered the bloodstream. What is activated charcoal? Activated charcoal is produced when carbon substances are heated and then 'activated' with steam or hot air. Because of its absorbent surface, activated charcoal can prevent some toxic substances from being absorbed into the gastrointestinal tract. If someone has overdosed, activated charcoal could gobble up some drug molecules before they are absorbed into the bloodstream, and possibly diminish the drug's effect, said Dr. William Sullivan, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Indiana University. To what extent activated charcoal can bind to toxic substances depends on the properties of the substance, like its particle size, solubility, and pH levels, as well as the contents of the stomach. Crucially, its effectiveness depends on how much time has passed since a drug or poison ingestion. Experts caution against relying on activated charcoal Drugs used in sexual assaults can be tasteless, odorless and sometimes colorless. That makes them difficult to detect, especially if they are mixed with a drink. Most are rapidly absorbed in the bloodstream, meaning that their effects also take hold quickly. Common effects are reduced consciousness or coma. Sullivan explained that if you 'feel like you aren't yourself or out of place,' as the Facebook post suggests, the drug has already reached the brain and activated charcoal is unlikely to effectively counteract the drug. 'Charcoal only works in the [gastrointestinal] tract and will not pull the drug out of the blood or brain, so a charcoal tablet is not going to help at this point,' Sullivan said. Activated charcoal could reduce the severity of a drug's effects if it is taken immediately after ingesting the drug - but figuring out that you've been drugged prior to the onset of symptoms is oftentimes unlikely, said Dr. Michael Eddleston, a clinical toxicologist at the University of Edinburgh. Rohypnol, GHB (gamma hydroxybutyric acid), and ketamine are drugs that are commonly used in sexual assaults. It takes about 30 minutes for Rohpynol and ketamine to enter the bloodstream, while GHB usually takes effect within five to 15 minutes. 'These drugs are sometimes called 'club drugs' because they are often used at dance clubs, concerts, bars, or parties,' said the Office on Women's Health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. People who use drugs or alcohol to commit sexual assault most often use alcohol alone or in combination with other drugs, the office said. Mitchell Gomez, who directs DanceSafe, an organization promoting safety and health in the electronic dance community, also advised that if a person thinks they have been non-consensually given a drug, they should seek medical care and not rely on activated charcoal. 'The reality is, doses of many so called 'date rape drugs' are very small, and by the time you feel intoxicated, you have probably absorbed the majority of the drug already,' Gomez said. Activated charcoal is also rarely used to combat alcohol poisoning, since alcohol is absorbed rapidly from the gut. Risks of improper ingestion of activated charcoal Despite a long history of medical applications, there is no international set of standards on how activated charcoal should be administered - each dosage requires a precise analysis of risks and benefits. Taking one tablet of activated charcoal may not only be an insufficient dose but also the improper formulation for it to produce its intended effect. Aspiration of charcoal in powdered form may contribute to an abnormal buildup of fluid in the lungs and other pulmonary issues. Ingesting charcoal could also have other potentially painful or distressing consequences, since it could bind to other medications, like antidepressants and birth control pills, rendering them ineffective. Experts said that taking a charcoal tablet to block drugs is misguided and could provide people a false sense of security. Instead, they said, if someone thinks they have been poisoned, they should seek medical help immediately. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that charcoal activated tablets 'will counteract most date rape drugs.' Although activated charcoal is often given as an emergency poison treatment, medical experts said that it's unlikely to be effective in detoxifying the gastrointestinal system by the time someone realizes that they may have ingested a drug. We rate this claim False. | []
|
We are seeing 'the Justice Department treat American parents as domestic terrorists' under the Patriot Act. | Contradiction | After U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland told the FBI and every U.S. attorney to pay attention to threats against school officials, top Republicans have charged that the Biden administration is cracking down on parents with legitimate gripes over school policies. When Garland appeared before the House Judiciary Committee Oct. 21, Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said that the Justice Department had unloaded 'the full power of the federal law enforcement in this country on involved parents' at the behest of the National School Boards Association. Chabot focused on the Patriot Act. 'I remember clearly that we were ... concerned about potential abuse of this new law enforcement tool,' Chabot said Oct. 21. 'I can tell you, not in a million years, did we dream that one day, we'd see the Justice Department treat American parents as domestic terrorists.' Is that an accurate take on the Justice Department's actions? When Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said Garland wanted the FBI to 'go after' parents who spoke out against critical race theory, we rated that False. We gave a False rating to viral Instagram posts that said parents had been labeled as domestic terrorists. Now, we look at whether the Justice Department has invoked the Patriot Act against parents of schoolchildren. It has not, and Garland responded firmly to Chabot's suggestion. 'I can't imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children,' Garland said at the hearing. 'Nor can I imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorism.' Chabot spokesman Brian Griffith walked us through why Chabot asserts the Patriot Act is in play, and we gathered the legal insights of several law professors, including a former federal prosecutor, to help sort out the issues. The Justice Department puts things in motion On Oct. 4, Garland sent a memo to the FBI, every U.S. attorney and the Justice Department's Criminal Division. 'While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views,' Garland wrote. Garland told the FBI to hold meetings across the country and bring together leaders at all levels of government to discuss 'strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and (to) open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.' Garland's memo makes no mention of the Patriot Act or terrorism, but the Justice Department's press release about the memo listed a number of departmental divisions that would be involved. 'Efforts are expected to include the creation of a task force, consisting of representatives from the department's Criminal Division, National Security Division, Civil Rights Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the Community Relations Service and the Office of Justice Programs,' the press office wrote. The Patriot Act connection Some Republican lawmakers view the National Security Division as a red flag. The division was created by the 2006 reauthorization of the Patriot Act. The change put a number of existing Justice Department offices under one roof. The focus was largely on foreign terrorists, but the original Patriot Act, championed by Republicans, included a definition of domestic terrorism, and that fell within the scope of the new division. Chabot spokesman Griffith said Garland's words in his memo about 'threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views,' mirrors the definition of domestic terrorism in federal law. Specifically, the part in Section 802 that talks about 'acts dangerous to human life,' designed 'to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.' 'What Attorney General Garland is saying in that first paragraph is that parents are entitled to express their views under the First Amendment, but should they cross the line and either threaten or attempt to intimidate school board members, they may be guilty of the federal crime of domestic terrorism,' Griffith said. 'And the main federal law utilized in investigating alleged domestic terrorism is the Patriot Act.' Griffith noted that the National School Boards Association listed the Patriot Act in its letter to the administration. It was one among many laws the association cited. For over a decade, the Justice Department has dismissed concerns over the broad domestic use of the Patriot Act. The law would be triggered, the department has said, only if there was 'criminal wrongdoing that could result in death.' The Patriot Act's limited reach Law professor and former federal prosecutor Daniel Richman at Columbia University said Griffith overstates the significance of the Patriot Act. 'The Patriot Act has vanishingly little to do with criminalizing any of this, and is unlikely to provide the legal authority needed to prosecute threats and other forms of intimidation over which DOJ has jurisdiction,' Richman said. 'A variety of criminal acts that federal enforcers might well categorize as domestic terrorism - because of the motivation or groups involved - are covered by ordinary criminal statutes.' A report from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan policy arm of Congress, also found that the Patriot Act is far from the main weapon in the legal arsenal. 'Numerous federal statutes offer prosecutors options in charging violent and destructive conduct,' the July 2 report said. William Charles Banks, founding director of Syracuse University's Institute for Security Policy and Law, said there's also nothing new about the need to distinguish between expressing deep anger with government workers and making criminal threats. 'The lines that may be crossed are the same ones that law enforcement has had to observe and navigate for most of the last century, since the U.S. Supreme Court said that the First Amendment protects expressive conduct up to the point that it incentivizes imminent lawless action,' Banks said. 'Likelihood of violence and imminence of it are the two key factors, and they are always fact-sensitive.' Simply put, violence and true threats of violence are against the law, and would be even if the Patriot Act never existed. Gregory Magarian at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis said Chabot 'stretches the statements in the memo and the press release far past their breaking point.' Chabot got ahead of himself, Magarian said, because so far the Justice Department has done very little. 'The memo and press release say nothing about whether the DOJ will take particular actions against particular actors or what those actions might be,' Magarian said. Magarian added that while the National Security Division will be part of a task force, that doesn't necessarily mean that the law that created the division will play a key role. The fear of government overreach There are grounds to worry about what the federal government might do, said George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. 'It's not the federal government's job to enforce state and local law,' Somin said. 'There's no evidence of a need for the Justice Department to get involved where people behave obnoxiously. If people turn to violence, these are matters that states and local governments can handle.' Somin agreed that so far, the federal government 'hasn't actually done anything.' 'They've made statements that raise concerns,' Somin said. 'If they have something different in mind, there are ways they could clarify their intentions and quell a lot of that.' Griffith said that the primary concern is about using the surveillance and investigative tools provided under the Patriot Act, not prosecution itself. 'Attorney General Garland oversold the existence of these acts, and that will lead to more surveillance and more investigations than would otherwise occur,' Griffith said. 'I don't view that as terribly speculative.' | Our ruling Chabot said the U.S. Justice Department is treating 'American parents as domestic terrorists' under the Patriot Act. The Justice Department has moved to create a task force that spans federal, state and local agencies to focus on threats against local school officials. The department's National Security Division is one of many participants in that task force, and it was created through the Patriot Act. Legal scholars say the Patriot Act plays little role in criminalizing threats of this sort. Many other federal and state statutes apply to violence and threats of violence. The memo and press release from the Justice Department don't mention terrorism or the Patriot Act, and to date, the federal government has not acted against anyone. There can be a concern about government overreach, but at this point, those concerns are theoretical. We rate this claim False. | [
"104863-proof-17-c6386f7365fd686dab8a3151bd644826.jpg"
]
|
We are seeing 'the Justice Department treat American parents as domestic terrorists' under the Patriot Act. | Contradiction | After U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland told the FBI and every U.S. attorney to pay attention to threats against school officials, top Republicans have charged that the Biden administration is cracking down on parents with legitimate gripes over school policies. When Garland appeared before the House Judiciary Committee Oct. 21, Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said that the Justice Department had unloaded 'the full power of the federal law enforcement in this country on involved parents' at the behest of the National School Boards Association. Chabot focused on the Patriot Act. 'I remember clearly that we were ... concerned about potential abuse of this new law enforcement tool,' Chabot said Oct. 21. 'I can tell you, not in a million years, did we dream that one day, we'd see the Justice Department treat American parents as domestic terrorists.' Is that an accurate take on the Justice Department's actions? When Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said Garland wanted the FBI to 'go after' parents who spoke out against critical race theory, we rated that False. We gave a False rating to viral Instagram posts that said parents had been labeled as domestic terrorists. Now, we look at whether the Justice Department has invoked the Patriot Act against parents of schoolchildren. It has not, and Garland responded firmly to Chabot's suggestion. 'I can't imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children,' Garland said at the hearing. 'Nor can I imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorism.' Chabot spokesman Brian Griffith walked us through why Chabot asserts the Patriot Act is in play, and we gathered the legal insights of several law professors, including a former federal prosecutor, to help sort out the issues. The Justice Department puts things in motion On Oct. 4, Garland sent a memo to the FBI, every U.S. attorney and the Justice Department's Criminal Division. 'While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views,' Garland wrote. Garland told the FBI to hold meetings across the country and bring together leaders at all levels of government to discuss 'strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and (to) open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.' Garland's memo makes no mention of the Patriot Act or terrorism, but the Justice Department's press release about the memo listed a number of departmental divisions that would be involved. 'Efforts are expected to include the creation of a task force, consisting of representatives from the department's Criminal Division, National Security Division, Civil Rights Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the Community Relations Service and the Office of Justice Programs,' the press office wrote. The Patriot Act connection Some Republican lawmakers view the National Security Division as a red flag. The division was created by the 2006 reauthorization of the Patriot Act. The change put a number of existing Justice Department offices under one roof. The focus was largely on foreign terrorists, but the original Patriot Act, championed by Republicans, included a definition of domestic terrorism, and that fell within the scope of the new division. Chabot spokesman Griffith said Garland's words in his memo about 'threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views,' mirrors the definition of domestic terrorism in federal law. Specifically, the part in Section 802 that talks about 'acts dangerous to human life,' designed 'to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.' 'What Attorney General Garland is saying in that first paragraph is that parents are entitled to express their views under the First Amendment, but should they cross the line and either threaten or attempt to intimidate school board members, they may be guilty of the federal crime of domestic terrorism,' Griffith said. 'And the main federal law utilized in investigating alleged domestic terrorism is the Patriot Act.' Griffith noted that the National School Boards Association listed the Patriot Act in its letter to the administration. It was one among many laws the association cited. For over a decade, the Justice Department has dismissed concerns over the broad domestic use of the Patriot Act. The law would be triggered, the department has said, only if there was 'criminal wrongdoing that could result in death.' The Patriot Act's limited reach Law professor and former federal prosecutor Daniel Richman at Columbia University said Griffith overstates the significance of the Patriot Act. 'The Patriot Act has vanishingly little to do with criminalizing any of this, and is unlikely to provide the legal authority needed to prosecute threats and other forms of intimidation over which DOJ has jurisdiction,' Richman said. 'A variety of criminal acts that federal enforcers might well categorize as domestic terrorism - because of the motivation or groups involved - are covered by ordinary criminal statutes.' A report from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan policy arm of Congress, also found that the Patriot Act is far from the main weapon in the legal arsenal. 'Numerous federal statutes offer prosecutors options in charging violent and destructive conduct,' the July 2 report said. William Charles Banks, founding director of Syracuse University's Institute for Security Policy and Law, said there's also nothing new about the need to distinguish between expressing deep anger with government workers and making criminal threats. 'The lines that may be crossed are the same ones that law enforcement has had to observe and navigate for most of the last century, since the U.S. Supreme Court said that the First Amendment protects expressive conduct up to the point that it incentivizes imminent lawless action,' Banks said. 'Likelihood of violence and imminence of it are the two key factors, and they are always fact-sensitive.' Simply put, violence and true threats of violence are against the law, and would be even if the Patriot Act never existed. Gregory Magarian at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis said Chabot 'stretches the statements in the memo and the press release far past their breaking point.' Chabot got ahead of himself, Magarian said, because so far the Justice Department has done very little. 'The memo and press release say nothing about whether the DOJ will take particular actions against particular actors or what those actions might be,' Magarian said. Magarian added that while the National Security Division will be part of a task force, that doesn't necessarily mean that the law that created the division will play a key role. The fear of government overreach There are grounds to worry about what the federal government might do, said George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. 'It's not the federal government's job to enforce state and local law,' Somin said. 'There's no evidence of a need for the Justice Department to get involved where people behave obnoxiously. If people turn to violence, these are matters that states and local governments can handle.' Somin agreed that so far, the federal government 'hasn't actually done anything.' 'They've made statements that raise concerns,' Somin said. 'If they have something different in mind, there are ways they could clarify their intentions and quell a lot of that.' Griffith said that the primary concern is about using the surveillance and investigative tools provided under the Patriot Act, not prosecution itself. 'Attorney General Garland oversold the existence of these acts, and that will lead to more surveillance and more investigations than would otherwise occur,' Griffith said. 'I don't view that as terribly speculative.' | Our ruling Chabot said the U.S. Justice Department is treating 'American parents as domestic terrorists' under the Patriot Act. The Justice Department has moved to create a task force that spans federal, state and local agencies to focus on threats against local school officials. The department's National Security Division is one of many participants in that task force, and it was created through the Patriot Act. Legal scholars say the Patriot Act plays little role in criminalizing threats of this sort. Many other federal and state statutes apply to violence and threats of violence. The memo and press release from the Justice Department don't mention terrorism or the Patriot Act, and to date, the federal government has not acted against anyone. There can be a concern about government overreach, but at this point, those concerns are theoretical. We rate this claim False. | [
"104863-proof-17-c6386f7365fd686dab8a3151bd644826.jpg"
]
|
We are seeing 'the Justice Department treat American parents as domestic terrorists' under the Patriot Act. | Contradiction | After U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland told the FBI and every U.S. attorney to pay attention to threats against school officials, top Republicans have charged that the Biden administration is cracking down on parents with legitimate gripes over school policies. When Garland appeared before the House Judiciary Committee Oct. 21, Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said that the Justice Department had unloaded 'the full power of the federal law enforcement in this country on involved parents' at the behest of the National School Boards Association. Chabot focused on the Patriot Act. 'I remember clearly that we were ... concerned about potential abuse of this new law enforcement tool,' Chabot said Oct. 21. 'I can tell you, not in a million years, did we dream that one day, we'd see the Justice Department treat American parents as domestic terrorists.' Is that an accurate take on the Justice Department's actions? When Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said Garland wanted the FBI to 'go after' parents who spoke out against critical race theory, we rated that False. We gave a False rating to viral Instagram posts that said parents had been labeled as domestic terrorists. Now, we look at whether the Justice Department has invoked the Patriot Act against parents of schoolchildren. It has not, and Garland responded firmly to Chabot's suggestion. 'I can't imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children,' Garland said at the hearing. 'Nor can I imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorism.' Chabot spokesman Brian Griffith walked us through why Chabot asserts the Patriot Act is in play, and we gathered the legal insights of several law professors, including a former federal prosecutor, to help sort out the issues. The Justice Department puts things in motion On Oct. 4, Garland sent a memo to the FBI, every U.S. attorney and the Justice Department's Criminal Division. 'While spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views,' Garland wrote. Garland told the FBI to hold meetings across the country and bring together leaders at all levels of government to discuss 'strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and (to) open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.' Garland's memo makes no mention of the Patriot Act or terrorism, but the Justice Department's press release about the memo listed a number of departmental divisions that would be involved. 'Efforts are expected to include the creation of a task force, consisting of representatives from the department's Criminal Division, National Security Division, Civil Rights Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the Community Relations Service and the Office of Justice Programs,' the press office wrote. The Patriot Act connection Some Republican lawmakers view the National Security Division as a red flag. The division was created by the 2006 reauthorization of the Patriot Act. The change put a number of existing Justice Department offices under one roof. The focus was largely on foreign terrorists, but the original Patriot Act, championed by Republicans, included a definition of domestic terrorism, and that fell within the scope of the new division. Chabot spokesman Griffith said Garland's words in his memo about 'threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views,' mirrors the definition of domestic terrorism in federal law. Specifically, the part in Section 802 that talks about 'acts dangerous to human life,' designed 'to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.' 'What Attorney General Garland is saying in that first paragraph is that parents are entitled to express their views under the First Amendment, but should they cross the line and either threaten or attempt to intimidate school board members, they may be guilty of the federal crime of domestic terrorism,' Griffith said. 'And the main federal law utilized in investigating alleged domestic terrorism is the Patriot Act.' Griffith noted that the National School Boards Association listed the Patriot Act in its letter to the administration. It was one among many laws the association cited. For over a decade, the Justice Department has dismissed concerns over the broad domestic use of the Patriot Act. The law would be triggered, the department has said, only if there was 'criminal wrongdoing that could result in death.' The Patriot Act's limited reach Law professor and former federal prosecutor Daniel Richman at Columbia University said Griffith overstates the significance of the Patriot Act. 'The Patriot Act has vanishingly little to do with criminalizing any of this, and is unlikely to provide the legal authority needed to prosecute threats and other forms of intimidation over which DOJ has jurisdiction,' Richman said. 'A variety of criminal acts that federal enforcers might well categorize as domestic terrorism - because of the motivation or groups involved - are covered by ordinary criminal statutes.' A report from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan policy arm of Congress, also found that the Patriot Act is far from the main weapon in the legal arsenal. 'Numerous federal statutes offer prosecutors options in charging violent and destructive conduct,' the July 2 report said. William Charles Banks, founding director of Syracuse University's Institute for Security Policy and Law, said there's also nothing new about the need to distinguish between expressing deep anger with government workers and making criminal threats. 'The lines that may be crossed are the same ones that law enforcement has had to observe and navigate for most of the last century, since the U.S. Supreme Court said that the First Amendment protects expressive conduct up to the point that it incentivizes imminent lawless action,' Banks said. 'Likelihood of violence and imminence of it are the two key factors, and they are always fact-sensitive.' Simply put, violence and true threats of violence are against the law, and would be even if the Patriot Act never existed. Gregory Magarian at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis said Chabot 'stretches the statements in the memo and the press release far past their breaking point.' Chabot got ahead of himself, Magarian said, because so far the Justice Department has done very little. 'The memo and press release say nothing about whether the DOJ will take particular actions against particular actors or what those actions might be,' Magarian said. Magarian added that while the National Security Division will be part of a task force, that doesn't necessarily mean that the law that created the division will play a key role. The fear of government overreach There are grounds to worry about what the federal government might do, said George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. 'It's not the federal government's job to enforce state and local law,' Somin said. 'There's no evidence of a need for the Justice Department to get involved where people behave obnoxiously. If people turn to violence, these are matters that states and local governments can handle.' Somin agreed that so far, the federal government 'hasn't actually done anything.' 'They've made statements that raise concerns,' Somin said. 'If they have something different in mind, there are ways they could clarify their intentions and quell a lot of that.' Griffith said that the primary concern is about using the surveillance and investigative tools provided under the Patriot Act, not prosecution itself. 'Attorney General Garland oversold the existence of these acts, and that will lead to more surveillance and more investigations than would otherwise occur,' Griffith said. 'I don't view that as terribly speculative.' | Our ruling Chabot said the U.S. Justice Department is treating 'American parents as domestic terrorists' under the Patriot Act. The Justice Department has moved to create a task force that spans federal, state and local agencies to focus on threats against local school officials. The department's National Security Division is one of many participants in that task force, and it was created through the Patriot Act. Legal scholars say the Patriot Act plays little role in criminalizing threats of this sort. Many other federal and state statutes apply to violence and threats of violence. The memo and press release from the Justice Department don't mention terrorism or the Patriot Act, and to date, the federal government has not acted against anyone. There can be a concern about government overreach, but at this point, those concerns are theoretical. We rate this claim False. | [
