claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
'USPS failed to deliver 27% of mail-in ballots in South Florida' | Contradiction | The claim that the U.S. Postal service failed to deliver 27% of mail-in ballots in South Florida has popped up on Facebook and Twitter. There's no truth to that, but it is interesting to see how one outfit raised suspicions. The website Raw Story posted a story about newly released data on ballot delivery. 'One of the worst failures occurred in South Florida, where 27% of mail-in votes may have never been received,' the Nov. 4 article said. 'But those statistics might not be telling the entire story. Vice News reported Tuesday that ballots were not being scanned for delivery in an effort to speed up the process.' Anyone who read closely, or better still, went to the Vice News article, would be left with a very different impression. The Vice headline was 'Why the Post Office's Last-Minute Ballot Crisis Isn't as Dire as It Seems.' 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.) Let's unpack what's going on. The 27% figure was derived based on a tweet from Hill reporter (and former PolitiFact reporter) John Kruzel. The tweet showed USPS data, and for the South Florida delivery area, the processing score for ballots was 74.43%. A few people took that and, with a bit of sloppy math, came up with 27% undelivered. But anyone reading the thread in the tweet would see that in order to speed up the delivery of ballots to election offices, the postal service had said that it didn't bother to scan ballots on their way out from the mail processing center. 'Many facilities have arranged for local turnaround,' lawyers for the postal service affirmed wrote in a Nov. 3 filing. 'It's not that they weren't delivered,' said National Association of Letter Carriers chief of staff Jim Sauber. 'They were pulled out directly from the rest of the mail and delivered the same day.' We contacted the election supervisor offices of two of the largest South Florida counties, Broward and Miami-Dade. The spokesman for Broward Steve Vancore said there were zero undelivered ballots. 'We went to all 42 post offices, the main postal collection center in Oakland Park and the regional center in Opa Locka in the days leading up to and on Election Day and retrieved all the ballots that were at those sites,' Vancore said. 'We were at both the Aldridge and Opa Locka sites at 7:00 pm to get every last ballot.' Miami-Dade processed 510,830 mail-in ballots. In the days right before Election Day, they found 24 ballots at a postal facility that were on their way to voters and hadn't been delivered. They made sure that they were. They also found six completed ballots. Those came to the election office and were processed. | Our ruling Posts on Facebook and Twitter said that the U.S. Postal Service failed to deliver 27% of mail-in ballots in South Florida. That was based on data that the postal service clearly said did not reflect ballot delivery rates. The sources cited by websites spreading this claim included that reality check. The two largest counties in South Florida went to postal facilities to find any wayward ballots. In one county, they found none. In another they found 30. All issues were resolved before Election Day. There is nothing to this claim. We rate it Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"105621-proof-14-df30ea6a78ca9c24d7ffb38b066e4146.jpg"
]
|
COVID-19 'has killed less people than the damn flu. | Contradiction | In a recent video posted to Facebook, conservative commentator Wendy Bell complains about people who wear face masks, and around the 1:07-minute mark, says: 'You're afraid of a freaking virus that has killed less people than the damn flu?' But that's not accurate. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've previously dug into comparisons between the coronavirus and the flu. They're often used to cast doubt on the seriousness of COVID-19. In October 2020, for example, then-president Donald Trump wrongly said that COVID-19 is 'far less lethal' than the flu for most people. We reached out to Bell to find out the source of her claim, but we didn't hear back. However, according to Johns Hopkins University, about 3.1 million people around the world had died of COVID-19 as of April 26, 2021. The flu, meanwhile, kills between 290,000 to 650,000 people every year worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Even if 650,000 people died of the flu annually over the past four years, that's still fewer than the number of people who died of COVID-19 in the less than two years since the first case was reported in December 2019. In the United States, about 572,549 people have so far died of COVID-19, according to Johns Hopkins. The average number of flu deaths per year here over the past decade has been about 36,000. The worst flu season was in 2017-18, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates between 46,000 and 95,000 people died. It's still a fraction of the number of people who died of COVID-19. It's also worth noting that the number of people who tested positive for the flu this most recent season dropped dramatically compared with years past. Experts suspect that's thanks to measures taken to slow the spread of COVID-19, such as social distancing and masking. Of course, COVID-19 is a relatively new disease, so over time the flu has caused more deaths than the coronavirus. But that's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Since it was discovered, COVID-19 has killed far more people. In 2020, COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States, according to the CDC, after heart disease and cancer. About 345,000 Americans died of COVID-19 during that calendar year, or more than nine times as many Americans who die of the flu on average every year. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
COVID-19 'has killed less people than the damn flu. | Contradiction | In a recent video posted to Facebook, conservative commentator Wendy Bell complains about people who wear face masks, and around the 1:07-minute mark, says: 'You're afraid of a freaking virus that has killed less people than the damn flu?' But that's not accurate. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've previously dug into comparisons between the coronavirus and the flu. They're often used to cast doubt on the seriousness of COVID-19. In October 2020, for example, then-president Donald Trump wrongly said that COVID-19 is 'far less lethal' than the flu for most people. We reached out to Bell to find out the source of her claim, but we didn't hear back. However, according to Johns Hopkins University, about 3.1 million people around the world had died of COVID-19 as of April 26, 2021. The flu, meanwhile, kills between 290,000 to 650,000 people every year worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Even if 650,000 people died of the flu annually over the past four years, that's still fewer than the number of people who died of COVID-19 in the less than two years since the first case was reported in December 2019. In the United States, about 572,549 people have so far died of COVID-19, according to Johns Hopkins. The average number of flu deaths per year here over the past decade has been about 36,000. The worst flu season was in 2017-18, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates between 46,000 and 95,000 people died. It's still a fraction of the number of people who died of COVID-19. It's also worth noting that the number of people who tested positive for the flu this most recent season dropped dramatically compared with years past. Experts suspect that's thanks to measures taken to slow the spread of COVID-19, such as social distancing and masking. Of course, COVID-19 is a relatively new disease, so over time the flu has caused more deaths than the coronavirus. But that's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Since it was discovered, COVID-19 has killed far more people. In 2020, COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States, according to the CDC, after heart disease and cancer. About 345,000 Americans died of COVID-19 during that calendar year, or more than nine times as many Americans who die of the flu on average every year. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
COVID-19 'has killed less people than the damn flu. | Contradiction | In a recent video posted to Facebook, conservative commentator Wendy Bell complains about people who wear face masks, and around the 1:07-minute mark, says: 'You're afraid of a freaking virus that has killed less people than the damn flu?' But that's not accurate. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We've previously dug into comparisons between the coronavirus and the flu. They're often used to cast doubt on the seriousness of COVID-19. In October 2020, for example, then-president Donald Trump wrongly said that COVID-19 is 'far less lethal' than the flu for most people. We reached out to Bell to find out the source of her claim, but we didn't hear back. However, according to Johns Hopkins University, about 3.1 million people around the world had died of COVID-19 as of April 26, 2021. The flu, meanwhile, kills between 290,000 to 650,000 people every year worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Even if 650,000 people died of the flu annually over the past four years, that's still fewer than the number of people who died of COVID-19 in the less than two years since the first case was reported in December 2019. In the United States, about 572,549 people have so far died of COVID-19, according to Johns Hopkins. The average number of flu deaths per year here over the past decade has been about 36,000. The worst flu season was in 2017-18, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates between 46,000 and 95,000 people died. It's still a fraction of the number of people who died of COVID-19. It's also worth noting that the number of people who tested positive for the flu this most recent season dropped dramatically compared with years past. Experts suspect that's thanks to measures taken to slow the spread of COVID-19, such as social distancing and masking. Of course, COVID-19 is a relatively new disease, so over time the flu has caused more deaths than the coronavirus. But that's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Since it was discovered, COVID-19 has killed far more people. In 2020, COVID-19 was the third-leading cause of death in the United States, according to the CDC, after heart disease and cancer. About 345,000 Americans died of COVID-19 during that calendar year, or more than nine times as many Americans who die of the flu on average every year. We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
HR 1 will allow members of Congress to draw a second salary 'worth an estimated $600,000 per year!' | Contradiction | Members of Congress already earn six-figure paychecks. A conservative group says that a Democratic-backed bill would allow them to earn a second paycheck worth even more. But that's bogus. The claim from Act for America pertains to H.R. 1, the For the People Act. The bill combines previous proposals that aim to make it easier to vote, and it changes campaign finance rules to help Americans who aren't rich run for federal office. The House is expected to vote on the bill in March. Act for America wrote a plea for Congress to reject the bill. In a claim about proposals for the use of campaign funds, the group said that based on an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, 'members of Congress will be able to draw a SECOND salary from that money worth an estimated $600,000 per year!' This would be 'on top of the generous taxpayer-funded paychecks and perks they already give themselves!' the group said. But there's no such provision in the bill, and Act for America did not reply to our requests for evidence. After we inquired about the claims, we noticed that the webpage no longer included the $600,000 figure. Act for America calls itself the 'nation's premier national security grassroots organization.' The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League say the group is anti-Muslim. HR 1 allows non-incumbent candidates to use campaign funds for child care The Campaign Legal Center, a group that supports H.R. 1, said that there is no provision in the bill to pay lawmakers $600,000. 'I've tried to figure it out, but I can't find anything,' said Brendan Fischer, the center's director of federal reform. 'There are going to be some claims about H.R. 1 that are misstatements or statements of opinion, but these claims are just made up.' The Congressional Budget Office analysis of a previous version of the legislation also makes no mention of a 'second salary.' A section in the bill about 'personal use services' states that candidates can use campaign money for child care, elder care or health insurance premiums so they can campaign, but the provision does not apply to incumbents. The goal of this provision is to help Americans who aren't rich to run for Congress. Many lawmakers are millionaires who have wealth and incomes above many of the residents they represent. Current federal law bans candidates from using campaign funds for personal use. The Federal Election Commission, which can rule on whether an expense is legitimate, has given the go-ahead in recent years for candidates to use campaign funds for child care. Under existing policy, candidates can pay themselves a salary H.R. 1 doesn't change a longstanding policy that allows non-incumbent federal candidates to use campaign funds to pay themselves a salary. The salary has to be whatever is less: the candidate's income for the previous year or $174,000, which is what current members of Congress earn. In 2002, the FEC voted to allow candidates running for Congress or president to pay themselves a salary using campaign funds. When commissioner Michael Toner, a Republican, sponsored the measure, he said, 'candidates of modest means too often have been crowded out of running for office. It may allow people like blue-collar workers, schoolteachers and others who don't make six-figure salaries to run for office.'' But candidates rarely pay themselves a salary. The Center for Public Integrity found that 22 candidates running for Congress collectively paid themselves $155,000 during the 2018 election cycle. FreeRoots, the hosting platform where Act for America posted its message, responded to an inquiry from PolitiFact, but did not provide any evidence that members of Congress would be able to draw a second salary worth up to $600,000. | Our ruling Act for America said H.R. 1 will allow members of Congress to draw a second salary 'worth an estimated $600,000 per year!' We found nothing in the legislation that would allow members of Congress to earn a second salary. There is a provision that allows non-incumbent candidates to use campaign funds to pay for expenses such as child care so they are able to run for office. H.R. 1 does not change an existing policy that allows candidates to draw a salary of up to $174,000 from campaign funds. That policy doesn't apply to those who are already in Congress. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Fact-checking misleading attacks on HR 1, Democrats' voting rights bill RELATED: Claim about congressional pensions is wrong, once again RELATED: Fact-checking Mark Walker's video on HR 1's campaign-finance provisions | [
"105629-proof-16-297680bbec487e17fa6b032121c9361e.jpg"
]
|
HR 1 will allow members of Congress to draw a second salary 'worth an estimated $600,000 per year!' | Contradiction | Members of Congress already earn six-figure paychecks. A conservative group says that a Democratic-backed bill would allow them to earn a second paycheck worth even more. But that's bogus. The claim from Act for America pertains to H.R. 1, the For the People Act. The bill combines previous proposals that aim to make it easier to vote, and it changes campaign finance rules to help Americans who aren't rich run for federal office. The House is expected to vote on the bill in March. Act for America wrote a plea for Congress to reject the bill. In a claim about proposals for the use of campaign funds, the group said that based on an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, 'members of Congress will be able to draw a SECOND salary from that money worth an estimated $600,000 per year!' This would be 'on top of the generous taxpayer-funded paychecks and perks they already give themselves!' the group said. But there's no such provision in the bill, and Act for America did not reply to our requests for evidence. After we inquired about the claims, we noticed that the webpage no longer included the $600,000 figure. Act for America calls itself the 'nation's premier national security grassroots organization.' The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League say the group is anti-Muslim. HR 1 allows non-incumbent candidates to use campaign funds for child care The Campaign Legal Center, a group that supports H.R. 1, said that there is no provision in the bill to pay lawmakers $600,000. 'I've tried to figure it out, but I can't find anything,' said Brendan Fischer, the center's director of federal reform. 'There are going to be some claims about H.R. 1 that are misstatements or statements of opinion, but these claims are just made up.' The Congressional Budget Office analysis of a previous version of the legislation also makes no mention of a 'second salary.' A section in the bill about 'personal use services' states that candidates can use campaign money for child care, elder care or health insurance premiums so they can campaign, but the provision does not apply to incumbents. The goal of this provision is to help Americans who aren't rich to run for Congress. Many lawmakers are millionaires who have wealth and incomes above many of the residents they represent. Current federal law bans candidates from using campaign funds for personal use. The Federal Election Commission, which can rule on whether an expense is legitimate, has given the go-ahead in recent years for candidates to use campaign funds for child care. Under existing policy, candidates can pay themselves a salary H.R. 1 doesn't change a longstanding policy that allows non-incumbent federal candidates to use campaign funds to pay themselves a salary. The salary has to be whatever is less: the candidate's income for the previous year or $174,000, which is what current members of Congress earn. In 2002, the FEC voted to allow candidates running for Congress or president to pay themselves a salary using campaign funds. When commissioner Michael Toner, a Republican, sponsored the measure, he said, 'candidates of modest means too often have been crowded out of running for office. It may allow people like blue-collar workers, schoolteachers and others who don't make six-figure salaries to run for office.'' But candidates rarely pay themselves a salary. The Center for Public Integrity found that 22 candidates running for Congress collectively paid themselves $155,000 during the 2018 election cycle. FreeRoots, the hosting platform where Act for America posted its message, responded to an inquiry from PolitiFact, but did not provide any evidence that members of Congress would be able to draw a second salary worth up to $600,000. | Our ruling Act for America said H.R. 1 will allow members of Congress to draw a second salary 'worth an estimated $600,000 per year!' We found nothing in the legislation that would allow members of Congress to earn a second salary. There is a provision that allows non-incumbent candidates to use campaign funds to pay for expenses such as child care so they are able to run for office. H.R. 1 does not change an existing policy that allows candidates to draw a salary of up to $174,000 from campaign funds. That policy doesn't apply to those who are already in Congress. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Fact-checking misleading attacks on HR 1, Democrats' voting rights bill RELATED: Claim about congressional pensions is wrong, once again RELATED: Fact-checking Mark Walker's video on HR 1's campaign-finance provisions | [