"104863-proof-17-c6386f7365fd686dab8a3151bd644826.jpg"
]
|
'Bernie Sanders wants free health care for all and was asked how he would pay for it. His answer was raise taxes to 52% on anybody making over $29,000 per year. | Contradiction | On Facebook, several conservative pages are trying to use math to discredit Sen. Bernie Sanders' plan to raise the minimum wage and provide universal health care to all Americans. But they need to double-check their work. One Feb. 20 post published in a Bill O'Reilly fan page shows some calculations of Sanders' plans. It cites a proposed $15 federal minimum wage that Sanders, I-Vt., brought up during the Feb. 19 Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas. It also cites Sanders' Medicare for All plan, a single, national health insurance program that would cover everyone who lives in the United States. The Facebook post claims the plan would put an undue tax burden on minimum-wage workers, making Sanders' proposed pay increase pointless. 'Bernie Sanders wants free health care for all and was asked how he would pay for it. His answer was raise taxes to 52% on anybody making over $29,000 per year,' the image reads. 'Math. It's fascinating.' Sanders has never suggested placing a 52% tax on earnings over $29,000. (Screenshot from Facebook) The math, the post claims, works out like this: A person making Sanders' $15 an hour minimum wage would earn $31,200 a year. But because of Sanders' 52% tax to pay for Medicare for All, they'd pay $16,224 right back in a new health care tax. The upshot: The worker is only actually earning $7.20 an hour, or $14,976 a year after taxes 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 has been shared more than 15,000 times and copied by several popular pro-Trump Facebook pages. We reached out to the user who originally posted the image, but we haven't heard back - probably for good reason: The post makes some pretty fundamental errors both understanding Sanders' plans, and the U.S. tax system. Sanders first introduced Medicare for All, which would cover every American's medical bills completely, in April 2019. According to the Urban Institute, the health care plan would increase federal spending by $2.8 trillion in 2020, and $34 trillion over 10 years. To pay the health care proposal, Sanders has proposed a variety of different options to help cover the cost - including tax rate increases for the wealthy. RELATED: What you need to know about Medicare for All Under one of those options, the marginal income tax rate would increase for Americans making more than $250,000 per year. Incomes above $10 million would be taxed at 52%. The tax rate would be lower for people who earn less money. For single minimum-wage workers, the marginal income tax rate would stay at 12%, assuming current federal tax brackets remained the same if Congress passed a $15 minimum wage. The rate for married couples that jointly file taxes would increase from 10% to 12%, assuming their total household income is $31,200. Another one of Sanders' proposed ways to pay for Medicare for All is a 4% income-based premium paid by households. A single person making minimum wage would pay $752, nowhere near the $16,224 that the post said. In short, Sanders doesn't propose a 52% tax rate for any income close to what people make at a minimum wage job. In addition, tax filers are entitled to a standard deduction ranging from $12,400 for a single filer to $24,800 for a married couple. That means people would only pay tax on income earned over that amount. Other deductions or tax credits could lower someone's tax liability further. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"104872-proof-00-775b303a20a0891bae727a419bd386e4.jpg",
"104872-proof-19-Screen_Shot_2020-02-21_at_12.27.49_PM.jpg"
]
|
'Bernie Sanders wants free health care for all and was asked how he would pay for it. His answer was raise taxes to 52% on anybody making over $29,000 per year. | Contradiction | On Facebook, several conservative pages are trying to use math to discredit Sen. Bernie Sanders' plan to raise the minimum wage and provide universal health care to all Americans. But they need to double-check their work. One Feb. 20 post published in a Bill O'Reilly fan page shows some calculations of Sanders' plans. It cites a proposed $15 federal minimum wage that Sanders, I-Vt., brought up during the Feb. 19 Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas. It also cites Sanders' Medicare for All plan, a single, national health insurance program that would cover everyone who lives in the United States. The Facebook post claims the plan would put an undue tax burden on minimum-wage workers, making Sanders' proposed pay increase pointless. 'Bernie Sanders wants free health care for all and was asked how he would pay for it. His answer was raise taxes to 52% on anybody making over $29,000 per year,' the image reads. 'Math. It's fascinating.' Sanders has never suggested placing a 52% tax on earnings over $29,000. (Screenshot from Facebook) The math, the post claims, works out like this: A person making Sanders' $15 an hour minimum wage would earn $31,200 a year. But because of Sanders' 52% tax to pay for Medicare for All, they'd pay $16,224 right back in a new health care tax. The upshot: The worker is only actually earning $7.20 an hour, or $14,976 a year after taxes 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 has been shared more than 15,000 times and copied by several popular pro-Trump Facebook pages. We reached out to the user who originally posted the image, but we haven't heard back - probably for good reason: The post makes some pretty fundamental errors both understanding Sanders' plans, and the U.S. tax system. Sanders first introduced Medicare for All, which would cover every American's medical bills completely, in April 2019. According to the Urban Institute, the health care plan would increase federal spending by $2.8 trillion in 2020, and $34 trillion over 10 years. To pay the health care proposal, Sanders has proposed a variety of different options to help cover the cost - including tax rate increases for the wealthy. RELATED: What you need to know about Medicare for All Under one of those options, the marginal income tax rate would increase for Americans making more than $250,000 per year. Incomes above $10 million would be taxed at 52%. The tax rate would be lower for people who earn less money. For single minimum-wage workers, the marginal income tax rate would stay at 12%, assuming current federal tax brackets remained the same if Congress passed a $15 minimum wage. The rate for married couples that jointly file taxes would increase from 10% to 12%, assuming their total household income is $31,200. Another one of Sanders' proposed ways to pay for Medicare for All is a 4% income-based premium paid by households. A single person making minimum wage would pay $752, nowhere near the $16,224 that the post said. In short, Sanders doesn't propose a 52% tax rate for any income close to what people make at a minimum wage job. In addition, tax filers are entitled to a standard deduction ranging from $12,400 for a single filer to $24,800 for a married couple. That means people would only pay tax on income earned over that amount. Other deductions or tax credits could lower someone's tax liability further. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"104872-proof-00-775b303a20a0891bae727a419bd386e4.jpg",
"104872-proof-19-Screen_Shot_2020-02-21_at_12.27.49_PM.jpg"
]
|
'Bernie Sanders wants free health care for all and was asked how he would pay for it. His answer was raise taxes to 52% on anybody making over $29,000 per year. | Contradiction | On Facebook, several conservative pages are trying to use math to discredit Sen. Bernie Sanders' plan to raise the minimum wage and provide universal health care to all Americans. But they need to double-check their work. One Feb. 20 post published in a Bill O'Reilly fan page shows some calculations of Sanders' plans. It cites a proposed $15 federal minimum wage that Sanders, I-Vt., brought up during the Feb. 19 Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas. It also cites Sanders' Medicare for All plan, a single, national health insurance program that would cover everyone who lives in the United States. The Facebook post claims the plan would put an undue tax burden on minimum-wage workers, making Sanders' proposed pay increase pointless. 'Bernie Sanders wants free health care for all and was asked how he would pay for it. His answer was raise taxes to 52% on anybody making over $29,000 per year,' the image reads. 'Math. It's fascinating.' Sanders has never suggested placing a 52% tax on earnings over $29,000. (Screenshot from Facebook) The math, the post claims, works out like this: A person making Sanders' $15 an hour minimum wage would earn $31,200 a year. But because of Sanders' 52% tax to pay for Medicare for All, they'd pay $16,224 right back in a new health care tax. The upshot: The worker is only actually earning $7.20 an hour, or $14,976 a year after taxes 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 has been shared more than 15,000 times and copied by several popular pro-Trump Facebook pages. We reached out to the user who originally posted the image, but we haven't heard back - probably for good reason: The post makes some pretty fundamental errors both understanding Sanders' plans, and the U.S. tax system. Sanders first introduced Medicare for All, which would cover every American's medical bills completely, in April 2019. According to the Urban Institute, the health care plan would increase federal spending by $2.8 trillion in 2020, and $34 trillion over 10 years. To pay the health care proposal, Sanders has proposed a variety of different options to help cover the cost - including tax rate increases for the wealthy. RELATED: What you need to know about Medicare for All Under one of those options, the marginal income tax rate would increase for Americans making more than $250,000 per year. Incomes above $10 million would be taxed at 52%. The tax rate would be lower for people who earn less money. For single minimum-wage workers, the marginal income tax rate would stay at 12%, assuming current federal tax brackets remained the same if Congress passed a $15 minimum wage. The rate for married couples that jointly file taxes would increase from 10% to 12%, assuming their total household income is $31,200. Another one of Sanders' proposed ways to pay for Medicare for All is a 4% income-based premium paid by households. A single person making minimum wage would pay $752, nowhere near the $16,224 that the post said. In short, Sanders doesn't propose a 52% tax rate for any income close to what people make at a minimum wage job. In addition, tax filers are entitled to a standard deduction ranging from $12,400 for a single filer to $24,800 for a married couple. That means people would only pay tax on income earned over that amount. Other deductions or tax credits could lower someone's tax liability further. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"104872-proof-00-775b303a20a0891bae727a419bd386e4.jpg",
"104872-proof-19-Screen_Shot_2020-02-21_at_12.27.49_PM.jpg"
]
|
Says U.S. Rep. Ron Kind has 'spent more $ in 100+ days than was spent fighting WWII | Contradiction | Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, there have been some eye-popping numbers coming out of Washington, D.C., including this one: $1.9 trillion. That's the price tag for the Biden Administration's COVID stimulus plan. The measure cleared the Senate and House on narrow, largely party-line votes. All of Wisconsin's Democrats supported the plan, while all Republicans were opposed. Republican Derrick Van Orden, who lost to 12-term U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, D-La Crosse, by fewer than 3 percentage points in 2020, and has said he'll run again in 2022, has been hammering Kind on the package's cost. For example, on May 11, 2021, Kind sent this tweet: 'Thanks to the #AmericanRescuePlan, Wisconsin is receiving over $50M in funding for our seniors. This money will help provide relief and expand access to meals, vaccines, caregiver support, health resources, and more.' That same day, Van Orden retweeted Kind's message and added this, in part: '@RepRonKind Has spent more $ in 100+ days than was spent fighting WWII, setting the country on the road to record inflation that will destroy our senior's retirements.' Is Van Orden right about the cost of the American Rescue Plan, the primary measure that has passed since Biden took office in January? In short, let's say the claim is, well, inflated. Cost of America's wars Van Orden did not respond to emails from PolitiFact Wisconsin requesting backup for his claim. But let's dig in anyway, with this important note up front: When comparing dollar amounts over time -- particularly a period of about eight decades -- you can't just look at raw spending totals. Everything costs far more now than it did then. In other words, for a fair comparison, you have to control for inflation. In June 2019, USA Today published an article titled 'What were the 13 most expensive wars in U.S. history?' To compile the list 24/7 Wall St., a Delaware company that runs an online financial news operation, used a 2010 report from the Congressional Research Service titled 'Costs of Major U.S. Wars' and updated the numbers for inflationary purposes. For some context, here are the top five wars, and total U.S. spending (all in 2019 dollars). 5. Korean War: $389.81 billion 4. Vietnam War: $843.63 billion 3. War in Afghanistan: $910.47 billion 2. Iraq War: $1.01 trillion 1. World War II: $4.69 trillion So, World War II -- which the U.S. entered in 1941 and which lasted until 1945 -- is the most expensive, by far. But it was far more expensive than the Biden Administration's stimulus package, not the reverse as Van Orden claimed. What's more, the $1.9 trillion stimulus passed under President Joe Biden was less than the $2.2 trillion CARES Act passed under Republican President Donald Trump in March 2020. All told, the various stimulus and relief bills passed under Trump in 2020 tallied $3.8 trillion. To be sure, Biden has proposed several massive spending plans, including a separate American Jobs Plan -- a $2.3 trillion development package aimed at improving the nation's aging infrastructure, among other spending. His recently-unveiled federal budget includes $5 trillion in new federal spending over the next decade. But Van Orden did not cite those measures in tweeting his claim about Kind. Rather, he specifically responded to a Kind tweet about the American Rescue Plan and cited what Kind had already voted for, not what is on the table. | Our ruling Van Orden said '@RepRonKind 'has spent more $ in 100+ days than was spent fighting WWII.' According to a 2010 Congressional Research Service report, and additional calculations to cover more recent inflation, World War II's price tag (in 2019 dollars) was $4.69 trillion. The American Rescue Plan signed into law in March by Biden -- and supported by Kind -- carries a cost of $1.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. We rate Van Orden's claim False. | [
"104873-proof-41-f67ed28781f2f206628ea711e5223c65.jpg"
]
|
Says U.S. Rep. Ron Kind has 'spent more $ in 100+ days than was spent fighting WWII | Contradiction | Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, there have been some eye-popping numbers coming out of Washington, D.C., including this one: $1.9 trillion. That's the price tag for the Biden Administration's COVID stimulus plan. The measure cleared the Senate and House on narrow, largely party-line votes. All of Wisconsin's Democrats supported the plan, while all Republicans were opposed. Republican Derrick Van Orden, who lost to 12-term U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, D-La Crosse, by fewer than 3 percentage points in 2020, and has said he'll run again in 2022, has been hammering Kind on the package's cost. For example, on May 11, 2021, Kind sent this tweet: 'Thanks to the #AmericanRescuePlan, Wisconsin is receiving over $50M in funding for our seniors. This money will help provide relief and expand access to meals, vaccines, caregiver support, health resources, and more.' That same day, Van Orden retweeted Kind's message and added this, in part: '@RepRonKind Has spent more $ in 100+ days than was spent fighting WWII, setting the country on the road to record inflation that will destroy our senior's retirements.' Is Van Orden right about the cost of the American Rescue Plan, the primary measure that has passed since Biden took office in January? In short, let's say the claim is, well, inflated. Cost of America's wars Van Orden did not respond to emails from PolitiFact Wisconsin requesting backup for his claim. But let's dig in anyway, with this important note up front: When comparing dollar amounts over time -- particularly a period of about eight decades -- you can't just look at raw spending totals. Everything costs far more now than it did then. In other words, for a fair comparison, you have to control for inflation. In June 2019, USA Today published an article titled 'What were the 13 most expensive wars in U.S. history?' To compile the list 24/7 Wall St., a Delaware company that runs an online financial news operation, used a 2010 report from the Congressional Research Service titled 'Costs of Major U.S. Wars' and updated the numbers for inflationary purposes. For some context, here are the top five wars, and total U.S. spending (all in 2019 dollars). 5. Korean War: $389.81 billion 4. Vietnam War: $843.63 billion 3. War in Afghanistan: $910.47 billion 2. Iraq War: $1.01 trillion 1. World War II: $4.69 trillion So, World War II -- which the U.S. entered in 1941 and which lasted until 1945 -- is the most expensive, by far. But it was far more expensive than the Biden Administration's stimulus package, not the reverse as Van Orden claimed. What's more, the $1.9 trillion stimulus passed under President Joe Biden was less than the $2.2 trillion CARES Act passed under Republican President Donald Trump in March 2020. All told, the various stimulus and relief bills passed under Trump in 2020 tallied $3.8 trillion. To be sure, Biden has proposed several massive spending plans, including a separate American Jobs Plan -- a $2.3 trillion development package aimed at improving the nation's aging infrastructure, among other spending. His recently-unveiled federal budget includes $5 trillion in new federal spending over the next decade. But Van Orden did not cite those measures in tweeting his claim about Kind. Rather, he specifically responded to a Kind tweet about the American Rescue Plan and cited what Kind had already voted for, not what is on the table. | Our ruling Van Orden said '@RepRonKind 'has spent more $ in 100+ days than was spent fighting WWII.' According to a 2010 Congressional Research Service report, and additional calculations to cover more recent inflation, World War II's price tag (in 2019 dollars) was $4.69 trillion. The American Rescue Plan signed into law in March by Biden -- and supported by Kind -- carries a cost of $1.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. We rate Van Orden's claim False. | [
"104873-proof-41-f67ed28781f2f206628ea711e5223c65.jpg"
]
|
Quotes Abraham Lincoln as saying, 'You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. | Contradiction | Two years and 11 days ago, a social media post brought forth upon Facebook another quote falsely attributed to Abraham Lincoln. The July 25, 2019, post pairs an image of Lincoln with a quote suggesting that the Great Emancipator was also a devout capitalist. It says: 'You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) 'Lincoln never said such one-sided things about capital or labor,' said James Cornelius, editor for the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association. The words are from the Rev. William J.H. Boetcker, an ex-clergyman and conservative public speaker from Pennsylvania. They're published in his 1916 pamphlet 'Inside Maxims,' better known as 'Ten Cannots.' (The quote that appears on Facebook and elsewhere excludes a few of the cannots.) The quote has been misattributed to Lincoln several times before. In 1988, then Vice President George H.W. Bush did so in a speech before the Bucks County, Pa., Chamber of Commerce, and former President Ronald Reagan made the error in his speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. The likely reason for the mixup: In 1942, the Committee for Constitutional Government, a right-wing organization, published a leaflet called 'Lincoln on Limitation.' On the front, the leaflet contained real quotes from Lincoln, but on the back, it contained the quote from Boetcker. Careless readers assumed the quote was linked to Lincoln. Cornelius said it was common for people to use Lincoln's name 'to bring more attention to themselves.' 'I do not know if Boetcker himself, or conceivably some newspaper editor, put these into (Lincoln's) mouth,' Cornelius said, 'but they have circulated as 'real' for 100 years now, with no sign of disappearing.' We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
Says Bill Murray said, 'So if we lie to the government, it's a felony. But if they lie to us it's politics. | Contradiction | Are we reliving the same day over and over, or are people still sharing apocryphal Bill Murray quotes? Very nearly a year ago, in 2019, we debunked the claim that Murray said the best way to teach kids about taxes is to eat a third of their ice cream. Now, the actor is allegedly weighing in on politics. 'So, if we lie to the government, it's a felony,' reads the quote attributed to Murray in this Jan. 26 Facebook post. 'But if they lie to us its (sic) politics.' 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.) Searching online for the quote's origins, we found no credible source crediting Murray. Barry Popik, an etymologist who studies the origins of terms, has a 2011 post on his website exploring a similar quote: 'If we lie to Congress, it's a felony and if Congress lies to us it's just politics.' According to Popik, Ken Huber wrote that line in an editorial published in the Iosco County News Herald in 2010. Similar sentiments are older, Popkik says in the post, dating back to the late 1980s. But he doesn't mention Bill Murray. In 2013, however, a parody Bill Murray Twitter account tweeted the quote that appears in the Facebook post, right down to the misspelling of 'it's.' 'I AM NOT BILL MURRAY,' reads the account's bio. 'This is a parody account. This account is not in any way affiliated with the actor Bill Murray.' We rate this Facebook post False. Correction: This story was updated to correct the spelling of etymologist. | We rate this Facebook post False. Correction: This story was updated to correct the spelling of etymologist. | []
|
Says ATF chief nominee David Chipman was part of the 1993 assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. | Contradiction | After President Joe Biden nominated gun control advocate David Chipman to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Chipman found himself linked to the bloody 1993 government siege in Waco, Texas, that left 76 civilians and five federal agents dead. Chipman, who spent two decades at the ATF, became a policy adviser to two national gun control groups, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence. The gun industry and gun rights supporters firmly oppose his nomination. Days after Biden announced Chipman as his pick, the London tabloid Daily Mail posted a photograph of a man in camouflage pants, holding an assault rifle, standing in the middle of the smoking wreckage of Waco. The caption read: 'Pictured is a young Chipman, who worked as an ATF agent for 25 years, posing in the aftermath of the Waco siege where 76 Branch Davidian members and five ATF agents died.' The internet is rife with repetitions of the claim, and Chipman has received a torrent of death threats. But the evidence shows that he is not the man in the photo. Justice Department records indicate the photo is of an FBI agent and was taken on April 19, 1993. Chipman's travel orders show that he wasn't sent to Waco until early May, and he was not in the FBI. The Branch Davidians and the government raid The Branch Davidians were a religious cult that stockpiled weapons and lived in a walled compound in Waco. In February 1993, an ATF raid to seize illegal weapons led to a shootout, followed by a protracted siege as federal and state agents, led by the FBI, encircled the property. On the morning of April 19, 1993, federal forces advanced. A fire erupted inside the compound. Most of the men, women and children inside died. The events in Waco became a symbol of government oppression - a symbol so powerful, it inspired the revenge bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City two years later on April 19, 1995, that killed 168 people, including 19 children. Where was David Chipman? On the day of Chipman's confirmation hearing, a Republican politician in Maine tweeted the photo saying, 'We all remember Chipman's time in Central Texas.' Let us be clear: It wasn't him in that picture. Chipman said so at his May 26 confirmation hearing. He was sent to Waco, he said, but as part of an ATF investigation team, two weeks after the fire. 'I was selected, because I had no involvement in the actual case that was being examined,' Chipman said. The paper trail backs Chipman up. The photo The picture circulating on the Internet bears the label USAWDTX 093-01048. That first part of that label tracks the photo back to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas. After the siege, two court cases followed. The first was a criminal trial against surviving members of the Branch Davidians. The second, seven years later, was a civil suit on behalf of the Branch Davidians against the federal government. The Justice Department shared the photo, along with many others, as part of both proceedings. Former Dallas Morning News reporter Lee Hancock covered the entire Waco story for over a decade. She found a read-only CD in her files marked with the Justice Department's seal and the words '90 photos of HRT During Waco standoff through 4/19/1993.' A Justice Department CD with photos from the Waco siege. (Lee Hancock) It is one of the Justice Department's archives of photos from the siege, produced for the 2000 civil lawsuit. 'HRT is the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team,' Hancock told PolitiFact. 'They were a tactical unit on the scene, some of them as negotiators, and some as sharpshooters, all the way through.' The photo in question is stored on that disk. The file index on the Justice Department CD of Waco photos. (Lee Hancock) The photo of an FBI agent on the Justice Department CD of Waco photos. (Lee Hancock) The label differs from the one on the photo posted by the Daily Mail because it was for the second trial, not the first. But otherwise, it's the same photo. The man in the picture, whom we weren't able to identify, was with the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team. Chipman was with the ATF, so he can't be the one in the photo. In 2012, one of the leading critics of the FBI action, independent investigator and documentary maker Mike McNulty, described this and two other photos taken in the same spot at the same time as, 'The spirit of the FBI HRT during the Waco experience can be seen in the following pictures of three of the 'Snipers' posing in these 'trophy' shots.' One of the men in the other photos is wearing an FBI armband. One final detail: From the date printed on the Justice Department CD, along with the smoke rising from the ruins, the photo can be dated to April 19, 1993. On that day, Chipman, who was stationed at the ATF field office in Norfolk, Va., received a fax from the ATF associate director directing him and four other ATF agents to get to Waco by May 2. 1993 fax with the travel orders for David Chipman to report to Waco, Texas, by May 2, 1993. (David Chipman) The Chipman-at-Waco bandwagon Gun rights activists were quick to follow the Daily Mail's lead in wrongly tying Chipman to Waco. Will Fite, a regional director with the National Association of Gun Rights tweeted the photo April 8, saying 'This is the man who Joe Biden just nominated to lead the ATF standing on the rubble and ashes of the Americans the ATF burned alive in Waco.' Larry Keane, the chief lobbyist for National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry trade group, repeated the Daily Mail's claim in a GunGuyTV post, and reminded readers that the dead at Waco 'were Americans, some innocent children.' A pro-Trump forum Patriots Win posted the photo. One comment said, 'Mass murderer. American Nazi.' | Our ruling Multiple tweets, blog posts and articles assert that Chipman is the man in the photo of a government agent standing in the rubble of the Waco siege. Government filings prove that the photo dates from April 19, 1993, and that the man was a member of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team. Chipman was in Norfolk, Va., on April 19, 1993, and served with the ATF, not the FBI. The man in the photo is not Chipman. We rate this claim False. | [
"104891-proof-16-CYOXDAEdekVZFeWDfxN2ew7UufVGnEIkqaG65BU9995nn1Vkv8HrOBg_fsyuJsAWjG-qHnkWZAH4kv89.jpg",
"104891-proof-18-1c1e343f8267d95f330b9d01e04937dd.jpg",
"104891-proof-25-j6FYrLhfDo_uL1zpb-Z31XTNMLNkWTvYDzjxqhOg-qmNT3b7Hxzhn3NEP9vjIDbqnrNs3w9tFajTxj0O.jpg",
"104891-proof-32-J_wCqgC2rK2I7UGo8sEmoHIQTp7_DiJEYL_Gkp7CO2_bK2Su6GJxly6ZhdCRuzLKhuBgDiJ42OUSFG-M.jpg",
"104891-proof-40-E05fxfuaIepHsdTxcuk7bvsAYjxxMa3L44p0RDYV6nTgLfGpoOiv-Qg2sVjtWexCvINOQXfBCXNiNlYN.jpg"
]
|
Says ATF chief nominee David Chipman was part of the 1993 assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. | Contradiction | After President Joe Biden nominated gun control advocate David Chipman to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Chipman found himself linked to the bloody 1993 government siege in Waco, Texas, that left 76 civilians and five federal agents dead. Chipman, who spent two decades at the ATF, became a policy adviser to two national gun control groups, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence. The gun industry and gun rights supporters firmly oppose his nomination. Days after Biden announced Chipman as his pick, the London tabloid Daily Mail posted a photograph of a man in camouflage pants, holding an assault rifle, standing in the middle of the smoking wreckage of Waco. The caption read: 'Pictured is a young Chipman, who worked as an ATF agent for 25 years, posing in the aftermath of the Waco siege where 76 Branch Davidian members and five ATF agents died.' The internet is rife with repetitions of the claim, and Chipman has received a torrent of death threats. But the evidence shows that he is not the man in the photo. Justice Department records indicate the photo is of an FBI agent and was taken on April 19, 1993. Chipman's travel orders show that he wasn't sent to Waco until early May, and he was not in the FBI. The Branch Davidians and the government raid The Branch Davidians were a religious cult that stockpiled weapons and lived in a walled compound in Waco. In February 1993, an ATF raid to seize illegal weapons led to a shootout, followed by a protracted siege as federal and state agents, led by the FBI, encircled the property. On the morning of April 19, 1993, federal forces advanced. A fire erupted inside the compound. Most of the men, women and children inside died. The events in Waco became a symbol of government oppression - a symbol so powerful, it inspired the revenge bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City two years later on April 19, 1995, that killed 168 people, including 19 children. Where was David Chipman? On the day of Chipman's confirmation hearing, a Republican politician in Maine tweeted the photo saying, 'We all remember Chipman's time in Central Texas.' Let us be clear: It wasn't him in that picture. Chipman said so at his May 26 confirmation hearing. He was sent to Waco, he said, but as part of an ATF investigation team, two weeks after the fire. 'I was selected, because I had no involvement in the actual case that was being examined,' Chipman said. The paper trail backs Chipman up. The photo The picture circulating on the Internet bears the label USAWDTX 093-01048. That first part of that label tracks the photo back to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas. After the siege, two court cases followed. The first was a criminal trial against surviving members of the Branch Davidians. The second, seven years later, was a civil suit on behalf of the Branch Davidians against the federal government. The Justice Department shared the photo, along with many others, as part of both proceedings. Former Dallas Morning News reporter Lee Hancock covered the entire Waco story for over a decade. She found a read-only CD in her files marked with the Justice Department's seal and the words '90 photos of HRT During Waco standoff through 4/19/1993.' A Justice Department CD with photos from the Waco siege. (Lee Hancock) It is one of the Justice Department's archives of photos from the siege, produced for the 2000 civil lawsuit. 'HRT is the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team,' Hancock told PolitiFact. 'They were a tactical unit on the scene, some of them as negotiators, and some as sharpshooters, all the way through.' The photo in question is stored on that disk. The file index on the Justice Department CD of Waco photos. (Lee Hancock) The photo of an FBI agent on the Justice Department CD of Waco photos. (Lee Hancock) The label differs from the one on the photo posted by the Daily Mail because it was for the second trial, not the first. But otherwise, it's the same photo. The man in the picture, whom we weren't able to identify, was with the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team. Chipman was with the ATF, so he can't be the one in the photo. In 2012, one of the leading critics of the FBI action, independent investigator and documentary maker Mike McNulty, described this and two other photos taken in the same spot at the same time as, 'The spirit of the FBI HRT during the Waco experience can be seen in the following pictures of three of the 'Snipers' posing in these 'trophy' shots.' One of the men in the other photos is wearing an FBI armband. One final detail: From the date printed on the Justice Department CD, along with the smoke rising from the ruins, the photo can be dated to April 19, 1993. On that day, Chipman, who was stationed at the ATF field office in Norfolk, Va., received a fax from the ATF associate director directing him and four other ATF agents to get to Waco by May 2. 1993 fax with the travel orders for David Chipman to report to Waco, Texas, by May 2, 1993. (David Chipman) The Chipman-at-Waco bandwagon Gun rights activists were quick to follow the Daily Mail's lead in wrongly tying Chipman to Waco. Will Fite, a regional director with the National Association of Gun Rights tweeted the photo April 8, saying 'This is the man who Joe Biden just nominated to lead the ATF standing on the rubble and ashes of the Americans the ATF burned alive in Waco.' Larry Keane, the chief lobbyist for National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry trade group, repeated the Daily Mail's claim in a GunGuyTV post, and reminded readers that the dead at Waco 'were Americans, some innocent children.' A pro-Trump forum Patriots Win posted the photo. One comment said, 'Mass murderer. American Nazi.' | Our ruling Multiple tweets, blog posts and articles assert that Chipman is the man in the photo of a government agent standing in the rubble of the Waco siege. Government filings prove that the photo dates from April 19, 1993, and that the man was a member of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team. Chipman was in Norfolk, Va., on April 19, 1993, and served with the ATF, not the FBI. The man in the photo is not Chipman. We rate this claim False. | [
"104891-proof-16-CYOXDAEdekVZFeWDfxN2ew7UufVGnEIkqaG65BU9995nn1Vkv8HrOBg_fsyuJsAWjG-qHnkWZAH4kv89.jpg",
"104891-proof-18-1c1e343f8267d95f330b9d01e04937dd.jpg",
"104891-proof-25-j6FYrLhfDo_uL1zpb-Z31XTNMLNkWTvYDzjxqhOg-qmNT3b7Hxzhn3NEP9vjIDbqnrNs3w9tFajTxj0O.jpg",
"104891-proof-32-J_wCqgC2rK2I7UGo8sEmoHIQTp7_DiJEYL_Gkp7CO2_bK2Su6GJxly6ZhdCRuzLKhuBgDiJ42OUSFG-M.jpg",
"104891-proof-40-E05fxfuaIepHsdTxcuk7bvsAYjxxMa3L44p0RDYV6nTgLfGpoOiv-Qg2sVjtWexCvINOQXfBCXNiNlYN.jpg"
]
|
Says ATF chief nominee David Chipman was part of the 1993 assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. | Contradiction | After President Joe Biden nominated gun control advocate David Chipman to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Chipman found himself linked to the bloody 1993 government siege in Waco, Texas, that left 76 civilians and five federal agents dead. Chipman, who spent two decades at the ATF, became a policy adviser to two national gun control groups, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence. The gun industry and gun rights supporters firmly oppose his nomination. Days after Biden announced Chipman as his pick, the London tabloid Daily Mail posted a photograph of a man in camouflage pants, holding an assault rifle, standing in the middle of the smoking wreckage of Waco. The caption read: 'Pictured is a young Chipman, who worked as an ATF agent for 25 years, posing in the aftermath of the Waco siege where 76 Branch Davidian members and five ATF agents died.' The internet is rife with repetitions of the claim, and Chipman has received a torrent of death threats. But the evidence shows that he is not the man in the photo. Justice Department records indicate the photo is of an FBI agent and was taken on April 19, 1993. Chipman's travel orders show that he wasn't sent to Waco until early May, and he was not in the FBI. The Branch Davidians and the government raid The Branch Davidians were a religious cult that stockpiled weapons and lived in a walled compound in Waco. In February 1993, an ATF raid to seize illegal weapons led to a shootout, followed by a protracted siege as federal and state agents, led by the FBI, encircled the property. On the morning of April 19, 1993, federal forces advanced. A fire erupted inside the compound. Most of the men, women and children inside died. The events in Waco became a symbol of government oppression - a symbol so powerful, it inspired the revenge bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City two years later on April 19, 1995, that killed 168 people, including 19 children. Where was David Chipman? On the day of Chipman's confirmation hearing, a Republican politician in Maine tweeted the photo saying, 'We all remember Chipman's time in Central Texas.' Let us be clear: It wasn't him in that picture. Chipman said so at his May 26 confirmation hearing. He was sent to Waco, he said, but as part of an ATF investigation team, two weeks after the fire. 'I was selected, because I had no involvement in the actual case that was being examined,' Chipman said. The paper trail backs Chipman up. The photo The picture circulating on the Internet bears the label USAWDTX 093-01048. That first part of that label tracks the photo back to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Texas. After the siege, two court cases followed. The first was a criminal trial against surviving members of the Branch Davidians. The second, seven years later, was a civil suit on behalf of the Branch Davidians against the federal government. The Justice Department shared the photo, along with many others, as part of both proceedings. Former Dallas Morning News reporter Lee Hancock covered the entire Waco story for over a decade. She found a read-only CD in her files marked with the Justice Department's seal and the words '90 photos of HRT During Waco standoff through 4/19/1993.' A Justice Department CD with photos from the Waco siege. (Lee Hancock) It is one of the Justice Department's archives of photos from the siege, produced for the 2000 civil lawsuit. 'HRT is the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team,' Hancock told PolitiFact. 'They were a tactical unit on the scene, some of them as negotiators, and some as sharpshooters, all the way through.' The photo in question is stored on that disk. The file index on the Justice Department CD of Waco photos. (Lee Hancock) The photo of an FBI agent on the Justice Department CD of Waco photos. (Lee Hancock) The label differs from the one on the photo posted by the Daily Mail because it was for the second trial, not the first. But otherwise, it's the same photo. The man in the picture, whom we weren't able to identify, was with the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team. Chipman was with the ATF, so he can't be the one in the photo. In 2012, one of the leading critics of the FBI action, independent investigator and documentary maker Mike McNulty, described this and two other photos taken in the same spot at the same time as, 'The spirit of the FBI HRT during the Waco experience can be seen in the following pictures of three of the 'Snipers' posing in these 'trophy' shots.' One of the men in the other photos is wearing an FBI armband. One final detail: From the date printed on the Justice Department CD, along with the smoke rising from the ruins, the photo can be dated to April 19, 1993. On that day, Chipman, who was stationed at the ATF field office in Norfolk, Va., received a fax from the ATF associate director directing him and four other ATF agents to get to Waco by May 2. 1993 fax with the travel orders for David Chipman to report to Waco, Texas, by May 2, 1993. (David Chipman) The Chipman-at-Waco bandwagon Gun rights activists were quick to follow the Daily Mail's lead in wrongly tying Chipman to Waco. Will Fite, a regional director with the National Association of Gun Rights tweeted the photo April 8, saying 'This is the man who Joe Biden just nominated to lead the ATF standing on the rubble and ashes of the Americans the ATF burned alive in Waco.' Larry Keane, the chief lobbyist for National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry trade group, repeated the Daily Mail's claim in a GunGuyTV post, and reminded readers that the dead at Waco 'were Americans, some innocent children.' A pro-Trump forum Patriots Win posted the photo. One comment said, 'Mass murderer. American Nazi.' | Our ruling Multiple tweets, blog posts and articles assert that Chipman is the man in the photo of a government agent standing in the rubble of the Waco siege. Government filings prove that the photo dates from April 19, 1993, and that the man was a member of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team. Chipman was in Norfolk, Va., on April 19, 1993, and served with the ATF, not the FBI. The man in the photo is not Chipman. We rate this claim False. | [
"104891-proof-16-CYOXDAEdekVZFeWDfxN2ew7UufVGnEIkqaG65BU9995nn1Vkv8HrOBg_fsyuJsAWjG-qHnkWZAH4kv89.jpg",
"104891-proof-18-1c1e343f8267d95f330b9d01e04937dd.jpg",
"104891-proof-25-j6FYrLhfDo_uL1zpb-Z31XTNMLNkWTvYDzjxqhOg-qmNT3b7Hxzhn3NEP9vjIDbqnrNs3w9tFajTxj0O.jpg",
"104891-proof-32-J_wCqgC2rK2I7UGo8sEmoHIQTp7_DiJEYL_Gkp7CO2_bK2Su6GJxly6ZhdCRuzLKhuBgDiJ42OUSFG-M.jpg",
"104891-proof-40-E05fxfuaIepHsdTxcuk7bvsAYjxxMa3L44p0RDYV6nTgLfGpoOiv-Qg2sVjtWexCvINOQXfBCXNiNlYN.jpg"
]
|
Illinois Republican lawmakers 'have argued that they want an independent [redistricting] commission, but they didn't do anything about it. | Contradiction | During his 2018 campaign for governor, Democrat J.B. Pritzker pledged to veto any state legislative redistricting plan drawn by politicians. This month he went back on that promise, signing into law district maps created without Republican input by Democratic lawmakers who hold supermajorities in the state legislature. The plan he approved creates new boundaries for the districts that legislative candidates will compete in over the next decade, and sets up at least seven primary contests between state House Republican incumbents next year. Pritzker also approved new, Democrat-drawn boundaries for Illinois Supreme Court districts, which were last redrawn more than half a century ago. Boundaries for Illinois seats in the U.S. Congress have not yet been drawn. A day before approving the new maps, Pritzker was asked in an interview with WTTW to address GOP critics calling on him to prove he wasn't lying to voters during his campaign by rejecting the Democrats' maps. 'What I really want is a constitutional amendment for an independent commission to draw the maps. That is what the legislature should have done, didn't do,' Pritzker said. 'There are people who wanted to have legislation passed for an independent commission. It's unclear to me whether that's constitutional or not, but that could have been a way to do it. Then, Republicans and Democrats working together in a bipartisan fashion would have been another way to get a fair map. 'I'll remind you that the Republicans don't seem to want to do any of those things,' he continued. 'They have argued that they want an independent commission, but they didn't do anything about it.' As WTTW reporter Amanda Vinicky told Pritzker, however, GOP lawmakers filed legislation to create an independent commission this session. Pritzker did not respond to that point during the segment, so we decided to find out what the governor was talking about when he said the state's minority party 'didn't do anything' to get independent maps. GOP legislation raises constitutional questions, but shows Republicans did act Over the years, citizen initiatives and lawmakers from both parties have offered plans aimed at thwarting the practice of partisan gerrymandering, where the dominant political party manipulates boundaries to benefit their candidates and, sometimes, incumbents in general. Republican lawmakers in the General Assembly filed two proposals to create an independent redistricting commission without amending the constitution this year. One of the bills they put forth was backed by GOP leaders in both chambers, but neither measure received Democrat support. While that legislation sat idle in a Democrat-controlled committee this session, the bill's GOP proponents worked to draw attention to the measure at news conferences, framing their plan as an alternative to the map Democrat lawmakers reviewed behind closed doors this spring in the same room where party leaders met a decade ago to create the current map. It's all 'power politics,' according to Chris Mooney, a state politics expert at the University of Illinois' Institute of Government & Public Affairs. The Democrat majority, he said, knows the general public 'is not really exercised about this whole business and they are betting the Republicans can't make them exercised about it.' 'They [Republicans] did something, I think that's pretty clear,' Mooney said. 'Whether it amounted to a hill of beans, that's another question.' So we reached out to Pritzker's office to ask why the governor said the GOP 'didn't do anything' to try to create an independent commission. In response, Pritzker spokeswoman Jordan Abudayyeh told us the GOP legislation conflicts with the state constitution, which lays out a specific process for redistricting. Whether or not the GOP legislation would prevail in court remains open for debate. The Illinois Constitution tasks the General Assembly with drawing new legislative districts in the year following each federal decennial census. Failure to pass a plan and get it signed into law by June 30 triggers a process involving a bipartisan commission that ultimately gives both parties a 50-50 chance at selecting the state's next map, an outcome Democrats have sought to avoid. Lawmakers and the governor could pass a law creating a new commission without amending the constitution if that panel was solely advisory, according to Ann Lousin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Illinois-Chicago John Marshall Law School. The GOP plan does not explicitly describe the bipartisan commission of 16 court-appointed members it proposes as advisory, though it does state that panel would hand off its map to the lawmaker-appointed legislative redistricting commission already empowered by the constitution to take over the process if a lawmaker-drawn map is not approved by June 30. Constitutional hypotheticals aside, however, Pritzker cited creating an independent commission through the legislative process as one of the options Republicans could have tried in his remarks to WTTW. We asked Abudayyeh to address this, but did not hear back. | Our ruling Pritzker said Republican lawmakers 'have argued that they want an independent commission, but they didn't do anything about it.' Republicans filed and promoted legislation this session aimed at creating an independent redistricting commission, and in his remarks to WTTW Pritzker cited creating an independent panel via legislation as one of the ways lawmakers could have tried for an independent map. Whether or not the GOP plan would have held up in court, it's clear Republican lawmakers made at least some effort to create a redistricting commission not controlled by the legislature. We rate Pritzker's claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"104903-proof-00-99498f6f27c735a5633a6d78388a69ee.jpg"
]
|