"105629-proof-16-297680bbec487e17fa6b032121c9361e.jpg"
]
|
HR 1 will allow members of Congress to draw a second salary 'worth an estimated $600,000 per year!' | Contradiction | Members of Congress already earn six-figure paychecks. A conservative group says that a Democratic-backed bill would allow them to earn a second paycheck worth even more. But that's bogus. The claim from Act for America pertains to H.R. 1, the For the People Act. The bill combines previous proposals that aim to make it easier to vote, and it changes campaign finance rules to help Americans who aren't rich run for federal office. The House is expected to vote on the bill in March. Act for America wrote a plea for Congress to reject the bill. In a claim about proposals for the use of campaign funds, the group said that based on an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, 'members of Congress will be able to draw a SECOND salary from that money worth an estimated $600,000 per year!' This would be 'on top of the generous taxpayer-funded paychecks and perks they already give themselves!' the group said. But there's no such provision in the bill, and Act for America did not reply to our requests for evidence. After we inquired about the claims, we noticed that the webpage no longer included the $600,000 figure. Act for America calls itself the 'nation's premier national security grassroots organization.' The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League say the group is anti-Muslim. HR 1 allows non-incumbent candidates to use campaign funds for child care The Campaign Legal Center, a group that supports H.R. 1, said that there is no provision in the bill to pay lawmakers $600,000. 'I've tried to figure it out, but I can't find anything,' said Brendan Fischer, the center's director of federal reform. 'There are going to be some claims about H.R. 1 that are misstatements or statements of opinion, but these claims are just made up.' The Congressional Budget Office analysis of a previous version of the legislation also makes no mention of a 'second salary.' A section in the bill about 'personal use services' states that candidates can use campaign money for child care, elder care or health insurance premiums so they can campaign, but the provision does not apply to incumbents. The goal of this provision is to help Americans who aren't rich to run for Congress. Many lawmakers are millionaires who have wealth and incomes above many of the residents they represent. Current federal law bans candidates from using campaign funds for personal use. The Federal Election Commission, which can rule on whether an expense is legitimate, has given the go-ahead in recent years for candidates to use campaign funds for child care. Under existing policy, candidates can pay themselves a salary H.R. 1 doesn't change a longstanding policy that allows non-incumbent federal candidates to use campaign funds to pay themselves a salary. The salary has to be whatever is less: the candidate's income for the previous year or $174,000, which is what current members of Congress earn. In 2002, the FEC voted to allow candidates running for Congress or president to pay themselves a salary using campaign funds. When commissioner Michael Toner, a Republican, sponsored the measure, he said, 'candidates of modest means too often have been crowded out of running for office. It may allow people like blue-collar workers, schoolteachers and others who don't make six-figure salaries to run for office.'' But candidates rarely pay themselves a salary. The Center for Public Integrity found that 22 candidates running for Congress collectively paid themselves $155,000 during the 2018 election cycle. FreeRoots, the hosting platform where Act for America posted its message, responded to an inquiry from PolitiFact, but did not provide any evidence that members of Congress would be able to draw a second salary worth up to $600,000. | Our ruling Act for America said H.R. 1 will allow members of Congress to draw a second salary 'worth an estimated $600,000 per year!' We found nothing in the legislation that would allow members of Congress to earn a second salary. There is a provision that allows non-incumbent candidates to use campaign funds to pay for expenses such as child care so they are able to run for office. H.R. 1 does not change an existing policy that allows candidates to draw a salary of up to $174,000 from campaign funds. That policy doesn't apply to those who are already in Congress. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Fact-checking misleading attacks on HR 1, Democrats' voting rights bill RELATED: Claim about congressional pensions is wrong, once again RELATED: Fact-checking Mark Walker's video on HR 1's campaign-finance provisions | [
"105629-proof-16-297680bbec487e17fa6b032121c9361e.jpg"
]
|
The coronavirus can't be so dangerous because there are no biohazard bins for COVID-19 masks and gloves. | Contradiction | A year-old Facebook post that questions why masks and gloves used to prevent the spread of the deadly COVID-19 virus aren't treated as a biohazard is drawing new attention from social media users. 'Why are there no biohazard bins for mask and gloves if this virus is so contagious and deadly,' the post asks. 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 implies that the lack of special disposal protocols suggests the virus isn't as dangerous as it's made out to be. But that's based on a misunderstanding of how the virus spreads and what types of medical waste require special handling. The Environmental Protection Agency says biohazard bins, or medical waste containers, are generally used by health facilities such as hospitals, doctors' offices, blood banks and veterinary clinics - not the general public. 'Generally, medical waste is health care waste that may be contaminated by blood, body fluids or other potentially infectious materials and is often referred to as regulated medical waste,' the organization states. Used needles are also listed as infectious materials. Such waste is treated and disposed of with alternative technologies according to state health and environmental agency guidelines. Other types of protective equipment used by the general public do not require special handling, a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. Unless it's contaminated with blood, feces or certain other potentially infectious materials, 'it can be discarded into a trash bag along with other household waste,' the spokesperson said. But what if a person is at home, stanching their bloody nose with a tissue, for example? Dr. Paul Offit, an attending infectious-disease physician at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, explained that when health workers dispose of waste contaminated by blood, it's presumably because they're treating someone with a virus such as AIDS, measles or Hepatitis A that is transmitted through blood, he said. But if a person at home treats their bloody nose, they usually aren't infected with a virus, so that tissue can be thrown into the trash. The types of masks used to control COVID-19 can also be safely discarded because the coronavirus doesn't spread or survive easily on surfaces, said Offit. It's spread mostly through respiratory droplets carried through the air or by contact with hands. Even surgical-style or N95 masks used by the general public can be safely discarded by putting them into a plastic bag and throwing them into the trash, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says. In most situations, gloves are not recommended by the CDC to protect against COVID-19 except when cleaning or caring for someone who is sick. In those cases, use disposable gloves and wash your hands after throwing them away. | Our ruling A Facebook post suggested that the coronavirus is not so dangerous, because there are no biohazard bins to discard COVID-19 masks and gloves. The claim reflects a misunderstanding of how the virus spreads. The coronavirus spreads almost exclusively through respiratory droplets carried through the air. It does not live or spread on surfaces, so masks and gloves used by the general public to protect against COVID-19 infection aren't considered medical waste that requires special handling. Health experts say it's safe to throw away disposable masks used to guard against infection. Gloves are not needed unless a person is cleaning or caring for someone who is sick, and they can be thrown away afterward. We rate this claim False. | [