Illinois Republican lawmakers 'have argued that they want an independent [redistricting] commission, but they didn't do anything about it. | Contradiction | During his 2018 campaign for governor, Democrat J.B. Pritzker pledged to veto any state legislative redistricting plan drawn by politicians. This month he went back on that promise, signing into law district maps created without Republican input by Democratic lawmakers who hold supermajorities in the state legislature. The plan he approved creates new boundaries for the districts that legislative candidates will compete in over the next decade, and sets up at least seven primary contests between state House Republican incumbents next year. Pritzker also approved new, Democrat-drawn boundaries for Illinois Supreme Court districts, which were last redrawn more than half a century ago. Boundaries for Illinois seats in the U.S. Congress have not yet been drawn. A day before approving the new maps, Pritzker was asked in an interview with WTTW to address GOP critics calling on him to prove he wasn't lying to voters during his campaign by rejecting the Democrats' maps. 'What I really want is a constitutional amendment for an independent commission to draw the maps. That is what the legislature should have done, didn't do,' Pritzker said. 'There are people who wanted to have legislation passed for an independent commission. It's unclear to me whether that's constitutional or not, but that could have been a way to do it. Then, Republicans and Democrats working together in a bipartisan fashion would have been another way to get a fair map. 'I'll remind you that the Republicans don't seem to want to do any of those things,' he continued. 'They have argued that they want an independent commission, but they didn't do anything about it.' As WTTW reporter Amanda Vinicky told Pritzker, however, GOP lawmakers filed legislation to create an independent commission this session. Pritzker did not respond to that point during the segment, so we decided to find out what the governor was talking about when he said the state's minority party 'didn't do anything' to get independent maps. GOP legislation raises constitutional questions, but shows Republicans did act Over the years, citizen initiatives and lawmakers from both parties have offered plans aimed at thwarting the practice of partisan gerrymandering, where the dominant political party manipulates boundaries to benefit their candidates and, sometimes, incumbents in general. Republican lawmakers in the General Assembly filed two proposals to create an independent redistricting commission without amending the constitution this year. One of the bills they put forth was backed by GOP leaders in both chambers, but neither measure received Democrat support. While that legislation sat idle in a Democrat-controlled committee this session, the bill's GOP proponents worked to draw attention to the measure at news conferences, framing their plan as an alternative to the map Democrat lawmakers reviewed behind closed doors this spring in the same room where party leaders met a decade ago to create the current map. It's all 'power politics,' according to Chris Mooney, a state politics expert at the University of Illinois' Institute of Government & Public Affairs. The Democrat majority, he said, knows the general public 'is not really exercised about this whole business and they are betting the Republicans can't make them exercised about it.' 'They [Republicans] did something, I think that's pretty clear,' Mooney said. 'Whether it amounted to a hill of beans, that's another question.' So we reached out to Pritzker's office to ask why the governor said the GOP 'didn't do anything' to try to create an independent commission. In response, Pritzker spokeswoman Jordan Abudayyeh told us the GOP legislation conflicts with the state constitution, which lays out a specific process for redistricting. Whether or not the GOP legislation would prevail in court remains open for debate. The Illinois Constitution tasks the General Assembly with drawing new legislative districts in the year following each federal decennial census. Failure to pass a plan and get it signed into law by June 30 triggers a process involving a bipartisan commission that ultimately gives both parties a 50-50 chance at selecting the state's next map, an outcome Democrats have sought to avoid. Lawmakers and the governor could pass a law creating a new commission without amending the constitution if that panel was solely advisory, according to Ann Lousin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Illinois-Chicago John Marshall Law School. The GOP plan does not explicitly describe the bipartisan commission of 16 court-appointed members it proposes as advisory, though it does state that panel would hand off its map to the lawmaker-appointed legislative redistricting commission already empowered by the constitution to take over the process if a lawmaker-drawn map is not approved by June 30. Constitutional hypotheticals aside, however, Pritzker cited creating an independent commission through the legislative process as one of the options Republicans could have tried in his remarks to WTTW. We asked Abudayyeh to address this, but did not hear back. | Our ruling Pritzker said Republican lawmakers 'have argued that they want an independent commission, but they didn't do anything about it.' Republicans filed and promoted legislation this session aimed at creating an independent redistricting commission, and in his remarks to WTTW Pritzker cited creating an independent panel via legislation as one of the ways lawmakers could have tried for an independent map. Whether or not the GOP plan would have held up in court, it's clear Republican lawmakers made at least some effort to create a redistricting commission not controlled by the legislature. We rate Pritzker's claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"104903-proof-00-99498f6f27c735a5633a6d78388a69ee.jpg"
]
|
Illinois Republican lawmakers 'have argued that they want an independent [redistricting] commission, but they didn't do anything about it. | Contradiction | During his 2018 campaign for governor, Democrat J.B. Pritzker pledged to veto any state legislative redistricting plan drawn by politicians. This month he went back on that promise, signing into law district maps created without Republican input by Democratic lawmakers who hold supermajorities in the state legislature. The plan he approved creates new boundaries for the districts that legislative candidates will compete in over the next decade, and sets up at least seven primary contests between state House Republican incumbents next year. Pritzker also approved new, Democrat-drawn boundaries for Illinois Supreme Court districts, which were last redrawn more than half a century ago. Boundaries for Illinois seats in the U.S. Congress have not yet been drawn. A day before approving the new maps, Pritzker was asked in an interview with WTTW to address GOP critics calling on him to prove he wasn't lying to voters during his campaign by rejecting the Democrats' maps. 'What I really want is a constitutional amendment for an independent commission to draw the maps. That is what the legislature should have done, didn't do,' Pritzker said. 'There are people who wanted to have legislation passed for an independent commission. It's unclear to me whether that's constitutional or not, but that could have been a way to do it. Then, Republicans and Democrats working together in a bipartisan fashion would have been another way to get a fair map. 'I'll remind you that the Republicans don't seem to want to do any of those things,' he continued. 'They have argued that they want an independent commission, but they didn't do anything about it.' As WTTW reporter Amanda Vinicky told Pritzker, however, GOP lawmakers filed legislation to create an independent commission this session. Pritzker did not respond to that point during the segment, so we decided to find out what the governor was talking about when he said the state's minority party 'didn't do anything' to get independent maps. GOP legislation raises constitutional questions, but shows Republicans did act Over the years, citizen initiatives and lawmakers from both parties have offered plans aimed at thwarting the practice of partisan gerrymandering, where the dominant political party manipulates boundaries to benefit their candidates and, sometimes, incumbents in general. Republican lawmakers in the General Assembly filed two proposals to create an independent redistricting commission without amending the constitution this year. One of the bills they put forth was backed by GOP leaders in both chambers, but neither measure received Democrat support. While that legislation sat idle in a Democrat-controlled committee this session, the bill's GOP proponents worked to draw attention to the measure at news conferences, framing their plan as an alternative to the map Democrat lawmakers reviewed behind closed doors this spring in the same room where party leaders met a decade ago to create the current map. It's all 'power politics,' according to Chris Mooney, a state politics expert at the University of Illinois' Institute of Government & Public Affairs. The Democrat majority, he said, knows the general public 'is not really exercised about this whole business and they are betting the Republicans can't make them exercised about it.' 'They [Republicans] did something, I think that's pretty clear,' Mooney said. 'Whether it amounted to a hill of beans, that's another question.' So we reached out to Pritzker's office to ask why the governor said the GOP 'didn't do anything' to try to create an independent commission. In response, Pritzker spokeswoman Jordan Abudayyeh told us the GOP legislation conflicts with the state constitution, which lays out a specific process for redistricting. Whether or not the GOP legislation would prevail in court remains open for debate. The Illinois Constitution tasks the General Assembly with drawing new legislative districts in the year following each federal decennial census. Failure to pass a plan and get it signed into law by June 30 triggers a process involving a bipartisan commission that ultimately gives both parties a 50-50 chance at selecting the state's next map, an outcome Democrats have sought to avoid. Lawmakers and the governor could pass a law creating a new commission without amending the constitution if that panel was solely advisory, according to Ann Lousin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Illinois-Chicago John Marshall Law School. The GOP plan does not explicitly describe the bipartisan commission of 16 court-appointed members it proposes as advisory, though it does state that panel would hand off its map to the lawmaker-appointed legislative redistricting commission already empowered by the constitution to take over the process if a lawmaker-drawn map is not approved by June 30. Constitutional hypotheticals aside, however, Pritzker cited creating an independent commission through the legislative process as one of the options Republicans could have tried in his remarks to WTTW. We asked Abudayyeh to address this, but did not hear back. | Our ruling Pritzker said Republican lawmakers 'have argued that they want an independent commission, but they didn't do anything about it.' Republicans filed and promoted legislation this session aimed at creating an independent redistricting commission, and in his remarks to WTTW Pritzker cited creating an independent panel via legislation as one of the ways lawmakers could have tried for an independent map. Whether or not the GOP plan would have held up in court, it's clear Republican lawmakers made at least some effort to create a redistricting commission not controlled by the legislature. We rate Pritzker's claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"104903-proof-00-99498f6f27c735a5633a6d78388a69ee.jpg"
]
|
The Biden administration 'gifted the Taliban with $80 billion-plus' in military-grade weapons but now 'wants your 9mm pistols. | Contradiction | A popular take on Facebook is that the Biden administration, with its withdrawal from Afghanistan, in effect armed the Taliban and yet, wants to take handguns away from Americans. 'The current regime that just gifted the Taliban with $80+ billion worth of military grade weapons wants your 9mm pistols,' a viral image claims. 'THINK ABOUT IT.' 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 claim was made amid reports of the Taliban having seized U.S. attack planes, Black Hawk helicopters and other vehicles and equipment. But the United States has spent $88.6 billion in Afghanistan for providing security over the course of two decades, and only a fraction of it was for hardware - so there is no way that more than $80 billion in weaponry was left behind. Meanwhile, Biden has not called for banning traditional handguns such as pistols, much less made any statements about confiscating them. U.S. in Afghanistan The recent U.S. involvement in Afghanistan followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, against the U.S. The attacks had been enabled by al-Qaida's use of Afghanistan as its base. After the attacks, the U.S. teamed up with Afghan allies to oust the al-Qaida-aligned governing Taliban and, eventually, stand up what was intended to be a more inclusive government. In August 2021, as U.S. troops left, the American-backed Afghan army and government collapsed within about two weeks from the start of a Taliban offensive, and the Taliban resumed control of the country. U.S. weapons left behind The U.S. has allocated $88.6 billion to the Defense Department for equipment, supplies, services, training and funding for salaries, as well as facility and infrastructure repair, renovation and construction for providing security in Afghanistan. That's according to the latest quarterly report, released July 30, 2021, by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. That office was created by Congress to oversee the spending. As of June 30, 2021, there were 167 usable aircraft, including 23 A-29 attack planes and 33 UH-60 Black Hawk military helicopters in Afghanistan. But there has been no full accounting of how much aircraft or other military equipment was still there in mid-August, when the Taliban regained control. Defense expert John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, said 'very little' of the $88.6 billion would have been spent on equipment. He estimated that the military equipment remaining is worth less than $10 billion, though virtually all of it could be considered under the category of weapons. Biden not seeking to ban handguns As for the second part of the claim, which suggests Biden wants to confiscate 9-millimeter pistols, during the 2020 presidential campaign we rated False a statement by the NRA that Biden wants to ban 9-millimeter pistols. Biden had said people don't need to own 'military-style weapons,' including pistols with 9-millimeter bullets that can hold 10 or more rounds. He was talking about banning high-capacity magazines, not the gun itself. Biden's gun policies don't call for outlawing traditional handguns such as pistols. In July, we rated False a claim by House Republicans that Biden 'says he wants to ban handguns.' He wants to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. | Our ruling A viral image says the Biden administration 'gifted the Taliban with $80 billion-plus' in military-grade weapons and 'wants your 9mm pistols.' There has been no accounting of how much military equipment was left in Afghanistan after U.S. troops withdrew and the Taliban resumed control of the country. One expert says equipment left behind that could broadly be considered weapons is likely worth less than $10 billion. Biden has not called for taking away 9-millimeter pistols from Americans. We rate the post False. | [
"104909-proof-15-a7dc3a978d6e9b686a4b65b224e3118a.jpg"
]
|
The Biden administration 'gifted the Taliban with $80 billion-plus' in military-grade weapons but now 'wants your 9mm pistols. | Contradiction | A popular take on Facebook is that the Biden administration, with its withdrawal from Afghanistan, in effect armed the Taliban and yet, wants to take handguns away from Americans. 'The current regime that just gifted the Taliban with $80+ billion worth of military grade weapons wants your 9mm pistols,' a viral image claims. 'THINK ABOUT IT.' 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 claim was made amid reports of the Taliban having seized U.S. attack planes, Black Hawk helicopters and other vehicles and equipment. But the United States has spent $88.6 billion in Afghanistan for providing security over the course of two decades, and only a fraction of it was for hardware - so there is no way that more than $80 billion in weaponry was left behind. Meanwhile, Biden has not called for banning traditional handguns such as pistols, much less made any statements about confiscating them. U.S. in Afghanistan The recent U.S. involvement in Afghanistan followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, against the U.S. The attacks had been enabled by al-Qaida's use of Afghanistan as its base. After the attacks, the U.S. teamed up with Afghan allies to oust the al-Qaida-aligned governing Taliban and, eventually, stand up what was intended to be a more inclusive government. In August 2021, as U.S. troops left, the American-backed Afghan army and government collapsed within about two weeks from the start of a Taliban offensive, and the Taliban resumed control of the country. U.S. weapons left behind The U.S. has allocated $88.6 billion to the Defense Department for equipment, supplies, services, training and funding for salaries, as well as facility and infrastructure repair, renovation and construction for providing security in Afghanistan. That's according to the latest quarterly report, released July 30, 2021, by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. That office was created by Congress to oversee the spending. As of June 30, 2021, there were 167 usable aircraft, including 23 A-29 attack planes and 33 UH-60 Black Hawk military helicopters in Afghanistan. But there has been no full accounting of how much aircraft or other military equipment was still there in mid-August, when the Taliban regained control. Defense expert John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, said 'very little' of the $88.6 billion would have been spent on equipment. He estimated that the military equipment remaining is worth less than $10 billion, though virtually all of it could be considered under the category of weapons. Biden not seeking to ban handguns As for the second part of the claim, which suggests Biden wants to confiscate 9-millimeter pistols, during the 2020 presidential campaign we rated False a statement by the NRA that Biden wants to ban 9-millimeter pistols. Biden had said people don't need to own 'military-style weapons,' including pistols with 9-millimeter bullets that can hold 10 or more rounds. He was talking about banning high-capacity magazines, not the gun itself. Biden's gun policies don't call for outlawing traditional handguns such as pistols. In July, we rated False a claim by House Republicans that Biden 'says he wants to ban handguns.' He wants to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. | Our ruling A viral image says the Biden administration 'gifted the Taliban with $80 billion-plus' in military-grade weapons and 'wants your 9mm pistols.' There has been no accounting of how much military equipment was left in Afghanistan after U.S. troops withdrew and the Taliban resumed control of the country. One expert says equipment left behind that could broadly be considered weapons is likely worth less than $10 billion. Biden has not called for taking away 9-millimeter pistols from Americans. We rate the post False. | [
"104909-proof-15-a7dc3a978d6e9b686a4b65b224e3118a.jpg"
]
|
The Biden administration 'gifted the Taliban with $80 billion-plus' in military-grade weapons but now 'wants your 9mm pistols. | Contradiction | A popular take on Facebook is that the Biden administration, with its withdrawal from Afghanistan, in effect armed the Taliban and yet, wants to take handguns away from Americans. 'The current regime that just gifted the Taliban with $80+ billion worth of military grade weapons wants your 9mm pistols,' a viral image claims. 'THINK ABOUT IT.' 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 claim was made amid reports of the Taliban having seized U.S. attack planes, Black Hawk helicopters and other vehicles and equipment. But the United States has spent $88.6 billion in Afghanistan for providing security over the course of two decades, and only a fraction of it was for hardware - so there is no way that more than $80 billion in weaponry was left behind. Meanwhile, Biden has not called for banning traditional handguns such as pistols, much less made any statements about confiscating them. U.S. in Afghanistan The recent U.S. involvement in Afghanistan followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, against the U.S. The attacks had been enabled by al-Qaida's use of Afghanistan as its base. After the attacks, the U.S. teamed up with Afghan allies to oust the al-Qaida-aligned governing Taliban and, eventually, stand up what was intended to be a more inclusive government. In August 2021, as U.S. troops left, the American-backed Afghan army and government collapsed within about two weeks from the start of a Taliban offensive, and the Taliban resumed control of the country. U.S. weapons left behind The U.S. has allocated $88.6 billion to the Defense Department for equipment, supplies, services, training and funding for salaries, as well as facility and infrastructure repair, renovation and construction for providing security in Afghanistan. That's according to the latest quarterly report, released July 30, 2021, by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. That office was created by Congress to oversee the spending. As of June 30, 2021, there were 167 usable aircraft, including 23 A-29 attack planes and 33 UH-60 Black Hawk military helicopters in Afghanistan. But there has been no full accounting of how much aircraft or other military equipment was still there in mid-August, when the Taliban regained control. Defense expert John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, said 'very little' of the $88.6 billion would have been spent on equipment. He estimated that the military equipment remaining is worth less than $10 billion, though virtually all of it could be considered under the category of weapons. Biden not seeking to ban handguns As for the second part of the claim, which suggests Biden wants to confiscate 9-millimeter pistols, during the 2020 presidential campaign we rated False a statement by the NRA that Biden wants to ban 9-millimeter pistols. Biden had said people don't need to own 'military-style weapons,' including pistols with 9-millimeter bullets that can hold 10 or more rounds. He was talking about banning high-capacity magazines, not the gun itself. Biden's gun policies don't call for outlawing traditional handguns such as pistols. In July, we rated False a claim by House Republicans that Biden 'says he wants to ban handguns.' He wants to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. | Our ruling A viral image says the Biden administration 'gifted the Taliban with $80 billion-plus' in military-grade weapons and 'wants your 9mm pistols.' There has been no accounting of how much military equipment was left in Afghanistan after U.S. troops withdrew and the Taliban resumed control of the country. One expert says equipment left behind that could broadly be considered weapons is likely worth less than $10 billion. Biden has not called for taking away 9-millimeter pistols from Americans. We rate the post False. | [
"104909-proof-15-a7dc3a978d6e9b686a4b65b224e3118a.jpg"
]
|
Says Anthony Fauci's wife has 'a secret plan to put psych drugs in drinking water' to get people vaccinated. | Contradiction | A series of screenshots posted on Instagram build the shaky framework for a big claim - that Christine Grady, chief bioethicist at the National Institutes of Health who is married to Dr. Anthony Fauci, has a 'secret plan to put psych drugs in drinking water ... to get Americans vaccinated.' 'Why does the federal government need a secret plan?' the post says. 'Because half of the American citizens refuse to take vaccines.' 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 screenshots come from a March 22 blog post that points to a 2018 paper and its author as evidence for this plan. But that doesn't make sense, and here's why. The blog post shows a screenshot of the paper's abstract in PubMed, a database of more than 32 million citations and abstracts of work that appear in biomedical and life sciences journals. PubMed is maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which is located at the National Institutes of Health. The site doesn't include the full text of journal articles. Rather, it links to the original source. That's the case here for the paper by Parker Crutchfield, an adjunct assistant professor in the Department of Philosophy at Wetern Michigan University. The paper, titled 'Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert,' was published in a journal called Bioethics. Moral bioenhancement deals with using drugs, surgery or other devices to improve moral decision-making, as Slate wrote in 2017. In his paper's abstract, Crutchfield wrote that while 'some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt.' The blog post then shows more screenshots of an article by Crutchfield that appeared in The Conversation in August 2020. The headline says: ''Morality' pills may be the US's best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist.' In the article, Crutchfield made the case that the problem of people who choose not to follow public health guidelines concerning the coronavirus - 'defecting from the public good' - could be solved by moral enhancement, such as a psychoactive pill that increases cooperative behavior. 'A solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply,' he wrote. But Crutchfield, a university philosophy professor, is exploring ideas in both the journal paper and this article - he's not laying out Grady's secret plan to drug Americans via our water supply. His paper appeared on PubMed, which is maintained by a branch of the National Institutes of Health, but it wasn't published there. It appeared in one of the many journals PubMed links to on its website. And we found no evidence connecting Grady to the work that appears in the blog post. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says Anthony Fauci's wife has 'a secret plan to put psych drugs in drinking water' to get people vaccinated. | Contradiction | A series of screenshots posted on Instagram build the shaky framework for a big claim - that Christine Grady, chief bioethicist at the National Institutes of Health who is married to Dr. Anthony Fauci, has a 'secret plan to put psych drugs in drinking water ... to get Americans vaccinated.' 'Why does the federal government need a secret plan?' the post says. 'Because half of the American citizens refuse to take vaccines.' 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 screenshots come from a March 22 blog post that points to a 2018 paper and its author as evidence for this plan. But that doesn't make sense, and here's why. The blog post shows a screenshot of the paper's abstract in PubMed, a database of more than 32 million citations and abstracts of work that appear in biomedical and life sciences journals. PubMed is maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which is located at the National Institutes of Health. The site doesn't include the full text of journal articles. Rather, it links to the original source. That's the case here for the paper by Parker Crutchfield, an adjunct assistant professor in the Department of Philosophy at Wetern Michigan University. The paper, titled 'Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert,' was published in a journal called Bioethics. Moral bioenhancement deals with using drugs, surgery or other devices to improve moral decision-making, as Slate wrote in 2017. In his paper's abstract, Crutchfield wrote that while 'some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt.' The blog post then shows more screenshots of an article by Crutchfield that appeared in The Conversation in August 2020. The headline says: ''Morality' pills may be the US's best shot at ending the coronavirus pandemic, according to one ethicist.' In the article, Crutchfield made the case that the problem of people who choose not to follow public health guidelines concerning the coronavirus - 'defecting from the public good' - could be solved by moral enhancement, such as a psychoactive pill that increases cooperative behavior. 'A solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply,' he wrote. But Crutchfield, a university philosophy professor, is exploring ideas in both the journal paper and this article - he's not laying out Grady's secret plan to drug Americans via our water supply. His paper appeared on PubMed, which is maintained by a branch of the National Institutes of Health, but it wasn't published there. It appeared in one of the many journals PubMed links to on its website. And we found no evidence connecting Grady to the work that appears in the blog post. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | []
|
Video shows 'Pfizer lab in Madrid on fire. | Contradiction | In a video that's being shared on Facebook, flames and a plume of smoke crown a building across a field. According to several posts, it's a 'Pfizer lab in Madrid on fire.' But that's wrong, according to the company and Spanish news reports. These 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.) Pfizer has a plant in San SebastiΓ‘n de los Reyes in Madrid, but there wasn't a fire there, Andrew Widger, a spokesperson for the company, told PolitiFact. Rather, he said, the video shows a fire at a nearby composting factory that was caused by lightning. On Sept. 2, the same day the video of the fire was shared online, a translation of a Spanish-language Europa Press story said that 'lightning has caused the fire of a large pile of branches and remains of trees and vegetation in a composting factory ... in San SebastiΓ‘n de los Reyes.' A city emergency agency had tweeted a video of the fire the day before. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
Says Joe Biden said, 'I don't know what I'm signing,' while signing a document. | Contradiction | Extending a line of attack made during the 2020 presidential campaign on Joe Biden's mental fitness, a post widely shared on Facebook claims that the president said while signing a document: 'I don't know what I'm signing.' 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 post includes a video clip from a signing ceremony broadcast live in the Capitol less than 90 minutes after Biden became president. Enhanced audio from the video indicates that Biden, who was wearing a mask and speaking softly, said sign, or a version of sign, among a few other words. But the other words are not clear. Experts who enhanced the audio told PolitiFact that Biden used the word sign or a form of sign, but it is not clear what he said. The video clip The 15-second clip shows Biden seated at a desk signing documents while wearing a face mask for COVID-19 protection. What appears to be a CNN logo is in the upper-right corner of the screen. Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, both of California, are standing well behind Biden; Vice President Kamala Harris is standing at the end of the desk to Biden's left. The words 'Volume all the way up listen close' are superimposed on the screen as Biden prepares to sign a document. He mutters a few words, but what he says is not clear. 'I don't know what I'm signing,' reads a caption across the video. 'Signs it anyways.' The International Business Times based a news story on the clip and social media reaction to it, also claiming that Biden said 'I don't know what I'm signing.'' We found no evidence that that is what Biden said. Enhanced audio results Biden signed three documents, including an Inauguration Day proclamation, at the event. Separately, he signed 17 executive actions, including directives that reverse course from the Trump administration on immigration, climate change and other matters. Live C-SPAN video of slightly more than one minute shows the signing ceremony was held in the President's Room at the Capitol. We sent links to the Facebook post and the C-SPAN video to experts who enhanced the audio in the video. They said they couldn't make out what Biden said, other than he used the word sign or signing. Biden 'definitely isn't saying, 'I don't know what I'm signing,'' said Hany Farid, professor in Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences and the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley, whose research specialties include digital forensics. 'I believe that he is saying, 'I like what I'm signing here.'' Denis Teyssou, editorial manager of the AFP Medialab, said it is not clear what Biden said. The White House did not respond to our request for comment. | Our ruling A Facebook post with a video clip claims Biden said, 'I don't know what I'm signing,' while signing a document. Biden was wearing a mask and speaking softly while he signed official documents on his first day as president. Experts who enhanced audio from the clip said it is not clear what Biden said, though it likely included the word 'sign.' Without evidence to back the claim, we rate it False. | [
"104933-proof-12-624331affc9065fe7a9d75c710058907.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden said, 'I don't know what I'm signing,' while signing a document. | Contradiction | Extending a line of attack made during the 2020 presidential campaign on Joe Biden's mental fitness, a post widely shared on Facebook claims that the president said while signing a document: 'I don't know what I'm signing.' 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 post includes a video clip from a signing ceremony broadcast live in the Capitol less than 90 minutes after Biden became president. Enhanced audio from the video indicates that Biden, who was wearing a mask and speaking softly, said sign, or a version of sign, among a few other words. But the other words are not clear. Experts who enhanced the audio told PolitiFact that Biden used the word sign or a form of sign, but it is not clear what he said. The video clip The 15-second clip shows Biden seated at a desk signing documents while wearing a face mask for COVID-19 protection. What appears to be a CNN logo is in the upper-right corner of the screen. Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, both of California, are standing well behind Biden; Vice President Kamala Harris is standing at the end of the desk to Biden's left. The words 'Volume all the way up listen close' are superimposed on the screen as Biden prepares to sign a document. He mutters a few words, but what he says is not clear. 'I don't know what I'm signing,' reads a caption across the video. 'Signs it anyways.' The International Business Times based a news story on the clip and social media reaction to it, also claiming that Biden said 'I don't know what I'm signing.'' We found no evidence that that is what Biden said. Enhanced audio results Biden signed three documents, including an Inauguration Day proclamation, at the event. Separately, he signed 17 executive actions, including directives that reverse course from the Trump administration on immigration, climate change and other matters. Live C-SPAN video of slightly more than one minute shows the signing ceremony was held in the President's Room at the Capitol. We sent links to the Facebook post and the C-SPAN video to experts who enhanced the audio in the video. They said they couldn't make out what Biden said, other than he used the word sign or signing. Biden 'definitely isn't saying, 'I don't know what I'm signing,'' said Hany Farid, professor in Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences and the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley, whose research specialties include digital forensics. 'I believe that he is saying, 'I like what I'm signing here.'' Denis Teyssou, editorial manager of the AFP Medialab, said it is not clear what Biden said. The White House did not respond to our request for comment. | Our ruling A Facebook post with a video clip claims Biden said, 'I don't know what I'm signing,' while signing a document. Biden was wearing a mask and speaking softly while he signed official documents on his first day as president. Experts who enhanced audio from the clip said it is not clear what Biden said, though it likely included the word 'sign.' Without evidence to back the claim, we rate it False. | [
"104933-proof-12-624331affc9065fe7a9d75c710058907.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden said, 'I don't know what I'm signing,' while signing a document. | Contradiction | Extending a line of attack made during the 2020 presidential campaign on Joe Biden's mental fitness, a post widely shared on Facebook claims that the president said while signing a document: 'I don't know what I'm signing.' 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 post includes a video clip from a signing ceremony broadcast live in the Capitol less than 90 minutes after Biden became president. Enhanced audio from the video indicates that Biden, who was wearing a mask and speaking softly, said sign, or a version of sign, among a few other words. But the other words are not clear. Experts who enhanced the audio told PolitiFact that Biden used the word sign or a form of sign, but it is not clear what he said. The video clip The 15-second clip shows Biden seated at a desk signing documents while wearing a face mask for COVID-19 protection. What appears to be a CNN logo is in the upper-right corner of the screen. Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, both of California, are standing well behind Biden; Vice President Kamala Harris is standing at the end of the desk to Biden's left. The words 'Volume all the way up listen close' are superimposed on the screen as Biden prepares to sign a document. He mutters a few words, but what he says is not clear. 'I don't know what I'm signing,' reads a caption across the video. 'Signs it anyways.' The International Business Times based a news story on the clip and social media reaction to it, also claiming that Biden said 'I don't know what I'm signing.'' We found no evidence that that is what Biden said. Enhanced audio results Biden signed three documents, including an Inauguration Day proclamation, at the event. Separately, he signed 17 executive actions, including directives that reverse course from the Trump administration on immigration, climate change and other matters. Live C-SPAN video of slightly more than one minute shows the signing ceremony was held in the President's Room at the Capitol. We sent links to the Facebook post and the C-SPAN video to experts who enhanced the audio in the video. They said they couldn't make out what Biden said, other than he used the word sign or signing. Biden 'definitely isn't saying, 'I don't know what I'm signing,'' said Hany Farid, professor in Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences and the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley, whose research specialties include digital forensics. 'I believe that he is saying, 'I like what I'm signing here.'' Denis Teyssou, editorial manager of the AFP Medialab, said it is not clear what Biden said. The White House did not respond to our request for comment. | Our ruling A Facebook post with a video clip claims Biden said, 'I don't know what I'm signing,' while signing a document. Biden was wearing a mask and speaking softly while he signed official documents on his first day as president. Experts who enhanced audio from the clip said it is not clear what Biden said, though it likely included the word 'sign.' Without evidence to back the claim, we rate it False. | [
"104933-proof-12-624331affc9065fe7a9d75c710058907.jpg"
]
|
'A year ago we had the lowest unemployment in history without using taxpayers money. | Contradiction | Less than two months after signing into law his $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which was aimed at providing relief from the coronavirus pandemic, President Joe Biden unveiled two spending proposals totaling more than $4 trillion. Backlash came in the form of a widely circulated Facebook post that didn't name Biden, but described his approach narrowly. It made this lament: 'WHY DO WE NEED A $4 TRILLION JOBS PLAN, WHEN A YEAR AGO WE HAD THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT IN HISTORY WITHOUT USING TAXPAYERS MONEY?' The April 24 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 is wrong in three ways: Biden's $4 trillion in plans encompass much more than just jobs. A year before the post - in April 2020, with the coronavirus pandemic hitting hard - unemployment was at a record high, not a record low. Around that time, President Donald Trump authorized spending of trillions in taxpayer dollars, too. Just before the end of March 2020, he signed a $2.2 trillion bill COVID-19 relief bill. Biden's spending proposals News headlines have referred to Biden's two plans as a $4 trillion plan, or $4 trillion in plans. Neither of his two blueprints has yet been presented as a bill to Congress. The $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan, presented as an infrastructure program, would go beyond roads and bridges to water systems and broadband, as well as to programs such as care for the elderly and disabled. Biden's $1.8 trillion American Families Plan, which he outlined in his first speech to Congress, includes child care subsidies and tuition-free community college and pre-K. Unemployment and Trump spending Unemployment in March 2021, the latest month for which figures have been released, was 6%. That's far below what it was early in the pandemic, in early 2020. A year before the Facebook post, in April 2020, the unemployment rate was 14.7%. That is the highest on record (since 1948), according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which cited the pandemic. Forty-three states had historically high unemployment rates that month. (Estimates during the Great Depression are not directly comparable and are not official statistics, according to the agency.) Like Biden, Trump authorized spending tax dollars to rescue the economy. On March 27, 2020, just before unemployment hit its record high, Trump signed a $2.2 trillion emergency coronavirus package into law. He also signed a $900 billion COVID-19 relief bill, on Dec. 27, 2020. Before the coronavirus outbreak, unemployment had been low under Trump. In April 2019, it was 3.6%, the lowest rate since December 1969. The lowest unemployment rate on record is 2.5%. That was reached twice, in May and June of 1953. | Our ruling A Facebook post said: 'Why do we need a $4 trillion jobs plan, when a year ago we had the lowest unemployment in history without using taxpayers money?' Biden has proposed two spending plans totaling $4 trillion, but they go well beyond jobs. A year before the post, in April 2020, the unemployment rate was the highest on record, not the lowest. In late-March 2020, Trump signed a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 relief bill into law. We rate the post False. | [
"104950-proof-10-41336abd2d121a347667806b4908265b.jpg"
]
|
'A year ago we had the lowest unemployment in history without using taxpayers money. | Contradiction | Less than two months after signing into law his $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which was aimed at providing relief from the coronavirus pandemic, President Joe Biden unveiled two spending proposals totaling more than $4 trillion. Backlash came in the form of a widely circulated Facebook post that didn't name Biden, but described his approach narrowly. It made this lament: 'WHY DO WE NEED A $4 TRILLION JOBS PLAN, WHEN A YEAR AGO WE HAD THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT IN HISTORY WITHOUT USING TAXPAYERS MONEY?' The April 24 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 is wrong in three ways: Biden's $4 trillion in plans encompass much more than just jobs. A year before the post - in April 2020, with the coronavirus pandemic hitting hard - unemployment was at a record high, not a record low. Around that time, President Donald Trump authorized spending of trillions in taxpayer dollars, too. Just before the end of March 2020, he signed a $2.2 trillion bill COVID-19 relief bill. Biden's spending proposals News headlines have referred to Biden's two plans as a $4 trillion plan, or $4 trillion in plans. Neither of his two blueprints has yet been presented as a bill to Congress. The $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan, presented as an infrastructure program, would go beyond roads and bridges to water systems and broadband, as well as to programs such as care for the elderly and disabled. Biden's $1.8 trillion American Families Plan, which he outlined in his first speech to Congress, includes child care subsidies and tuition-free community college and pre-K. Unemployment and Trump spending Unemployment in March 2021, the latest month for which figures have been released, was 6%. That's far below what it was early in the pandemic, in early 2020. A year before the Facebook post, in April 2020, the unemployment rate was 14.7%. That is the highest on record (since 1948), according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which cited the pandemic. Forty-three states had historically high unemployment rates that month. (Estimates during the Great Depression are not directly comparable and are not official statistics, according to the agency.) Like Biden, Trump authorized spending tax dollars to rescue the economy. On March 27, 2020, just before unemployment hit its record high, Trump signed a $2.2 trillion emergency coronavirus package into law. He also signed a $900 billion COVID-19 relief bill, on Dec. 27, 2020. Before the coronavirus outbreak, unemployment had been low under Trump. In April 2019, it was 3.6%, the lowest rate since December 1969. The lowest unemployment rate on record is 2.5%. That was reached twice, in May and June of 1953. | Our ruling A Facebook post said: 'Why do we need a $4 trillion jobs plan, when a year ago we had the lowest unemployment in history without using taxpayers money?' Biden has proposed two spending plans totaling $4 trillion, but they go well beyond jobs. A year before the post, in April 2020, the unemployment rate was the highest on record, not the lowest. In late-March 2020, Trump signed a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 relief bill into law. We rate the post False. | [
"104950-proof-10-41336abd2d121a347667806b4908265b.jpg"
]
|
'A year ago we had the lowest unemployment in history without using taxpayers money. | Contradiction | Less than two months after signing into law his $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which was aimed at providing relief from the coronavirus pandemic, President Joe Biden unveiled two spending proposals totaling more than $4 trillion. Backlash came in the form of a widely circulated Facebook post that didn't name Biden, but described his approach narrowly. It made this lament: 'WHY DO WE NEED A $4 TRILLION JOBS PLAN, WHEN A YEAR AGO WE HAD THE LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT IN HISTORY WITHOUT USING TAXPAYERS MONEY?' The April 24 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 is wrong in three ways: Biden's $4 trillion in plans encompass much more than just jobs. A year before the post - in April 2020, with the coronavirus pandemic hitting hard - unemployment was at a record high, not a record low. Around that time, President Donald Trump authorized spending of trillions in taxpayer dollars, too. Just before the end of March 2020, he signed a $2.2 trillion bill COVID-19 relief bill. Biden's spending proposals News headlines have referred to Biden's two plans as a $4 trillion plan, or $4 trillion in plans. Neither of his two blueprints has yet been presented as a bill to Congress. The $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan, presented as an infrastructure program, would go beyond roads and bridges to water systems and broadband, as well as to programs such as care for the elderly and disabled. Biden's $1.8 trillion American Families Plan, which he outlined in his first speech to Congress, includes child care subsidies and tuition-free community college and pre-K. Unemployment and Trump spending Unemployment in March 2021, the latest month for which figures have been released, was 6%. That's far below what it was early in the pandemic, in early 2020. A year before the Facebook post, in April 2020, the unemployment rate was 14.7%. That is the highest on record (since 1948), according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which cited the pandemic. Forty-three states had historically high unemployment rates that month. (Estimates during the Great Depression are not directly comparable and are not official statistics, according to the agency.) Like Biden, Trump authorized spending tax dollars to rescue the economy. On March 27, 2020, just before unemployment hit its record high, Trump signed a $2.2 trillion emergency coronavirus package into law. He also signed a $900 billion COVID-19 relief bill, on Dec. 27, 2020. Before the coronavirus outbreak, unemployment had been low under Trump. In April 2019, it was 3.6%, the lowest rate since December 1969. The lowest unemployment rate on record is 2.5%. That was reached twice, in May and June of 1953. | Our ruling A Facebook post said: 'Why do we need a $4 trillion jobs plan, when a year ago we had the lowest unemployment in history without using taxpayers money?' Biden has proposed two spending plans totaling $4 trillion, but they go well beyond jobs. A year before the post, in April 2020, the unemployment rate was the highest on record, not the lowest. In late-March 2020, Trump signed a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 relief bill into law. We rate the post False. | [
"104950-proof-10-41336abd2d121a347667806b4908265b.jpg"
]
|