"105643-proof-11-7c294a5c253148d71ffbdc931c41a294.jpg"
]
|
The coronavirus can't be so dangerous because there are no biohazard bins for COVID-19 masks and gloves. | Contradiction | A year-old Facebook post that questions why masks and gloves used to prevent the spread of the deadly COVID-19 virus aren't treated as a biohazard is drawing new attention from social media users. 'Why are there no biohazard bins for mask and gloves if this virus is so contagious and deadly,' the post asks. 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 implies that the lack of special disposal protocols suggests the virus isn't as dangerous as it's made out to be. But that's based on a misunderstanding of how the virus spreads and what types of medical waste require special handling. The Environmental Protection Agency says biohazard bins, or medical waste containers, are generally used by health facilities such as hospitals, doctors' offices, blood banks and veterinary clinics - not the general public. 'Generally, medical waste is health care waste that may be contaminated by blood, body fluids or other potentially infectious materials and is often referred to as regulated medical waste,' the organization states. Used needles are also listed as infectious materials. Such waste is treated and disposed of with alternative technologies according to state health and environmental agency guidelines. Other types of protective equipment used by the general public do not require special handling, a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. Unless it's contaminated with blood, feces or certain other potentially infectious materials, 'it can be discarded into a trash bag along with other household waste,' the spokesperson said. But what if a person is at home, stanching their bloody nose with a tissue, for example? Dr. Paul Offit, an attending infectious-disease physician at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, explained that when health workers dispose of waste contaminated by blood, it's presumably because they're treating someone with a virus such as AIDS, measles or Hepatitis A that is transmitted through blood, he said. But if a person at home treats their bloody nose, they usually aren't infected with a virus, so that tissue can be thrown into the trash. The types of masks used to control COVID-19 can also be safely discarded because the coronavirus doesn't spread or survive easily on surfaces, said Offit. It's spread mostly through respiratory droplets carried through the air or by contact with hands. Even surgical-style or N95 masks used by the general public can be safely discarded by putting them into a plastic bag and throwing them into the trash, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says. In most situations, gloves are not recommended by the CDC to protect against COVID-19 except when cleaning or caring for someone who is sick. In those cases, use disposable gloves and wash your hands after throwing them away. | Our ruling A Facebook post suggested that the coronavirus is not so dangerous, because there are no biohazard bins to discard COVID-19 masks and gloves. The claim reflects a misunderstanding of how the virus spreads. The coronavirus spreads almost exclusively through respiratory droplets carried through the air. It does not live or spread on surfaces, so masks and gloves used by the general public to protect against COVID-19 infection aren't considered medical waste that requires special handling. Health experts say it's safe to throw away disposable masks used to guard against infection. Gloves are not needed unless a person is cleaning or caring for someone who is sick, and they can be thrown away afterward. We rate this claim False. | [
"105643-proof-11-7c294a5c253148d71ffbdc931c41a294.jpg"
]
|
The coronavirus can't be so dangerous because there are no biohazard bins for COVID-19 masks and gloves. | Contradiction | A year-old Facebook post that questions why masks and gloves used to prevent the spread of the deadly COVID-19 virus aren't treated as a biohazard is drawing new attention from social media users. 'Why are there no biohazard bins for mask and gloves if this virus is so contagious and deadly,' the post asks. 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 implies that the lack of special disposal protocols suggests the virus isn't as dangerous as it's made out to be. But that's based on a misunderstanding of how the virus spreads and what types of medical waste require special handling. The Environmental Protection Agency says biohazard bins, or medical waste containers, are generally used by health facilities such as hospitals, doctors' offices, blood banks and veterinary clinics - not the general public. 'Generally, medical waste is health care waste that may be contaminated by blood, body fluids or other potentially infectious materials and is often referred to as regulated medical waste,' the organization states. Used needles are also listed as infectious materials. Such waste is treated and disposed of with alternative technologies according to state health and environmental agency guidelines. Other types of protective equipment used by the general public do not require special handling, a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. Unless it's contaminated with blood, feces or certain other potentially infectious materials, 'it can be discarded into a trash bag along with other household waste,' the spokesperson said. But what if a person is at home, stanching their bloody nose with a tissue, for example? Dr. Paul Offit, an attending infectious-disease physician at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, explained that when health workers dispose of waste contaminated by blood, it's presumably because they're treating someone with a virus such as AIDS, measles or Hepatitis A that is transmitted through blood, he said. But if a person at home treats their bloody nose, they usually aren't infected with a virus, so that tissue can be thrown into the trash. The types of masks used to control COVID-19 can also be safely discarded because the coronavirus doesn't spread or survive easily on surfaces, said Offit. It's spread mostly through respiratory droplets carried through the air or by contact with hands. Even surgical-style or N95 masks used by the general public can be safely discarded by putting them into a plastic bag and throwing them into the trash, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says. In most situations, gloves are not recommended by the CDC to protect against COVID-19 except when cleaning or caring for someone who is sick. In those cases, use disposable gloves and wash your hands after throwing them away. | Our ruling A Facebook post suggested that the coronavirus is not so dangerous, because there are no biohazard bins to discard COVID-19 masks and gloves. The claim reflects a misunderstanding of how the virus spreads. The coronavirus spreads almost exclusively through respiratory droplets carried through the air. It does not live or spread on surfaces, so masks and gloves used by the general public to protect against COVID-19 infection aren't considered medical waste that requires special handling. Health experts say it's safe to throw away disposable masks used to guard against infection. Gloves are not needed unless a person is cleaning or caring for someone who is sick, and they can be thrown away afterward. We rate this claim False. | [
"105643-proof-11-7c294a5c253148d71ffbdc931c41a294.jpg"
]
|
The General Assembly gave Gov. Ralph Northam 'a $1 billion blank check. | Contradiction | State Sen. David Suetterlein, R-Roanoke County, says the General Assembly recently handed Gov. Ralph Northam a '$1 billion blank check.' His comment came in an Aug. 9 floor speech, moments before the Senate cast a largely partisan vote to approve a spending plan for $4.3 billion in federal coronavirus aid that left about one-fourth of the money unappropriated. The bill was also approved by the House and signed by Northam, a Democrat. 