Says Ron Johnson and 36 other senators 'voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant. | Contradiction | A viral Facebook post says Americans missed a big moment in privacy rights. Some provisions of the 2001 Patriot Act - which greatly expanded government intelligence gathering in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks - expired earlier this year amid GOP gridlock. The legislation has drawn criticism over the breadth of surveillance it enables, particularly after classified documents leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed phone record metadata collected on a massive scale. The U.S. House reauthorized the three lapsed intelligence programs in March 2020, and the U.S. Senate passed its own version May 14 - making changes that sent the bill back to the House. Before final passage, though, the Senate by the narrowest of margins defeated an amendment that would have limited access to internet browser and search histories. This drew the ire of one Libertarian group, whose May 14, 2020, Facebook post on the subject has been shared almost 10,000 times. 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 post from Being Libertarian named the senators who opposed the amendment - including House Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Wisconsin's Ron Johnson, both Republicans - and said this: 'Here's the list of senators who sold out your freedoms. They all voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant.' But this statement is misleading in its simplicity. Access isn't as easy or widespread as that implies - or even a new thing. The background The statement implies this was a vote to enable internet history access without a warrant, but the government has actually been able to do that for nearly 20 years. That was among many powers granted by the 2001 Patriot Act. Section 215 can be used to compel third parties (such as internet service providers) to produce information related to intelligence investigations (not law enforcement investigations). This has long been considered compatible with the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, since the Supreme Court has said since the 1970s that protection does not apply to records held by third parties, according to Robert Chesney, director of the Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted this interpretation is now 'under pressure,' but still in place. Section 215 allows government investigators to obtain internet browsing history or search queries, but there are several limitations, Chesney said. For an American, this can only be used to obtain web history related to a counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigation. (For a foreign person, any foreign-intelligence purpose can justify access to online history.) The request must be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, made up of 11 federal judges from around the country. The court was established by Congress through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to approve electronic surveillance, physical search, and certain other forms of investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes. The standard of proof to get such approval under Section 215 is somewhere between a subpoena and a search warrant, said Stewart Baker, a former general counsel of the National Security Agency who edited a book on the Patriot Act. 'Like a warrant, it requires the approval of a court (subpoenas often don't),' he said in an email. 'But unlike a warrant, the standard for granting access to records under Section 215 is 'reasonable' cause to believe the records are 'relevant' to a national security investigation.' This is short of the 'probable cause' standard needed for the court to authorize a wiretap or physical search. The U.S. Department of Justice makes all government appearances in the surveillance court, though they use supporting documentation from the FBI and NSA, Baker said. We should also note the foreign intelligence court has come under fire after recent revelations. A December 2019 report from the DOJ's independent watchdog, Michael Horowitz, found 'at least 17 significant errors or omissions' in warrant applications related to Carter Page, Donald Trump's campaign adviser. An ensuing review in March 2020 of 29 randomly selected wiretap requests revealed the FBI could not locate supporting documentation for four, and the other 25 each contained 'apparent errors or inadequately supported facts.' In 2019, the court received 1,010 applications for investigative action, of which it granted 688, modified 264 and denied in whole or part only 58, according to its annual report. It's not clear how often the federal government has used Section 215 to obtain browsing history, NBC News reported on May 15, 2020. They said tech companies are legally prohibited from detailing national security requests they receive. The amendment The bill before Congress reauthorizes intelligence gathering that Congress first authorized decades ago through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Senate passed its version 80-16 on May 14, 2020, after voting down two amendments - one to prevent surveillance act authority from being used against Americans and one to prevent the government from obtaining internet browsing and search history without a warrant (the one referenced in the claim). One of the sponsors of the warrant amendment, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, called Section 215 'the most controversial and dangerous provision' of the surveillance act. 'There is little information that is more personal than your web browsing history,' Wyden, a Democrat who sponsored the amendment, told Vox.com for a May 13, 2020, story. 'If you know that a person is visiting the website of a mental health professional, or a substance abuse support group, or a particular political organization, or a particular dating site, you know a tremendous amount of private and personal. ... This level of surveillance absolutely ought to require a warrant.' The measure gathered bipartisan support but fell one vote short of passage, 59-37. Such amendments require a 60-vote threshold. Breaking down the claim All of which brings us, finally, back to the claim that 27 Republicans and 10 Democrats in the Senate 'voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant.' Firstly, this implies the senators voted to actively allow this, when in fact the vote was against banning it. In other words, they voted to maintain the status quo. The reference to 'your internet history' implies this is a widespread action allowing some kind of sweeping internet data-gathering, in the vein of the phone datamining Snowden revealed. But Section 215 allows this internet data gathering only in relation to foreign intelligence, international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities investigation. The post also implies unfettered access, when in fact government investigators must get a court to sign off on obtaining this data - even if getting approval requires a lower threshold than a warrant. Finally, the Facebook post leaves readers with the impression this is an unusual allowance. But gathering internet data without a warrant is already widely allowable under basic criminal law. 'Under criminal law, browser history can be obtained if relevant to any criminal investigation,' Baker said. 'That's probably the best reason not to adopt this (amendment). It makes no sense to say that no warrant or judicial review is needed to obtain such records in an investigation of securities fraud, but one is needed to investigate and try to stop an act of terrorism.' The House and Senate versions of the surveillance act include a provision specifying Section 215 doesn't go beyond what can be used in criminal investigations, Baker noted. It says the government cannot seek an order in circumstances where 'a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.' The page that created the viral post did not respond to requests for comment, and the libertarian group the post credited as a source declined to provide supporting evidence. | Our ruling A viral Facebook post names 37 senators it says voted to allow 'access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant.' There was indeed a vote against requiring warrants, but the fundamental implication in this post is that it enabled widespread and unrestricted access to Americans' web activity. And that's not accurate. This data can only be obtained for an American after approval from a federal court, and only if it is related to a counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigation. And this authority is nothing new - this power relative to foreign intelligence was granted almost 20 years ago under the Patriot Act. And similar data is accessible without a warrant in standard criminal investigations as well. So we're left with an element of truth, but a claim that ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That's our definition of Mostly False. | [
"104954-proof-40-67e721968d0f409221843c80c1e2268b.jpg"
]
|
Says Ron Johnson and 36 other senators 'voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant. | Contradiction | A viral Facebook post says Americans missed a big moment in privacy rights. Some provisions of the 2001 Patriot Act - which greatly expanded government intelligence gathering in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks - expired earlier this year amid GOP gridlock. The legislation has drawn criticism over the breadth of surveillance it enables, particularly after classified documents leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed phone record metadata collected on a massive scale. The U.S. House reauthorized the three lapsed intelligence programs in March 2020, and the U.S. Senate passed its own version May 14 - making changes that sent the bill back to the House. Before final passage, though, the Senate by the narrowest of margins defeated an amendment that would have limited access to internet browser and search histories. This drew the ire of one Libertarian group, whose May 14, 2020, Facebook post on the subject has been shared almost 10,000 times. 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 post from Being Libertarian named the senators who opposed the amendment - including House Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Wisconsin's Ron Johnson, both Republicans - and said this: 'Here's the list of senators who sold out your freedoms. They all voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant.' But this statement is misleading in its simplicity. Access isn't as easy or widespread as that implies - or even a new thing. The background The statement implies this was a vote to enable internet history access without a warrant, but the government has actually been able to do that for nearly 20 years. That was among many powers granted by the 2001 Patriot Act. Section 215 can be used to compel third parties (such as internet service providers) to produce information related to intelligence investigations (not law enforcement investigations). This has long been considered compatible with the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, since the Supreme Court has said since the 1970s that protection does not apply to records held by third parties, according to Robert Chesney, director of the Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted this interpretation is now 'under pressure,' but still in place. Section 215 allows government investigators to obtain internet browsing history or search queries, but there are several limitations, Chesney said. For an American, this can only be used to obtain web history related to a counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigation. (For a foreign person, any foreign-intelligence purpose can justify access to online history.) The request must be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, made up of 11 federal judges from around the country. The court was established by Congress through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to approve electronic surveillance, physical search, and certain other forms of investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes. The standard of proof to get such approval under Section 215 is somewhere between a subpoena and a search warrant, said Stewart Baker, a former general counsel of the National Security Agency who edited a book on the Patriot Act. 'Like a warrant, it requires the approval of a court (subpoenas often don't),' he said in an email. 'But unlike a warrant, the standard for granting access to records under Section 215 is 'reasonable' cause to believe the records are 'relevant' to a national security investigation.' This is short of the 'probable cause' standard needed for the court to authorize a wiretap or physical search. The U.S. Department of Justice makes all government appearances in the surveillance court, though they use supporting documentation from the FBI and NSA, Baker said. We should also note the foreign intelligence court has come under fire after recent revelations. A December 2019 report from the DOJ's independent watchdog, Michael Horowitz, found 'at least 17 significant errors or omissions' in warrant applications related to Carter Page, Donald Trump's campaign adviser. An ensuing review in March 2020 of 29 randomly selected wiretap requests revealed the FBI could not locate supporting documentation for four, and the other 25 each contained 'apparent errors or inadequately supported facts.' In 2019, the court received 1,010 applications for investigative action, of which it granted 688, modified 264 and denied in whole or part only 58, according to its annual report. It's not clear how often the federal government has used Section 215 to obtain browsing history, NBC News reported on May 15, 2020. They said tech companies are legally prohibited from detailing national security requests they receive. The amendment The bill before Congress reauthorizes intelligence gathering that Congress first authorized decades ago through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Senate passed its version 80-16 on May 14, 2020, after voting down two amendments - one to prevent surveillance act authority from being used against Americans and one to prevent the government from obtaining internet browsing and search history without a warrant (the one referenced in the claim). One of the sponsors of the warrant amendment, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, called Section 215 'the most controversial and dangerous provision' of the surveillance act. 'There is little information that is more personal than your web browsing history,' Wyden, a Democrat who sponsored the amendment, told Vox.com for a May 13, 2020, story. 'If you know that a person is visiting the website of a mental health professional, or a substance abuse support group, or a particular political organization, or a particular dating site, you know a tremendous amount of private and personal. ... This level of surveillance absolutely ought to require a warrant.' The measure gathered bipartisan support but fell one vote short of passage, 59-37. Such amendments require a 60-vote threshold. Breaking down the claim All of which brings us, finally, back to the claim that 27 Republicans and 10 Democrats in the Senate 'voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant.' Firstly, this implies the senators voted to actively allow this, when in fact the vote was against banning it. In other words, they voted to maintain the status quo. The reference to 'your internet history' implies this is a widespread action allowing some kind of sweeping internet data-gathering, in the vein of the phone datamining Snowden revealed. But Section 215 allows this internet data gathering only in relation to foreign intelligence, international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities investigation. The post also implies unfettered access, when in fact government investigators must get a court to sign off on obtaining this data - even if getting approval requires a lower threshold than a warrant. Finally, the Facebook post leaves readers with the impression this is an unusual allowance. But gathering internet data without a warrant is already widely allowable under basic criminal law. 'Under criminal law, browser history can be obtained if relevant to any criminal investigation,' Baker said. 'That's probably the best reason not to adopt this (amendment). It makes no sense to say that no warrant or judicial review is needed to obtain such records in an investigation of securities fraud, but one is needed to investigate and try to stop an act of terrorism.' The House and Senate versions of the surveillance act include a provision specifying Section 215 doesn't go beyond what can be used in criminal investigations, Baker noted. It says the government cannot seek an order in circumstances where 'a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.' The page that created the viral post did not respond to requests for comment, and the libertarian group the post credited as a source declined to provide supporting evidence. | Our ruling A viral Facebook post names 37 senators it says voted to allow 'access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant.' There was indeed a vote against requiring warrants, but the fundamental implication in this post is that it enabled widespread and unrestricted access to Americans' web activity. And that's not accurate. This data can only be obtained for an American after approval from a federal court, and only if it is related to a counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigation. And this authority is nothing new - this power relative to foreign intelligence was granted almost 20 years ago under the Patriot Act. And similar data is accessible without a warrant in standard criminal investigations as well. So we're left with an element of truth, but a claim that ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That's our definition of Mostly False. | [
"104954-proof-40-67e721968d0f409221843c80c1e2268b.jpg"
]
|
Says Ron Johnson and 36 other senators 'voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant. | Contradiction | A viral Facebook post says Americans missed a big moment in privacy rights. Some provisions of the 2001 Patriot Act - which greatly expanded government intelligence gathering in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks - expired earlier this year amid GOP gridlock. The legislation has drawn criticism over the breadth of surveillance it enables, particularly after classified documents leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed phone record metadata collected on a massive scale. The U.S. House reauthorized the three lapsed intelligence programs in March 2020, and the U.S. Senate passed its own version May 14 - making changes that sent the bill back to the House. Before final passage, though, the Senate by the narrowest of margins defeated an amendment that would have limited access to internet browser and search histories. This drew the ire of one Libertarian group, whose May 14, 2020, Facebook post on the subject has been shared almost 10,000 times. 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 post from Being Libertarian named the senators who opposed the amendment - including House Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Wisconsin's Ron Johnson, both Republicans - and said this: 'Here's the list of senators who sold out your freedoms. They all voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant.' But this statement is misleading in its simplicity. Access isn't as easy or widespread as that implies - or even a new thing. The background The statement implies this was a vote to enable internet history access without a warrant, but the government has actually been able to do that for nearly 20 years. That was among many powers granted by the 2001 Patriot Act. Section 215 can be used to compel third parties (such as internet service providers) to produce information related to intelligence investigations (not law enforcement investigations). This has long been considered compatible with the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, since the Supreme Court has said since the 1970s that protection does not apply to records held by third parties, according to Robert Chesney, director of the Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted this interpretation is now 'under pressure,' but still in place. Section 215 allows government investigators to obtain internet browsing history or search queries, but there are several limitations, Chesney said. For an American, this can only be used to obtain web history related to a counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigation. (For a foreign person, any foreign-intelligence purpose can justify access to online history.) The request must be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, made up of 11 federal judges from around the country. The court was established by Congress through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to approve electronic surveillance, physical search, and certain other forms of investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes. The standard of proof to get such approval under Section 215 is somewhere between a subpoena and a search warrant, said Stewart Baker, a former general counsel of the National Security Agency who edited a book on the Patriot Act. 'Like a warrant, it requires the approval of a court (subpoenas often don't),' he said in an email. 'But unlike a warrant, the standard for granting access to records under Section 215 is 'reasonable' cause to believe the records are 'relevant' to a national security investigation.' This is short of the 'probable cause' standard needed for the court to authorize a wiretap or physical search. The U.S. Department of Justice makes all government appearances in the surveillance court, though they use supporting documentation from the FBI and NSA, Baker said. We should also note the foreign intelligence court has come under fire after recent revelations. A December 2019 report from the DOJ's independent watchdog, Michael Horowitz, found 'at least 17 significant errors or omissions' in warrant applications related to Carter Page, Donald Trump's campaign adviser. An ensuing review in March 2020 of 29 randomly selected wiretap requests revealed the FBI could not locate supporting documentation for four, and the other 25 each contained 'apparent errors or inadequately supported facts.' In 2019, the court received 1,010 applications for investigative action, of which it granted 688, modified 264 and denied in whole or part only 58, according to its annual report. It's not clear how often the federal government has used Section 215 to obtain browsing history, NBC News reported on May 15, 2020. They said tech companies are legally prohibited from detailing national security requests they receive. The amendment The bill before Congress reauthorizes intelligence gathering that Congress first authorized decades ago through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Senate passed its version 80-16 on May 14, 2020, after voting down two amendments - one to prevent surveillance act authority from being used against Americans and one to prevent the government from obtaining internet browsing and search history without a warrant (the one referenced in the claim). One of the sponsors of the warrant amendment, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, called Section 215 'the most controversial and dangerous provision' of the surveillance act. 'There is little information that is more personal than your web browsing history,' Wyden, a Democrat who sponsored the amendment, told Vox.com for a May 13, 2020, story. 'If you know that a person is visiting the website of a mental health professional, or a substance abuse support group, or a particular political organization, or a particular dating site, you know a tremendous amount of private and personal. ... This level of surveillance absolutely ought to require a warrant.' The measure gathered bipartisan support but fell one vote short of passage, 59-37. Such amendments require a 60-vote threshold. Breaking down the claim All of which brings us, finally, back to the claim that 27 Republicans and 10 Democrats in the Senate 'voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant.' Firstly, this implies the senators voted to actively allow this, when in fact the vote was against banning it. In other words, they voted to maintain the status quo. The reference to 'your internet history' implies this is a widespread action allowing some kind of sweeping internet data-gathering, in the vein of the phone datamining Snowden revealed. But Section 215 allows this internet data gathering only in relation to foreign intelligence, international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities investigation. The post also implies unfettered access, when in fact government investigators must get a court to sign off on obtaining this data - even if getting approval requires a lower threshold than a warrant. Finally, the Facebook post leaves readers with the impression this is an unusual allowance. But gathering internet data without a warrant is already widely allowable under basic criminal law. 'Under criminal law, browser history can be obtained if relevant to any criminal investigation,' Baker said. 'That's probably the best reason not to adopt this (amendment). It makes no sense to say that no warrant or judicial review is needed to obtain such records in an investigation of securities fraud, but one is needed to investigate and try to stop an act of terrorism.' The House and Senate versions of the surveillance act include a provision specifying Section 215 doesn't go beyond what can be used in criminal investigations, Baker noted. It says the government cannot seek an order in circumstances where 'a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.' The page that created the viral post did not respond to requests for comment, and the libertarian group the post credited as a source declined to provide supporting evidence. | Our ruling A viral Facebook post names 37 senators it says voted to allow 'access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant.' There was indeed a vote against requiring warrants, but the fundamental implication in this post is that it enabled widespread and unrestricted access to Americans' web activity. And that's not accurate. This data can only be obtained for an American after approval from a federal court, and only if it is related to a counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigation. And this authority is nothing new - this power relative to foreign intelligence was granted almost 20 years ago under the Patriot Act. And similar data is accessible without a warrant in standard criminal investigations as well. So we're left with an element of truth, but a claim that ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That's our definition of Mostly False. | [
"104954-proof-40-67e721968d0f409221843c80c1e2268b.jpg"
]
|
Says Ron Johnson and 36 other senators 'voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant. | Contradiction | A viral Facebook post says Americans missed a big moment in privacy rights. Some provisions of the 2001 Patriot Act - which greatly expanded government intelligence gathering in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks - expired earlier this year amid GOP gridlock. The legislation has drawn criticism over the breadth of surveillance it enables, particularly after classified documents leaked by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed phone record metadata collected on a massive scale. The U.S. House reauthorized the three lapsed intelligence programs in March 2020, and the U.S. Senate passed its own version May 14 - making changes that sent the bill back to the House. Before final passage, though, the Senate by the narrowest of margins defeated an amendment that would have limited access to internet browser and search histories. This drew the ire of one Libertarian group, whose May 14, 2020, Facebook post on the subject has been shared almost 10,000 times. 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 post from Being Libertarian named the senators who opposed the amendment - including House Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Wisconsin's Ron Johnson, both Republicans - and said this: 'Here's the list of senators who sold out your freedoms. They all voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant.' But this statement is misleading in its simplicity. Access isn't as easy or widespread as that implies - or even a new thing. The background The statement implies this was a vote to enable internet history access without a warrant, but the government has actually been able to do that for nearly 20 years. That was among many powers granted by the 2001 Patriot Act. Section 215 can be used to compel third parties (such as internet service providers) to produce information related to intelligence investigations (not law enforcement investigations). This has long been considered compatible with the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, since the Supreme Court has said since the 1970s that protection does not apply to records held by third parties, according to Robert Chesney, director of the Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin. He noted this interpretation is now 'under pressure,' but still in place. Section 215 allows government investigators to obtain internet browsing history or search queries, but there are several limitations, Chesney said. For an American, this can only be used to obtain web history related to a counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigation. (For a foreign person, any foreign-intelligence purpose can justify access to online history.) The request must be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, made up of 11 federal judges from around the country. The court was established by Congress through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to approve electronic surveillance, physical search, and certain other forms of investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes. The standard of proof to get such approval under Section 215 is somewhere between a subpoena and a search warrant, said Stewart Baker, a former general counsel of the National Security Agency who edited a book on the Patriot Act. 'Like a warrant, it requires the approval of a court (subpoenas often don't),' he said in an email. 'But unlike a warrant, the standard for granting access to records under Section 215 is 'reasonable' cause to believe the records are 'relevant' to a national security investigation.' This is short of the 'probable cause' standard needed for the court to authorize a wiretap or physical search. The U.S. Department of Justice makes all government appearances in the surveillance court, though they use supporting documentation from the FBI and NSA, Baker said. We should also note the foreign intelligence court has come under fire after recent revelations. A December 2019 report from the DOJ's independent watchdog, Michael Horowitz, found 'at least 17 significant errors or omissions' in warrant applications related to Carter Page, Donald Trump's campaign adviser. An ensuing review in March 2020 of 29 randomly selected wiretap requests revealed the FBI could not locate supporting documentation for four, and the other 25 each contained 'apparent errors or inadequately supported facts.' In 2019, the court received 1,010 applications for investigative action, of which it granted 688, modified 264 and denied in whole or part only 58, according to its annual report. It's not clear how often the federal government has used Section 215 to obtain browsing history, NBC News reported on May 15, 2020. They said tech companies are legally prohibited from detailing national security requests they receive. The amendment The bill before Congress reauthorizes intelligence gathering that Congress first authorized decades ago through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Senate passed its version 80-16 on May 14, 2020, after voting down two amendments - one to prevent surveillance act authority from being used against Americans and one to prevent the government from obtaining internet browsing and search history without a warrant (the one referenced in the claim). One of the sponsors of the warrant amendment, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, called Section 215 'the most controversial and dangerous provision' of the surveillance act. 'There is little information that is more personal than your web browsing history,' Wyden, a Democrat who sponsored the amendment, told Vox.com for a May 13, 2020, story. 'If you know that a person is visiting the website of a mental health professional, or a substance abuse support group, or a particular political organization, or a particular dating site, you know a tremendous amount of private and personal. ... This level of surveillance absolutely ought to require a warrant.' The measure gathered bipartisan support but fell one vote short of passage, 59-37. Such amendments require a 60-vote threshold. Breaking down the claim All of which brings us, finally, back to the claim that 27 Republicans and 10 Democrats in the Senate 'voted for federal agencies to have access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant.' Firstly, this implies the senators voted to actively allow this, when in fact the vote was against banning it. In other words, they voted to maintain the status quo. The reference to 'your internet history' implies this is a widespread action allowing some kind of sweeping internet data-gathering, in the vein of the phone datamining Snowden revealed. But Section 215 allows this internet data gathering only in relation to foreign intelligence, international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities investigation. The post also implies unfettered access, when in fact government investigators must get a court to sign off on obtaining this data - even if getting approval requires a lower threshold than a warrant. Finally, the Facebook post leaves readers with the impression this is an unusual allowance. But gathering internet data without a warrant is already widely allowable under basic criminal law. 'Under criminal law, browser history can be obtained if relevant to any criminal investigation,' Baker said. 'That's probably the best reason not to adopt this (amendment). It makes no sense to say that no warrant or judicial review is needed to obtain such records in an investigation of securities fraud, but one is needed to investigate and try to stop an act of terrorism.' The House and Senate versions of the surveillance act include a provision specifying Section 215 doesn't go beyond what can be used in criminal investigations, Baker noted. It says the government cannot seek an order in circumstances where 'a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.' The page that created the viral post did not respond to requests for comment, and the libertarian group the post credited as a source declined to provide supporting evidence. | Our ruling A viral Facebook post names 37 senators it says voted to allow 'access to your internet history without obtaining a warrant.' There was indeed a vote against requiring warrants, but the fundamental implication in this post is that it enabled widespread and unrestricted access to Americans' web activity. And that's not accurate. This data can only be obtained for an American after approval from a federal court, and only if it is related to a counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigation. And this authority is nothing new - this power relative to foreign intelligence was granted almost 20 years ago under the Patriot Act. And similar data is accessible without a warrant in standard criminal investigations as well. So we're left with an element of truth, but a claim that ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That's our definition of Mostly False. | [
"104954-proof-40-67e721968d0f409221843c80c1e2268b.jpg"
]
|
A Time magazine cover calls Donald Trump the 'Worst. President. Ever. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump has appeared on the cover of Time dozens of times, but a photo of him under the words 'Worst. President. Ever' is not among them. A post with an image of this cover 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 fake cover story being shared on social media shows a doctored image of Trump with part of his face appearing as a skeleton. 'How Donald Trump has disgraced the highest office in the nation,' it says, along with the words 'divider,' 'liar,' 'rapist,' 'thief,' 'usurper,' 'manipulator,' 'collaborator' and 'traitor.' Kristin Matzen, a spokesperson for Time, told us that the image in the Facebook post is not an authentic Time cover. We rate this post Pants on Fire. | We rate this post Pants on Fire. | []
|
'There was tremendous cheating in New York' | Contradiction | In a recent Fox News interview, host Laura Ingraham asked President Donald Trump what he would tell Republicans and conservatives in Democratic-leaning states about whether they should vote in November, and talked about whether a higher popular vote total would send a message of support for Trump. Trump interjected with a theory of his own. 'I think I did win the popular vote in a true sense,' he said. 'I think there was tremendous cheating in California, there was tremendous cheating in New York and other places.' Though he won the electoral college, Trump lost the popular vote nationwide, winning 62.99 million votes to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 65.85 million votes. In New York, Clinton won 4.56 million votes, while Trump won 2.82 million votes. We were curious about his claim of 'tremendous cheating in New York' in the last presidential election. We reached out to the White House and the Trump campaign to get details of what Trump was talking about, but we did not receive a response. Primary problems Though we can't know for sure, New York has had some voting irregularities that Trump could have had in mind when he said that. In 2017, the New York City Board of Elections admitted to improperly removing voters from the rolls ahead of the 2016 Democratic primary. The admission followed a lawsuit, in which the city board was accused of violating federal and state election laws. According to a report from the New York City Campaign Finance Board, 126,000 voters were improperly removed before the primary, but were restored in time to vote in the general election. The report did not note anything that could be considered 'tremendous cheating' in the general election. A spokesman for the state Board of Elections said that Trump may have been referring to a recent story in the New York Post. Two days before Trump's interview with Ingraham, the Post published an interview with an unnamed Democratic operative who described the ways that mail-in votes can be manipulated. The story did not refer specifically to any actions taken in New York in the 2016 general election. The operative, who worked in New Jersey and mentored operatives in other states, including New York, said that tactics to manipulate an election result, such as knocking on voters' doors and asking residents to hand over their filled-out ballots so the operative can tamper with it later, have been used 'for decades.' The spokesman for the Board of Elections, John Conklin, said he could not confirm or deny any criminal activity by a political operative. Conklin also directed us to a report by the New York City Department of Investigation, which found that in 2013 investigators impersonated voters who were ineligible or deceased and were handed a ballot 61 of 63 times. 'There was nothing of note in the 2016 election to indicate there was any election tampering or cheating or whatever you want to call it,' said Sarah Goff, deputy director of Common Cause New York, an organization that closely watches elections and was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the city elections board in the 2016 primary. | Our ruling There were documented problems with eligible voters being improperly purged from the New York City Board of Elections' voting lists during the 2016 primary. But in the interview, Trump talked about how he won the popular vote 'in a true sense,' and made claims about 'tremendous cheating' in New York and California. The popular vote he is talking about refers to the general election, not the primary. There is no evidence of cheating in the 2016 general election. Trump made a ridiculous claim. We rate his statement Pants on Fire. | [
"104971-proof-13-623ce8f4c9ce40d2bae336395e5a4d4f.jpg"
]
|
'There was tremendous cheating in New York' | Contradiction | In a recent Fox News interview, host Laura Ingraham asked President Donald Trump what he would tell Republicans and conservatives in Democratic-leaning states about whether they should vote in November, and talked about whether a higher popular vote total would send a message of support for Trump. Trump interjected with a theory of his own. 'I think I did win the popular vote in a true sense,' he said. 'I think there was tremendous cheating in California, there was tremendous cheating in New York and other places.' Though he won the electoral college, Trump lost the popular vote nationwide, winning 62.99 million votes to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 65.85 million votes. In New York, Clinton won 4.56 million votes, while Trump won 2.82 million votes. We were curious about his claim of 'tremendous cheating in New York' in the last presidential election. We reached out to the White House and the Trump campaign to get details of what Trump was talking about, but we did not receive a response. Primary problems Though we can't know for sure, New York has had some voting irregularities that Trump could have had in mind when he said that. In 2017, the New York City Board of Elections admitted to improperly removing voters from the rolls ahead of the 2016 Democratic primary. The admission followed a lawsuit, in which the city board was accused of violating federal and state election laws. According to a report from the New York City Campaign Finance Board, 126,000 voters were improperly removed before the primary, but were restored in time to vote in the general election. The report did not note anything that could be considered 'tremendous cheating' in the general election. A spokesman for the state Board of Elections said that Trump may have been referring to a recent story in the New York Post. Two days before Trump's interview with Ingraham, the Post published an interview with an unnamed Democratic operative who described the ways that mail-in votes can be manipulated. The story did not refer specifically to any actions taken in New York in the 2016 general election. The operative, who worked in New Jersey and mentored operatives in other states, including New York, said that tactics to manipulate an election result, such as knocking on voters' doors and asking residents to hand over their filled-out ballots so the operative can tamper with it later, have been used 'for decades.' The spokesman for the Board of Elections, John Conklin, said he could not confirm or deny any criminal activity by a political operative. Conklin also directed us to a report by the New York City Department of Investigation, which found that in 2013 investigators impersonated voters who were ineligible or deceased and were handed a ballot 61 of 63 times. 'There was nothing of note in the 2016 election to indicate there was any election tampering or cheating or whatever you want to call it,' said Sarah Goff, deputy director of Common Cause New York, an organization that closely watches elections and was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the city elections board in the 2016 primary. | Our ruling There were documented problems with eligible voters being improperly purged from the New York City Board of Elections' voting lists during the 2016 primary. But in the interview, Trump talked about how he won the popular vote 'in a true sense,' and made claims about 'tremendous cheating' in New York and California. The popular vote he is talking about refers to the general election, not the primary. There is no evidence of cheating in the 2016 general election. Trump made a ridiculous claim. We rate his statement Pants on Fire. | [
"104971-proof-13-623ce8f4c9ce40d2bae336395e5a4d4f.jpg"
]
|
'There was tremendous cheating in New York' | Contradiction | In a recent Fox News interview, host Laura Ingraham asked President Donald Trump what he would tell Republicans and conservatives in Democratic-leaning states about whether they should vote in November, and talked about whether a higher popular vote total would send a message of support for Trump. Trump interjected with a theory of his own. 'I think I did win the popular vote in a true sense,' he said. 'I think there was tremendous cheating in California, there was tremendous cheating in New York and other places.' Though he won the electoral college, Trump lost the popular vote nationwide, winning 62.99 million votes to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 65.85 million votes. In New York, Clinton won 4.56 million votes, while Trump won 2.82 million votes. We were curious about his claim of 'tremendous cheating in New York' in the last presidential election. We reached out to the White House and the Trump campaign to get details of what Trump was talking about, but we did not receive a response. Primary problems Though we can't know for sure, New York has had some voting irregularities that Trump could have had in mind when he said that. In 2017, the New York City Board of Elections admitted to improperly removing voters from the rolls ahead of the 2016 Democratic primary. The admission followed a lawsuit, in which the city board was accused of violating federal and state election laws. According to a report from the New York City Campaign Finance Board, 126,000 voters were improperly removed before the primary, but were restored in time to vote in the general election. The report did not note anything that could be considered 'tremendous cheating' in the general election. A spokesman for the state Board of Elections said that Trump may have been referring to a recent story in the New York Post. Two days before Trump's interview with Ingraham, the Post published an interview with an unnamed Democratic operative who described the ways that mail-in votes can be manipulated. The story did not refer specifically to any actions taken in New York in the 2016 general election. The operative, who worked in New Jersey and mentored operatives in other states, including New York, said that tactics to manipulate an election result, such as knocking on voters' doors and asking residents to hand over their filled-out ballots so the operative can tamper with it later, have been used 'for decades.' The spokesman for the Board of Elections, John Conklin, said he could not confirm or deny any criminal activity by a political operative. Conklin also directed us to a report by the New York City Department of Investigation, which found that in 2013 investigators impersonated voters who were ineligible or deceased and were handed a ballot 61 of 63 times. 'There was nothing of note in the 2016 election to indicate there was any election tampering or cheating or whatever you want to call it,' said Sarah Goff, deputy director of Common Cause New York, an organization that closely watches elections and was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the city elections board in the 2016 primary. | Our ruling There were documented problems with eligible voters being improperly purged from the New York City Board of Elections' voting lists during the 2016 primary. But in the interview, Trump talked about how he won the popular vote 'in a true sense,' and made claims about 'tremendous cheating' in New York and California. The popular vote he is talking about refers to the general election, not the primary. There is no evidence of cheating in the 2016 general election. Trump made a ridiculous claim. We rate his statement Pants on Fire. | [
"104971-proof-13-623ce8f4c9ce40d2bae336395e5a4d4f.jpg"
]
|
'On 60 Minutes, Joe said he never met with Hunter and the Burisma CEO. Well, here he is with both. | Contradiction | During a recent '60 Minutes' interview, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden called allegations against his son Hunter 'a smear campaign.' But he didn't go into detail about the claims, including that Hunter Biden purportedly introduced his dad to an adviser to the board of a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma Holdings. Still, a Facebook post published after the interview said that 'on 60 Minutes, Joe said that he never met with Hunter and the Burisma CEO. Well, here he is with both... Lying POS!!!!' A photo included in the post shows Joe and Hunter Biden standing with two other men holding golf clubs on a green in the Hamptons in 2014. 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.) So we looked into it. First, during the '60 Minutes' interview, Joe Biden never mentioned Ukraine or Burisma, where Hunter Biden was a board director while Joe Biden was vice president. Second, the photo doesn't show Taras Burdeinyi, CEO of Burisma, or Mykola Zlochevsky, the company's founder and owner. The man on the far left is Devon Archer, another American board member of Burisma who worked with Hunter Biden in a series of investment and consulting firms in 2008. Standing next to him is Ralph Pasucci, founder of Netrex Capital Markets LLC, a New York investment banking firm. He is also a principal of Sebonack Golf Club in Southampton, N.Y., where the Bidens spent a week in August 2014. In October 2019, Trump tweeted a claim that's similar to what appears in the Facebook post. 'Sleepy Joe said he never spoke to the Ukrainian company, and then the picture came out where he was playing golf with the company boss and Hunter,' Trump said at the time. When we fact-checked Trump, we did not find where Biden ever claimed that he'd never spoken to Burisma. Rather, Biden said he'd never spoken to his son about his overseas business dealings. In either case, Biden didn't mention Burisma during the '60 Minutes' interview, and the photo doesn't show the Burisma CEO. We rate this Facebook post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this Facebook post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
'On 60 Minutes, Joe said he never met with Hunter and the Burisma CEO. Well, here he is with both. | Contradiction | During a recent '60 Minutes' interview, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden called allegations against his son Hunter 'a smear campaign.' But he didn't go into detail about the claims, including that Hunter Biden purportedly introduced his dad to an adviser to the board of a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma Holdings. Still, a Facebook post published after the interview said that 'on 60 Minutes, Joe said that he never met with Hunter and the Burisma CEO. Well, here he is with both... Lying POS!!!!' A photo included in the post shows Joe and Hunter Biden standing with two other men holding golf clubs on a green in the Hamptons in 2014. 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.) So we looked into it. First, during the '60 Minutes' interview, Joe Biden never mentioned Ukraine or Burisma, where Hunter Biden was a board director while Joe Biden was vice president. Second, the photo doesn't show Taras Burdeinyi, CEO of Burisma, or Mykola Zlochevsky, the company's founder and owner. The man on the far left is Devon Archer, another American board member of Burisma who worked with Hunter Biden in a series of investment and consulting firms in 2008. Standing next to him is Ralph Pasucci, founder of Netrex Capital Markets LLC, a New York investment banking firm. He is also a principal of Sebonack Golf Club in Southampton, N.Y., where the Bidens spent a week in August 2014. In October 2019, Trump tweeted a claim that's similar to what appears in the Facebook post. 'Sleepy Joe said he never spoke to the Ukrainian company, and then the picture came out where he was playing golf with the company boss and Hunter,' Trump said at the time. When we fact-checked Trump, we did not find where Biden ever claimed that he'd never spoken to Burisma. Rather, Biden said he'd never spoken to his son about his overseas business dealings. In either case, Biden didn't mention Burisma during the '60 Minutes' interview, and the photo doesn't show the Burisma CEO. We rate this Facebook post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this Facebook post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Says Tom Hanks has a volleyball to keep him company while he's quarantined. | Contradiction | Stars - they're just like us: On March 11, actor Tom Hanks announced on Twitter that he and his wife, the actress Rita Wilson, tested positive for COVID-19 in Australia, where Hanks is shooting a movie. 'What to do next?' he tweeted. 'The Medical Officials have protocols that must be followed. We Hanks will be tested, observed, and isolated for as long as public health and safety requires.' One of Hanks' characters, Chuck Noland, experiences extreme isolation in the movie 'Cast Away' after his plane crashes on a deserted island. His sole companion is a volleyball he paints a face on and names Wilson. Not long after Hanks' revealed his coronavirus diagnosis, an image appeared on social media showing him holding what looks like Wilson. One Facebook post says: 'Hospitals in Australia have jokes. They rolled in a volleyball to Tom Hanks to keep him company while quarantined.' 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 hate to break it to you, Hanks Nation. The image is from a satirical website called The Betoota Advocate. The story, which includes true information about Hanks and the coronavirus, ends on a cheeky note: 'To keep him company, the thoughtful and overworked staff at the Gold Coast hospital have brought Hanks in a Wilson volleyball to keep him company during the duration of his stay.' The image of Hanks holding a volleyball appears to be edited using this footage of Hanks holding a volleyball someone tossed him at a New York Rangers game in 2015. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Says Tom Hanks has a volleyball to keep him company while he's quarantined. | Contradiction | Stars - they're just like us: On March 11, actor Tom Hanks announced on Twitter that he and his wife, the actress Rita Wilson, tested positive for COVID-19 in Australia, where Hanks is shooting a movie. 'What to do next?' he tweeted. 'The Medical Officials have protocols that must be followed. We Hanks will be tested, observed, and isolated for as long as public health and safety requires.' One of Hanks' characters, Chuck Noland, experiences extreme isolation in the movie 'Cast Away' after his plane crashes on a deserted island. His sole companion is a volleyball he paints a face on and names Wilson. Not long after Hanks' revealed his coronavirus diagnosis, an image appeared on social media showing him holding what looks like Wilson. One Facebook post says: 'Hospitals in Australia have jokes. They rolled in a volleyball to Tom Hanks to keep him company while quarantined.' 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 hate to break it to you, Hanks Nation. The image is from a satirical website called The Betoota Advocate. The story, which includes true information about Hanks and the coronavirus, ends on a cheeky note: 'To keep him company, the thoughtful and overworked staff at the Gold Coast hospital have brought Hanks in a Wilson volleyball to keep him company during the duration of his stay.' The image of Hanks holding a volleyball appears to be edited using this footage of Hanks holding a volleyball someone tossed him at a New York Rangers game in 2015. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'Election worker brags about destroying Trump ballots; rips up a ballot for DJT on video. | Contradiction | A TikTok user who goes by @bigchoppadoe has said that he created a video pretending to be a poll worker destroying ballots for President Donald Trump as a joke, but it has still spread on social media as evidence of election fraud. 'Election worker brags about destroying Trump ballots; rips up a ballot for DJT on video,' the headline of a post on TopTradeGuru.com says. In the embedded TikTok video, @bigchoppadoe is wearing a yellow vest and a face mask as he says, 'we get your votes and we separate them. If some of these votes happen to say, like this one, Donald J. Dumb Trump, that one just don't make it.' Then he holds up what looks like a ballot marked for Trump and rips it in half. This blog 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.) @bigchoppadoe's TikTok account is now private, but Newsweek reported that Dale Harrison, the man behind the account, wrote on Facebook that it was a joke. 'Sooo I did this video in my Amazon outfit cause y'all know I'm always joking!' Harrison said. 