'I was not in a position where I could give this governor a $1 billion blank check,' Suetterlein said in explaining why he opposed the bill. We fact-checked whether Northam has a free hand in spending the unappropriated money and found Suetterlein's statement is highly exaggerated. The General Assembly left slightly more than $1.1 billion unappropriated in the current state budget, which ends June 30, 2022. They earmarked $354 million of that money for programs in the budget year that will begin next July 1. Left over is $761 million that the bill - now law - says the governor can dig into without General Assembly approval only 'to respond to a public health emergency or to prevent the emergence of a new health emergency.' Northam is required to notify the chairpersons of the House and Senate budget-writing committees at least five days before taking such action. The governor has this emergency power only until the General Assembly starts its next regular session, scheduled to begin Jan. 12, 2022. At that point, the money will be folded into a proposed state budget - for many possible uses - that would have to win legislative approval. We asked Suetterlein why he says Northam was given a 'blank check.' In an emailed reply, he repeated his assertion while also acknowledging that the law limits Northam's use of 'nearly $1 billion' in the unallocated money to health emergencies. Suetterlein mostly expressed frustration with the legislative process in passing the law, complaining that Democrats used their control of the General Assembly and the governor's office to block Republican influence on spending the federal aid. That complaint is widely shared by GOP lawmakers. Suetterlein said Democrats ceded the General Assembly's powers of appropriation to Northam. He said the action was unnecessary because the legislature could be convened on an emergency basis within 48 hours to make spending decisions in a health crisis. Suetterlein also said it is a departure from the General Assembly's 'usual practice' to leave $1 billion unappropriated. He noted the custom in previous budgets has been to leave less than $10 million unappropriated. | Our ruling Suetterlein said unappropriated funds in the General Assembly's spending plan for federal coronavirus aid gave Northam 'a $1 billion blank check.' The legislature left Northam with $761 million of unallocated aid and put controls on its use. By law, Northam can only reach into the money without legislative approval only 'to respond to a public health emergency or to prevent the emergence of a new health emergency.' He must give the chairpersons of the House and Senate budget committees five days advance notice. The governor's special power lasts only until January, when the General Assembly starts a two-month session. Suetterlein's claim of a blank check is exaggerated. Northam has wide discretion in spending the money only in very specific circumstances. We rate Suetterlein's statement Mostly False. | []
|
The General Assembly gave Gov. Ralph Northam 'a $1 billion blank check. | Contradiction | State Sen. David Suetterlein, R-Roanoke County, says the General Assembly recently handed Gov. Ralph Northam a '$1 billion blank check.' His comment came in an Aug. 9 floor speech, moments before the Senate cast a largely partisan vote to approve a spending plan for $4.3 billion in federal coronavirus aid that left about one-fourth of the money unappropriated. The bill was also approved by the House and signed by Northam, a Democrat. 'I was not in a position where I could give this governor a $1 billion blank check,' Suetterlein said in explaining why he opposed the bill. We fact-checked whether Northam has a free hand in spending the unappropriated money and found Suetterlein's statement is highly exaggerated. The General Assembly left slightly more than $1.1 billion unappropriated in the current state budget, which ends June 30, 2022. They earmarked $354 million of that money for programs in the budget year that will begin next July 1. Left over is $761 million that the bill - now law - says the governor can dig into without General Assembly approval only 'to respond to a public health emergency or to prevent the emergence of a new health emergency.' Northam is required to notify the chairpersons of the House and Senate budget-writing committees at least five days before taking such action. The governor has this emergency power only until the General Assembly starts its next regular session, scheduled to begin Jan. 12, 2022. At that point, the money will be folded into a proposed state budget - for many possible uses - that would have to win legislative approval. We asked Suetterlein why he says Northam was given a 'blank check.' In an emailed reply, he repeated his assertion while also acknowledging that the law limits Northam's use of 'nearly $1 billion' in the unallocated money to health emergencies. Suetterlein mostly expressed frustration with the legislative process in passing the law, complaining that Democrats used their control of the General Assembly and the governor's office to block Republican influence on spending the federal aid. That complaint is widely shared by GOP lawmakers. Suetterlein said Democrats ceded the General Assembly's powers of appropriation to Northam. He said the action was unnecessary because the legislature could be convened on an emergency basis within 48 hours to make spending decisions in a health crisis. Suetterlein also said it is a departure from the General Assembly's 'usual practice' to leave $1 billion unappropriated. He noted the custom in previous budgets has been to leave less than $10 million unappropriated. | Our ruling Suetterlein said unappropriated funds in the General Assembly's spending plan for federal coronavirus aid gave Northam 'a $1 billion blank check.' The legislature left Northam with $761 million of unallocated aid and put controls on its use. By law, Northam can only reach into the money without legislative approval only 'to respond to a public health emergency or to prevent the emergence of a new health emergency.' He must give the chairpersons of the House and Senate budget committees five days advance notice. The governor's special power lasts only until January, when the General Assembly starts a two-month session. Suetterlein's claim of a blank check is exaggerated. Northam has wide discretion in spending the money only in very specific circumstances. We rate Suetterlein's statement Mostly False. | []
|
The novel coronavirus was 'man-made. | Contradiction | Speculation about the origin of the novel coronavirus has spread online since the beginning of the pandemic, with Facebook posts and tabloids making baseless claims the virus was created in a lab. But it isn't only social media users who have perpetuated the conspiracy theory the virus was bioengineered. In Illinois, a prominent state politician suggested the same thing: 'This man-made killer - whoever went in there and man-made it, perhaps they should be in there now trying to figure out how to turn this around,' Illinois Senate Majority Leader Kimberly Lightford of Maywood said during a May 15 appearance on Fox 32. 'I don't believe it's a natural virus,' Lightford continued, after the program's host asked Lightford if she thinks the virus did not occur naturally. 'I believe someone was in cahoots for some reason and I think it just got a little bit out of control and spread a whole lot further than they anticipated.' But to leading experts, the research is clear: the genetic structure of the virus shows it could not have been created in a lab - or be 'man-made,' as Lightford claimed. An article published March 17 in Nature Medicine says the genetic makeup of the coronavirus does not indicate it was altered. Instead, the researchers who conducted the analysis present two plausible explanations for the origin of the virus: natural selection in an animal host, or natural selection in humans after the virus spread from animals. That finding doesn't rule out the much-publicized theory the virus may have somehow escaped from a lab in China where it was being studied, though the government there has denied this. But what is known makes it clear the virus itself is not the result of human tampering. 'Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,' the article states, using the scientific name for the virus that causes COVID-19. Experts from a number of different research and public health institutions, including the World Health Organization, say the most likely explanation for the virus is that it originated in animals. U.S. intelligence officials and Dr. Anthony Fauci, who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have also said the science indicates the virus was not made in a lab. When we reached out to Lightford, she acknowledged she had no evidence to support her assertion the virus was created by humans. 'I have nothing to back it up,' she wrote in a text in response to our call. 'I was generally speaking. Only my opinion.' | Our ruling Lightford said the novel coronavirus was 'man-made.' But research shows the genetic features of the virus rule out the possibility it was created or manipulated in a lab. The consensus among experts is that it originated in animals before being transmitted to humans. We rate her claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"105658-proof-20-c4b3393a941eae82324b8949f17274a2.jpg"
]
|