'And it's getting crazyyy views! ... So when do I move to Hollywood???' Harrison also replied to a comment asking if he really destroyed ballots by saying: 'it's a joke. I've never worked for them,' according to Newsweek. He said he's wearing his uniform for his job at Amazon in the viral TikTok video. We rate this blog post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this blog post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Video shows irate airline passenger demanding a seat away from an unvaccinated passenger and being asked to leave the airplane. | Contradiction | A viral video of an unruly airline passenger railing at a flight attendant seems perfectly plausible, since similar scenes have unfolded so many times during the COVID-19 pandemic. This time, though, the scene was fictional. A Facebook post shows footage of an irate airline passenger who demanded a different seat away from an unvaccinated passenger and was asked to leave the airplane. The video gives the appearance of having been filmed by a bystander during a real event, and the caption says, 'Round of applaud (sic) to the flight crew,' with an emoji of hands clapping. 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.) But the video is a fictional film featuring professional actors. It was shot on a plane that is offered for rent for film and drama productions. The three-minute film, titled 'COVID flight,' was released Nov. 1, 2021, according to IMDb, an online database of films. Diana Winter is listed as the actress who portrays the irate passenger. The executive director, Prince Ea, has 18 million followers on Facebook and has made other viral videos. In the video, a maskless Winter tells an actress portraying a flight attendant that she won't sit in her assigned seat since, 'It's not safe here,' and that her seatmate should be moved because he does not have a 'vaccine card.' Eventually, an actor portraying the airplane's captain - Sean Pogmore, according to IMBd - tells Winter that everyone needs to respect each other and she should leave the aircraft, as other 'passengers' applaud. The interior of the plane in the video matches those used by JARE Airline Training of Dorset, England, which rents planes for use in film and drama productions. JARE's website features an Oct. 27, 2021, comment from Jamie Hull-Greenwood, identified on IMDb as the director of 'Covid Flight.' Hull-Greenwood is quoted as saying, 'The B737 was a fantastic and wonderful space to make a film, it was perfect and can't get any better - the aircraft was perfect - thank you very much.' JARE Airline Training's founding director told CNN that the viral video 'is definitely the result of filming by our friends from JPC Film,' which is listed on IMBd as the production company for 'COVID flight.' Social media users shared the movie as if it depicted a real event. Prince Ea, the executive director, initially shared the post on Facebook with a caption that said, 'SHE MUST HAVE BEEN HAVING A BAD DAY,' and did not indicate that the video was staged, Rolling Stone reported. His Facebook caption was later edited to add, 'For entertainment purposes,' but that language is not included on every version of the video that's been shared on social media. Prince Ea's Facebook post had 24 million views as of Nov. 15. | Our ruling A Facebook post shows video footage of an irate airline passenger who demanded a different seat away from an unvaccinated passenger and was asked to leave the airplane. The video was shared across social media as if it depicted a real event. The video, however, is a fictional film titled 'Covid Flight' that features professional actors. 'Covid Flight' is listed on IMDb, an online database of films, and the actors who play the passenger and the airplane captain are identified. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Does the #DemConvention know @NYGovCuomo forced nursing homes across NY to take in COVID positive patients and planted the seeds of infection that killed thousands of grandmothers and grandfathers?' | Contradiction | Editor's note, Feb. 16, 2021: In recent weeks, N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has faced increasing scrutiny regarding his handling of information related to covid-related deaths among nursing home residents. A recent report by N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James noted that the death count may be 50% higher than what Cuomo's administration provided. The attorney general's estimate includes deaths that occurred after residents were transferred to the hospital, for example, a potential for undercounting that was mentioned in this fact check. The fact check itself focused on a policy issued by Cuomo in March directing nursing homes in the state to accept patients who had or were suspected of having covid-19. As long as they were medically stable, the notice said, it was appropriate to move patients in. Our ruling of Mostly False is unchanged by this new information. That rating was based on evidence that while the introduction of covid-19 positive patients into nursing homes no doubt had an effect on the spread of the coronavirus, Caputo's statement suggested it was solely responsible. That's not what the evidence showed, then or now. | Editor's note, Feb. 16, 2021: In recent weeks, N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has faced increasing scrutiny regarding his handling of information related to covid-related deaths among nursing home residents. A recent report by N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James noted that the death count may be 50% higher than what Cuomo's administration provided. The attorney general's estimate includes deaths that occurred after residents were transferred to the hospital, for example, a potential for undercounting that was mentioned in this fact check. The fact check itself focused on a policy issued by Cuomo in March directing nursing homes in the state to accept patients who had or were suspected of having covid-19. As long as they were medically stable, the notice said, it was appropriate to move patients in. Our ruling of Mostly False is unchanged by this new information. That rating was based on evidence that while the introduction of covid-19 positive patients into nursing homes no doubt had an effect on the spread of the coronavirus, Caputo's statement suggested it was solely responsible. That's not what the evidence showed, then or now. On the first night of the Democratic National Convention, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was among the first in a weeklong parade of speakers to issue scathing critiques of the Trump administration's coronavirus response. Cuomo's criticisms drew a quick reply in a tweet from Michael R. Caputo, an assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services. 'Does the #DemConvention know @NYGovCuomo forced nursing homes across NY to take in COVID positive patients and planted the seeds of infection that killed thousands of grandmothers and grandfathers?' he wrote. It was an easy jab: Cuomo has been dogged by criticism for months over his March advisory directing nursing homes in the state to accept patients who had or were suspected of having COVID-19. As long as they were medically stable, the notice said, it was appropriate to move patients in. Further, nursing homes were prohibited from requiring that medically stable prospective residents be tested for the virus before they arrived. Between March 25 and May 8, approximately 6,326 COVID-positive patients were admitted to nursing homes, according to a state health department report. While experts say this policy was flawed, is it fair to say that the governor's directive 'forced' nursing homes to take patients who were sick with COVID-19? And to what extent did that strategy sow the seeds of disease and death? When we examined the evidence, we found it was less clear cut than the statement makes it seem. The policy likely had an effect, but epidemiologists identified additional factors that fed the problem. What's more the policy did not 'force' nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients. Nursing homes interpreted it this way. We checked with HHS to find the basis for Caputo's comment but got no response. The back story As the virus tore through nursing homes, killing dozens at some of them, Cuomo came under withering censure. His administration's policy, implemented with an eye toward freeing up hospital beds for an onslaught of COVID patients, seemed to disregard the risks to frail and elderly nursing home residents who were especially vulnerable to the disease. According to the COVID Tracking Project, 6,624 people have died of COVID-19 in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities in New York, accounting for 26% of the state's 25,275 COVID deaths. Some say the true number of deaths is much higher because, unlike many states, New York does not count the deaths of former nursing home residents who are transferred to hospitals and die there as nursing home deaths. Cuomo's explanation for the policy - that he was simply following guidance from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - didn't cut it. A recent PolitiFact piece examining his claim rated it 'Mostly False.' In May, the governor amended the March order, prohibiting hospitals from discharging patients to nursing homes unless they tested negative for COVID-19. A misguided approach In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when New York was the epicenter and more than a thousand people were being hospitalized daily, there was genuine fear that hospitals would not be able to accommodate the influx of desperately ill patients. Moving people out of the hospitals and into nursing homes was one strategy to help hospitals meet these needs. According to the CDC guidance cited in the earlier PolitiFact story, there were two factors to consider when deciding whether to discharge a patient with COVID-19 to a long-term care facility: whether the patient was medically ready, and whether the facility could implement the recommended infection control procedures to safely care for a patient recovering from the virus. A document from the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said nursing homes should accept only patients they were able to care for. Long-standing state guidance is based on the same condition. Still, nursing homes didn't believe turning away patients with COVID-19 was an option. 'On its face it looked like a requirement,' said Christopher Laxton, executive director of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, which represents medical professionals in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. 'The nursing homes we spoke to felt it was a mandate, and a number of them felt they had no choice but to take COVID patients.' Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on November 10, 2021 in a Facebook post 'Italy drastically reduced the country's official COV1D-19 death count by over 97%. This means Covid killed fewer people than an average seasonal flu.' By Samantha Putterman β’ November 10, 2021 While the overarching guidance not to take patients in unless they could be safely cared for may have been clear, nursing homes' experience was often different, said Richard Mollot, executive director of the Long-Term Care Community Coalition, an advocacy group for elderly and disabled people. 'There was little reason for nursing homes to think they should only take in patients if they have the ability to do so safely because those rules are not generally enforced on a regular basis.' Bottom line: State and federal rules didn't force nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients, but many of them believed they had no other choice. A lethal result? How much of the blame for the deaths of thousands of people in nursing homes from COVID-19 can be attributed to Cuomo's March advisory? That is the 6,000-person question. In a July analysis of COVID-19 nursing home deaths, the state concluded that the deadly virus was introduced by nursing home staff members rather than sick patients. It noted that peak nursing home resident mortality from COVID-19 on April 8 preceded the peak influx of COVID patients on April 14. In addition, it found that nearly 1 in 4 nursing home workers - 37,500 people - were infected with the virus between March and early June. Based on these and other factors, the report concluded that the state admissions policy could not have been a driver of nursing home infections or fatalities. Epidemiologists and nursing home advocates beg to differ. 'To say that introducing patients [to nursing homes] who had COVID did not cause problems is ridiculous,' said Laxton. Calling the study's approach 'pretty flawed,' Denis Nash, an epidemiologist at City University of New York School of Public Health, said he didn't agree with the report's conclusion that the policy had nothing to do with deaths. Others had the same view. 'I didn't think they showed data to say [the policy] is not a 'driver,'' said Rupak Shivakoti, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. But Gary Holmes, assistant commissioner at the New York State Department of Health, had a different take. Critics of the report, he said, must be deliberately ignoring the rising death tolls in nursing homes in hot spots across the country. 'Public health officials in those states are experiencing (and acknowledging) what NY's report indicated weeks ago: these facilities are microcosms of the community and transmission is occurring unknowingly by asymptomatic spread among staff members,' Holmes said, in an email. While public health experts quibbled with the report's self-serving claim that the governor's policy wasn't a factor in COVID-19 nursing home deaths, they nevertheless agreed with the report's broader conclusion that nursing home staffers as well as visitors, before they were banned, were likely the main drivers of COVID-19 infection and death in nursing homes. 'Based on the timeline of the policy and deaths in the city, it is very unlikely that policy contributed to thousands of deaths,' said Shivakoti. Infection control is a long-standing problem at nursing homes, Nash said, and the COVID deaths were a basic failure of infection control. That said, 'it's unclear how many of the deaths the policy might have caused.' Also unclear: how many of the dead were grandmothers and grandfathers. Our ruling In a tweet, the HHS assistant secretary for public affairs said that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo 'forced' nursing homes across the state to admit COVID-positive patients and that this policy fueled the spread of COVID-19 that led to thousands of deaths in the nursing home population. Although nursing homes felt pressure to accept COVID-positive patients, they were not actually forced to do so. State regulations require nursing homes to accept patients only if they can care for them, and they could have refused them on those grounds. In addition, it's unclear the extent to which the governor's policy was responsible for nursing home COVID-19 deaths. Infection control is a longstanding problem in nursing homes that predates the pandemic and a report showed peak numbers of nursing home deaths came prior to the peak influx of patients as a result of Cuomo's advisory. While the introduction of COVID-19 positive patients into nursing homes no doubt had an effect on infection spread, Caputo's statement suggests it was solely responsible. That's not what the evidence shows. We rate this Mostly False. | [
"105044-proof-18-f4ee2e0c52bff08cd0efdfd9ef98d6a8.jpg"
]
|
'Does the #DemConvention know @NYGovCuomo forced nursing homes across NY to take in COVID positive patients and planted the seeds of infection that killed thousands of grandmothers and grandfathers?' | Contradiction | Editor's note, Feb. 16, 2021: In recent weeks, N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has faced increasing scrutiny regarding his handling of information related to covid-related deaths among nursing home residents. A recent report by N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James noted that the death count may be 50% higher than what Cuomo's administration provided. The attorney general's estimate includes deaths that occurred after residents were transferred to the hospital, for example, a potential for undercounting that was mentioned in this fact check. The fact check itself focused on a policy issued by Cuomo in March directing nursing homes in the state to accept patients who had or were suspected of having covid-19. As long as they were medically stable, the notice said, it was appropriate to move patients in. Our ruling of Mostly False is unchanged by this new information. That rating was based on evidence that while the introduction of covid-19 positive patients into nursing homes no doubt had an effect on the spread of the coronavirus, Caputo's statement suggested it was solely responsible. That's not what the evidence showed, then or now. | Editor's note, Feb. 16, 2021: In recent weeks, N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has faced increasing scrutiny regarding his handling of information related to covid-related deaths among nursing home residents. A recent report by N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James noted that the death count may be 50% higher than what Cuomo's administration provided. The attorney general's estimate includes deaths that occurred after residents were transferred to the hospital, for example, a potential for undercounting that was mentioned in this fact check. The fact check itself focused on a policy issued by Cuomo in March directing nursing homes in the state to accept patients who had or were suspected of having covid-19. As long as they were medically stable, the notice said, it was appropriate to move patients in. Our ruling of Mostly False is unchanged by this new information. That rating was based on evidence that while the introduction of covid-19 positive patients into nursing homes no doubt had an effect on the spread of the coronavirus, Caputo's statement suggested it was solely responsible. That's not what the evidence showed, then or now. On the first night of the Democratic National Convention, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was among the first in a weeklong parade of speakers to issue scathing critiques of the Trump administration's coronavirus response. Cuomo's criticisms drew a quick reply in a tweet from Michael R. Caputo, an assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services. 'Does the #DemConvention know @NYGovCuomo forced nursing homes across NY to take in COVID positive patients and planted the seeds of infection that killed thousands of grandmothers and grandfathers?' he wrote. It was an easy jab: Cuomo has been dogged by criticism for months over his March advisory directing nursing homes in the state to accept patients who had or were suspected of having COVID-19. As long as they were medically stable, the notice said, it was appropriate to move patients in. Further, nursing homes were prohibited from requiring that medically stable prospective residents be tested for the virus before they arrived. Between March 25 and May 8, approximately 6,326 COVID-positive patients were admitted to nursing homes, according to a state health department report. While experts say this policy was flawed, is it fair to say that the governor's directive 'forced' nursing homes to take patients who were sick with COVID-19? And to what extent did that strategy sow the seeds of disease and death? When we examined the evidence, we found it was less clear cut than the statement makes it seem. The policy likely had an effect, but epidemiologists identified additional factors that fed the problem. What's more the policy did not 'force' nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients. Nursing homes interpreted it this way. We checked with HHS to find the basis for Caputo's comment but got no response. The back story As the virus tore through nursing homes, killing dozens at some of them, Cuomo came under withering censure. His administration's policy, implemented with an eye toward freeing up hospital beds for an onslaught of COVID patients, seemed to disregard the risks to frail and elderly nursing home residents who were especially vulnerable to the disease. According to the COVID Tracking Project, 6,624 people have died of COVID-19 in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities in New York, accounting for 26% of the state's 25,275 COVID deaths. Some say the true number of deaths is much higher because, unlike many states, New York does not count the deaths of former nursing home residents who are transferred to hospitals and die there as nursing home deaths. Cuomo's explanation for the policy - that he was simply following guidance from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - didn't cut it. A recent PolitiFact piece examining his claim rated it 'Mostly False.' In May, the governor amended the March order, prohibiting hospitals from discharging patients to nursing homes unless they tested negative for COVID-19. A misguided approach In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when New York was the epicenter and more than a thousand people were being hospitalized daily, there was genuine fear that hospitals would not be able to accommodate the influx of desperately ill patients. Moving people out of the hospitals and into nursing homes was one strategy to help hospitals meet these needs. According to the CDC guidance cited in the earlier PolitiFact story, there were two factors to consider when deciding whether to discharge a patient with COVID-19 to a long-term care facility: whether the patient was medically ready, and whether the facility could implement the recommended infection control procedures to safely care for a patient recovering from the virus. A document from the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said nursing homes should accept only patients they were able to care for. Long-standing state guidance is based on the same condition. Still, nursing homes didn't believe turning away patients with COVID-19 was an option. 'On its face it looked like a requirement,' said Christopher Laxton, executive director of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, which represents medical professionals in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. 'The nursing homes we spoke to felt it was a mandate, and a number of them felt they had no choice but to take COVID patients.' Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on November 10, 2021 in a Facebook post 'Italy drastically reduced the country's official COV1D-19 death count by over 97%. This means Covid killed fewer people than an average seasonal flu.' By Samantha Putterman β’ November 10, 2021 While the overarching guidance not to take patients in unless they could be safely cared for may have been clear, nursing homes' experience was often different, said Richard Mollot, executive director of the Long-Term Care Community Coalition, an advocacy group for elderly and disabled people. 'There was little reason for nursing homes to think they should only take in patients if they have the ability to do so safely because those rules are not generally enforced on a regular basis.' Bottom line: State and federal rules didn't force nursing homes to accept COVID-positive patients, but many of them believed they had no other choice. A lethal result? How much of the blame for the deaths of thousands of people in nursing homes from COVID-19 can be attributed to Cuomo's March advisory? That is the 6,000-person question. In a July analysis of COVID-19 nursing home deaths, the state concluded that the deadly virus was introduced by nursing home staff members rather than sick patients. It noted that peak nursing home resident mortality from COVID-19 on April 8 preceded the peak influx of COVID patients on April 14. In addition, it found that nearly 1 in 4 nursing home workers - 37,500 people - were infected with the virus between March and early June. Based on these and other factors, the report concluded that the state admissions policy could not have been a driver of nursing home infections or fatalities. Epidemiologists and nursing home advocates beg to differ. 'To say that introducing patients [to nursing homes] who had COVID did not cause problems is ridiculous,' said Laxton. Calling the study's approach 'pretty flawed,' Denis Nash, an epidemiologist at City University of New York School of Public Health, said he didn't agree with the report's conclusion that the policy had nothing to do with deaths. Others had the same view. 'I didn't think they showed data to say [the policy] is not a 'driver,'' said Rupak Shivakoti, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. But Gary Holmes, assistant commissioner at the New York State Department of Health, had a different take. Critics of the report, he said, must be deliberately ignoring the rising death tolls in nursing homes in hot spots across the country. 'Public health officials in those states are experiencing (and acknowledging) what NY's report indicated weeks ago: these facilities are microcosms of the community and transmission is occurring unknowingly by asymptomatic spread among staff members,' Holmes said, in an email. While public health experts quibbled with the report's self-serving claim that the governor's policy wasn't a factor in COVID-19 nursing home deaths, they nevertheless agreed with the report's broader conclusion that nursing home staffers as well as visitors, before they were banned, were likely the main drivers of COVID-19 infection and death in nursing homes. 'Based on the timeline of the policy and deaths in the city, it is very unlikely that policy contributed to thousands of deaths,' said Shivakoti. Infection control is a long-standing problem at nursing homes, Nash said, and the COVID deaths were a basic failure of infection control. That said, 'it's unclear how many of the deaths the policy might have caused.' Also unclear: how many of the dead were grandmothers and grandfathers. Our ruling In a tweet, the HHS assistant secretary for public affairs said that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo 'forced' nursing homes across the state to admit COVID-positive patients and that this policy fueled the spread of COVID-19 that led to thousands of deaths in the nursing home population. Although nursing homes felt pressure to accept COVID-positive patients, they were not actually forced to do so. State regulations require nursing homes to accept patients only if they can care for them, and they could have refused them on those grounds. In addition, it's unclear the extent to which the governor's policy was responsible for nursing home COVID-19 deaths. Infection control is a longstanding problem in nursing homes that predates the pandemic and a report showed peak numbers of nursing home deaths came prior to the peak influx of patients as a result of Cuomo's advisory. While the introduction of COVID-19 positive patients into nursing homes no doubt had an effect on infection spread, Caputo's statement suggests it was solely responsible. That's not what the evidence shows. We rate this Mostly False. | [
"105044-proof-18-f4ee2e0c52bff08cd0efdfd9ef98d6a8.jpg"
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.