The novel coronavirus was 'man-made. | Contradiction | Speculation about the origin of the novel coronavirus has spread online since the beginning of the pandemic, with Facebook posts and tabloids making baseless claims the virus was created in a lab. But it isn't only social media users who have perpetuated the conspiracy theory the virus was bioengineered. In Illinois, a prominent state politician suggested the same thing: 'This man-made killer - whoever went in there and man-made it, perhaps they should be in there now trying to figure out how to turn this around,' Illinois Senate Majority Leader Kimberly Lightford of Maywood said during a May 15 appearance on Fox 32. 'I don't believe it's a natural virus,' Lightford continued, after the program's host asked Lightford if she thinks the virus did not occur naturally. 'I believe someone was in cahoots for some reason and I think it just got a little bit out of control and spread a whole lot further than they anticipated.' But to leading experts, the research is clear: the genetic structure of the virus shows it could not have been created in a lab - or be 'man-made,' as Lightford claimed. An article published March 17 in Nature Medicine says the genetic makeup of the coronavirus does not indicate it was altered. Instead, the researchers who conducted the analysis present two plausible explanations for the origin of the virus: natural selection in an animal host, or natural selection in humans after the virus spread from animals. That finding doesn't rule out the much-publicized theory the virus may have somehow escaped from a lab in China where it was being studied, though the government there has denied this. But what is known makes it clear the virus itself is not the result of human tampering. 'Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,' the article states, using the scientific name for the virus that causes COVID-19. Experts from a number of different research and public health institutions, including the World Health Organization, say the most likely explanation for the virus is that it originated in animals. U.S. intelligence officials and Dr. Anthony Fauci, who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have also said the science indicates the virus was not made in a lab. When we reached out to Lightford, she acknowledged she had no evidence to support her assertion the virus was created by humans. 'I have nothing to back it up,' she wrote in a text in response to our call. 'I was generally speaking. Only my opinion.' | Our ruling Lightford said the novel coronavirus was 'man-made.' But research shows the genetic features of the virus rule out the possibility it was created or manipulated in a lab. The consensus among experts is that it originated in animals before being transmitted to humans. We rate her claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"105658-proof-20-c4b3393a941eae82324b8949f17274a2.jpg"
]
|
The novel coronavirus was 'man-made. | Contradiction | Speculation about the origin of the novel coronavirus has spread online since the beginning of the pandemic, with Facebook posts and tabloids making baseless claims the virus was created in a lab. But it isn't only social media users who have perpetuated the conspiracy theory the virus was bioengineered. In Illinois, a prominent state politician suggested the same thing: 'This man-made killer - whoever went in there and man-made it, perhaps they should be in there now trying to figure out how to turn this around,' Illinois Senate Majority Leader Kimberly Lightford of Maywood said during a May 15 appearance on Fox 32. 'I don't believe it's a natural virus,' Lightford continued, after the program's host asked Lightford if she thinks the virus did not occur naturally. 'I believe someone was in cahoots for some reason and I think it just got a little bit out of control and spread a whole lot further than they anticipated.' But to leading experts, the research is clear: the genetic structure of the virus shows it could not have been created in a lab - or be 'man-made,' as Lightford claimed. An article published March 17 in Nature Medicine says the genetic makeup of the coronavirus does not indicate it was altered. Instead, the researchers who conducted the analysis present two plausible explanations for the origin of the virus: natural selection in an animal host, or natural selection in humans after the virus spread from animals. That finding doesn't rule out the much-publicized theory the virus may have somehow escaped from a lab in China where it was being studied, though the government there has denied this. But what is known makes it clear the virus itself is not the result of human tampering. 'Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,' the article states, using the scientific name for the virus that causes COVID-19. Experts from a number of different research and public health institutions, including the World Health Organization, say the most likely explanation for the virus is that it originated in animals. U.S. intelligence officials and Dr. Anthony Fauci, who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have also said the science indicates the virus was not made in a lab. When we reached out to Lightford, she acknowledged she had no evidence to support her assertion the virus was created by humans. 'I have nothing to back it up,' she wrote in a text in response to our call. 'I was generally speaking. Only my opinion.' | Our ruling Lightford said the novel coronavirus was 'man-made.' But research shows the genetic features of the virus rule out the possibility it was created or manipulated in a lab. The consensus among experts is that it originated in animals before being transmitted to humans. We rate her claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"105658-proof-20-c4b3393a941eae82324b8949f17274a2.jpg"
]
|
A member of Joe Biden's COVID-19 task force recommends 'withholding food stamps and rent assistance from those who refuse coronavirus vaccines. | Contradiction | As drugmakers get closer to vaccines for the novel coronavirus, posts online are claiming that a member of President-elect Joe Biden's COVID-19 task force recommends withholding federal assistance from people who refuse to get vaccinated. One Instagram post shares the claim with a screenshot of a Nov. 12 article from a website called 'Distributed News.' Its headline reads: 'VAX THE BLACKS: Joe Biden's Covid-19 taskforce member recommends withholding food stamps and rent assistance from those who refuse coronavirus vaccines.' This is wrong. The post wildly mischaracterizes recommendations made over the summer by a working group of medical experts and scholars assembled by Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and Texas State University. 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 article identifies the task force member as Dr. Luciana Borio, an infectious disease physician and public health administrator who served in positions at the Food and Drug Administration and the National Security Council during the Obama and Trump administrations. Borio is a vice president at In-Q-Tel, a strategic investment company, and member of the working group of medical experts and scholars that published a report in July on readying populations for a COVID-19 vaccine. But none of the report's recommendations say the government should withhold federal support programs like food stamps or rent assistance to people who refuse to get vaccinated for the virus. To the contrary, the document only mentions food stamps and rent assistance in the context of combining those services with a vaccine to make it more accessible for low-income and at-risk populations: 'Local and state public health agencies should explore collaboration with interagency and nongovernment partners to bundle vaccination with other safety net services. For example, the WIC nutrition program serves as a key mechanism for connecting low-income pregnant women with nutrition supports and clinical services, and immunization screenings and vaccine promotion are built into the WIC program. Bundling services (eg, food security, rent assistance, free clinic services) that are already being provided to particularly vulnerable populations in the context of COVID (eg, older adults, low-income adults, Black and minority communities) could be a way to build trust and streamline vaccine provision.' The report's lead authors, Monica Schoch-Spana, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security; and Emily K. Brunson, an associate professor of anthropology at Texas State University, told PolitiFact that the Distributed News article contains factual inaccuracies and misleading statements. 'We support voluntary vaccination during the pandemic, once safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccines become available. We argue that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines should NOT be mandated,' Schoch-Spana and Brunson wrote in an emailed statement. 'We also take exception to the singling out and professional misrepresentation of Dr. Luciana Borio, an accomplished infectious disease physician who has expertise in medical countermeasures, including vaccines.' Schoch-Spana and Brunson wrote that the group supports efforts to make the vaccines readily available to everyone who wants one, including individuals with limited means. 'We support the provision of vaccinations alongside other services and goods that can help reduce the myriad burdens that the pandemic has placed upon individuals such as lost jobs, interrupted income, food insecurity, evictions, and foreclosures. We do NOT advocate that such social supports ever be withheld in connection with an individual's vaccination status.' | Our ruling Social media posts cite an article as evidence that Dr. Luciana Borio, a member of Biden's COVID-19 task force, recommended in a July report that the government withhold 'food stamps and rent assistance from those who refuse coronavirus vaccines.' This is wildly inaccurate and contrary to the report's actual recommendations. Nowhere in the document does Borio or anyone else say that the government should withhold those services to those who decide against getting vaccinated. We rate this Pants on Fire! | []
|
A member of Joe Biden's COVID-19 task force recommends 'withholding food stamps and rent assistance from those who refuse coronavirus vaccines. | Contradiction | As drugmakers get closer to vaccines for the novel coronavirus, posts online are claiming that a member of President-elect Joe Biden's COVID-19 task force recommends withholding federal assistance from people who refuse to get vaccinated. One Instagram post shares the claim with a screenshot of a Nov. 12 article from a website called 'Distributed News.' Its headline reads: 'VAX THE BLACKS: Joe Biden's Covid-19 taskforce member recommends withholding food stamps and rent assistance from those who refuse coronavirus vaccines.' This is wrong. The post wildly mischaracterizes recommendations made over the summer by a working group of medical experts and scholars assembled by Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and Texas State University. 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 article identifies the task force member as Dr. Luciana Borio, an infectious disease physician and public health administrator who served in positions at the Food and Drug Administration and the National Security Council during the Obama and Trump administrations. Borio is a vice president at In-Q-Tel, a strategic investment company, and member of the working group of medical experts and scholars that published a report in July on readying populations for a COVID-19 vaccine. But none of the report's recommendations say the government should withhold federal support programs like food stamps or rent assistance to people who refuse to get vaccinated for the virus. To the contrary, the document only mentions food stamps and rent assistance in the context of combining those services with a vaccine to make it more accessible for low-income and at-risk populations: 'Local and state public health agencies should explore collaboration with interagency and nongovernment partners to bundle vaccination with other safety net services. For example, the WIC nutrition program serves as a key mechanism for connecting low-income pregnant women with nutrition supports and clinical services, and immunization screenings and vaccine promotion are built into the WIC program. Bundling services (eg, food security, rent assistance, free clinic services) that are already being provided to particularly vulnerable populations in the context of COVID (eg, older adults, low-income adults, Black and minority communities) could be a way to build trust and streamline vaccine provision.' The report's lead authors, Monica Schoch-Spana, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security; and Emily K. Brunson, an associate professor of anthropology at Texas State University, told PolitiFact that the Distributed News article contains factual inaccuracies and misleading statements. 'We support voluntary vaccination during the pandemic, once safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccines become available. We argue that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines should NOT be mandated,' Schoch-Spana and Brunson wrote in an emailed statement. 'We also take exception to the singling out and professional misrepresentation of Dr. Luciana Borio, an accomplished infectious disease physician who has expertise in medical countermeasures, including vaccines.' Schoch-Spana and Brunson wrote that the group supports efforts to make the vaccines readily available to everyone who wants one, including individuals with limited means. 'We support the provision of vaccinations alongside other services and goods that can help reduce the myriad burdens that the pandemic has placed upon individuals such as lost jobs, interrupted income, food insecurity, evictions, and foreclosures. We do NOT advocate that such social supports ever be withheld in connection with an individual's vaccination status.' | Our ruling Social media posts cite an article as evidence that Dr. Luciana Borio, a member of Biden's COVID-19 task force, recommended in a July report that the government withhold 'food stamps and rent assistance from those who refuse coronavirus vaccines.' This is wildly inaccurate and contrary to the report's actual recommendations. Nowhere in the document does Borio or anyone else say that the government should withhold those services to those who decide against getting vaccinated. We rate this Pants on Fire! | []
|
A member of Joe Biden's COVID-19 task force recommends 'withholding food stamps and rent assistance from those who refuse coronavirus vaccines. | Contradiction | As drugmakers get closer to vaccines for the novel coronavirus, posts online are claiming that a member of President-elect Joe Biden's COVID-19 task force recommends withholding federal assistance from people who refuse to get vaccinated. One Instagram post shares the claim with a screenshot of a Nov. 12 article from a website called 'Distributed News.' Its headline reads: 'VAX THE BLACKS: Joe Biden's Covid-19 taskforce member recommends withholding food stamps and rent assistance from those who refuse coronavirus vaccines.' This is wrong. The post wildly mischaracterizes recommendations made over the summer by a working group of medical experts and scholars assembled by Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and Texas State University. 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 article identifies the task force member as Dr. Luciana Borio, an infectious disease physician and public health administrator who served in positions at the Food and Drug Administration and the National Security Council during the Obama and Trump administrations. Borio is a vice president at In-Q-Tel, a strategic investment company, and member of the working group of medical experts and scholars that published a report in July on readying populations for a COVID-19 vaccine. But none of the report's recommendations say the government should withhold federal support programs like food stamps or rent assistance to people who refuse to get vaccinated for the virus. To the contrary, the document only mentions food stamps and rent assistance in the context of combining those services with a vaccine to make it more accessible for low-income and at-risk populations: 'Local and state public health agencies should explore collaboration with interagency and nongovernment partners to bundle vaccination with other safety net services. For example, the WIC nutrition program serves as a key mechanism for connecting low-income pregnant women with nutrition supports and clinical services, and immunization screenings and vaccine promotion are built into the WIC program. Bundling services (eg, food security, rent assistance, free clinic services) that are already being provided to particularly vulnerable populations in the context of COVID (eg, older adults, low-income adults, Black and minority communities) could be a way to build trust and streamline vaccine provision.' The report's lead authors, Monica Schoch-Spana, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security; and Emily K. Brunson, an associate professor of anthropology at Texas State University, told PolitiFact that the Distributed News article contains factual inaccuracies and misleading statements. 'We support voluntary vaccination during the pandemic, once safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccines become available. We argue that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines should NOT be mandated,' Schoch-Spana and Brunson wrote in an emailed statement. 'We also take exception to the singling out and professional misrepresentation of Dr. Luciana Borio, an accomplished infectious disease physician who has expertise in medical countermeasures, including vaccines.' Schoch-Spana and Brunson wrote that the group supports efforts to make the vaccines readily available to everyone who wants one, including individuals with limited means. 'We support the provision of vaccinations alongside other services and goods that can help reduce the myriad burdens that the pandemic has placed upon individuals such as lost jobs, interrupted income, food insecurity, evictions, and foreclosures. We do NOT advocate that such social supports ever be withheld in connection with an individual's vaccination status.' | Our ruling Social media posts cite an article as evidence that Dr. Luciana Borio, a member of Biden's COVID-19 task force, recommended in a July report that the government withhold 'food stamps and rent assistance from those who refuse coronavirus vaccines.' This is wildly inaccurate and contrary to the report's actual recommendations. Nowhere in the document does Borio or anyone else say that the government should withhold those services to those who decide against getting vaccinated. We rate this Pants on Fire! | []
|
'This particular pandemic is one where I don't think nationwide, there's been a single fatality under 25. | Contradiction | Health officials have long said that the novel coronavirus is particularly dangerous for older individuals and people with underlying health conditions. But Florida Gov. Ron Desantis made an even more staggering claim, that the virus hasn't killed anyone under 25 in the United States. 'This particular pandemic is one where I don't think nationwide, there's been a single fatality under 25,' DeSantis said during an April 9 meeting to discuss reopening Florida schools. 'For whatever reason, it just doesn't seem to threaten kids. 'And we lose in Florida between five and 10 kids a year for the flu. This one (coronavirus), for whatever reason, much more dangerous if you're 65 and plus than the flu, no doubt about that, if you're younger it just hasn't had an impact. So that should factor into how we're viewing this. I think the data on that has been 100% consistent. I have not seen any deviation on that.' This is inaccurate. Florida hasn't yet reported any deaths of COVID-19 patients under the age of 25, but several Americans in that age group have been killed by the virus. PolitiFact reached out to Desantis' office for comment but did not hear back. So far, the federal government's count shows that four people between 15 and 24, and one child between the ages of 1 and 4, have died from the virus. This is an undercount, because it takes 'several weeks' for death records to be processed. Reports by news organizations and various state health departments show more fatalities among younger Americans, though it's hard to say with precision. New York state reported that 42 people who were 29 years or younger have died from the virus, as of April 10. Of those, six were 19 or younger and 36 deaths were people between 20 and 29 years old. A Washington Post investigation identified nine people under 20 who died from COVID-19. The newspaper found 45 deaths of people in their 20s. All told, death remains rare for young, otherwise healthy people, but these numbers show it can and has happened. Relatively few children with COVID-19 are hospitalized, and they often exhibit milder symptoms, health experts say. Like adults, they can unknowingly spread the disease to others. | Our ruling DeSantis claimed that the novel coronavirus hasn't killed anyone under the age of 25 in the United States. That's wrong, according to the CDC, contemporaneous news reports and the counts of state health officials in places like New York. While we don't have precise numbers, we can say with certainty that deaths in people 25 and under do exist. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | [
"105668-proof-08-6c7eb52fa6fdc33893370a8ba1764d9e.jpg"
]
|
'This particular pandemic is one where I don't think nationwide, there's been a single fatality under 25. | Contradiction | Health officials have long said that the novel coronavirus is particularly dangerous for older individuals and people with underlying health conditions. But Florida Gov. Ron Desantis made an even more staggering claim, that the virus hasn't killed anyone under 25 in the United States. 'This particular pandemic is one where I don't think nationwide, there's been a single fatality under 25,' DeSantis said during an April 9 meeting to discuss reopening Florida schools. 'For whatever reason, it just doesn't seem to threaten kids. 'And we lose in Florida between five and 10 kids a year for the flu. This one (coronavirus), for whatever reason, much more dangerous if you're 65 and plus than the flu, no doubt about that, if you're younger it just hasn't had an impact. So that should factor into how we're viewing this. I think the data on that has been 100% consistent. I have not seen any deviation on that.' This is inaccurate. Florida hasn't yet reported any deaths of COVID-19 patients under the age of 25, but several Americans in that age group have been killed by the virus. PolitiFact reached out to Desantis' office for comment but did not hear back. So far, the federal government's count shows that four people between 15 and 24, and one child between the ages of 1 and 4, have died from the virus. This is an undercount, because it takes 'several weeks' for death records to be processed. Reports by news organizations and various state health departments show more fatalities among younger Americans, though it's hard to say with precision. New York state reported that 42 people who were 29 years or younger have died from the virus, as of April 10. Of those, six were 19 or younger and 36 deaths were people between 20 and 29 years old. A Washington Post investigation identified nine people under 20 who died from COVID-19. The newspaper found 45 deaths of people in their 20s. All told, death remains rare for young, otherwise healthy people, but these numbers show it can and has happened. Relatively few children with COVID-19 are hospitalized, and they often exhibit milder symptoms, health experts say. Like adults, they can unknowingly spread the disease to others. | Our ruling DeSantis claimed that the novel coronavirus hasn't killed anyone under the age of 25 in the United States. That's wrong, according to the CDC, contemporaneous news reports and the counts of state health officials in places like New York. While we don't have precise numbers, we can say with certainty that deaths in people 25 and under do exist. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | [
"105668-proof-08-6c7eb52fa6fdc33893370a8ba1764d9e.jpg"
]
|
'Nate McMurray wants to reward illegals with amnesty. | Contradiction | Republican Chris Jacobs focuses on immigration in a television ad against his rival, Democrat Nate McMurray, for New York's 27th Congressional District. Jacobs claims McMurray 'wants to reward illegals with amnesty.' 'They illegally stream across the border,' the ad's narrator says. 'Instead of stopping them, Nate McMurray wants to reward them with amnesty.' Jacobs and McMurray are competing in a special election scheduled for April 28. McMurray condemned the ad for its 'lies and hating foreigners.' The Jacobs campaign provided us a screenshot from McMurray's archived 2018 campaign website. The website references Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. In 2012, President Barack Obama began the DACA program. The archived webpage states: 'McMurray supported 'a Clean DACA bill.'' 'I am 100% in favor of a Clean DACA bill. I further recognize that immigrant communities have always been an asset for New York's 27th District,' the site quotes McMurray. A 'clean DACA bill' generally refers to legislation that would allow those who arrived in the United States as minors without legal status, so-called 'Dreamers,' to stay in the country or even provide a path to citizenship, without funding for other security initiatives, such as a wall on the southern border. Jacobs campaign spokesman Cam Savage sent us a link to an article from the conservative Heritage Foundation that equates DACA with amnesty. We asked the McMurray campaign about the ad, specifically the claim that he 'wants to reward illegals with amnesty,' which appears as text on-screen during the ad. The campaign provided us a statement from McMurray: 'I support efforts to create pathways to citizenship for DREAMers and to increase the number of visas for workers. Immigrants are important contributors to our community and help drive our region's industries, especially agriculture.' Disagreements over 'amnesty' Five immigration experts we spoke with for this fact-check disagreed on whether providing a legal way for 'Dreamers' to stay in this country or create a pathway to citizenship for them constituted 'amnesty.' Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, said amnesty is a grant of legal status with no strings attached. DACA requires having a clean criminal record, paying back taxes and attaining certain educational outcomes, she said. At the Center for Migration Studies, a nonpartisan think tank that supports immigrants' rights, Director of Programs Daniela Alulema said children who arrived with their parents did not commit an offense. To be eligible for the DACA program, applicants have to go through a vetting process and be contributing members of society. DACA recipients are 'not getting a freebie,' she said. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration, said he favors a legislative fix for DACA. He said amnesty applies to the program, because it would allow students who otherwise wouldn't have legal status to get legal status. Matthew J. O'Brien, director of research at the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, which opposes DACA, cited the Black's Law Dictionary definition of amnesty as 'a sovereign act of forgiveness for past acts, granted by a government to all persons (or certain classes of persons) who have been guilty of crime or delict, generally political offenses - treason, sedition, rebellion, draft evasion - and often conditions upon their return to obedience and duty within a prescribed time.' 'A 'clean DACA bill,' the purpose of which would be to forgive illegal aliens for their unlawful entry into the United States would be a clear example of an amnesty,' O'Brien said. In a 2017 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Alex Nowrasteh, of the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote that the DACA program offers amnesty and also noted that 'Dreamers' constitute just 7 percent of the population of approximately 11 million immigrants who are in the country illegally. In 2017, PolitiFact ruled that conservative commentator Ann Coulter's claim that Trump had granted amnesty to 'nearly 100,000 Dreamers' to be Mostly True. Her number was correct, but the fact-check noted that there is not agreement among experts on whether the Trump administration's action constituted amnesty. It should be noted that what Trump did early in his term in continuing to accept DACA applications is not necessarily the same action that Congress would authorize in a 'clean DACA bill.' | Our ruling A Jacobs television ad said McMurray 'wants to reward illegals with amnesty.' McMurray favors creating a pathway to citizenship for young immigrants who arrived as children with their parents or guardians. This population makes up 7 percent of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country. The Jacobs campaign cites an archived 2018 McMurray campaign website that referenced his support for a 'Clean DACA bill.' The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, would create this pathway for 'Dreamers.' Experts disagree on whether a clean DACA bill constitutes amnesty, and the commercial gives the impression that McMurray favors amnesty for all people who cross the border illegally. The commercial does not even mention DACA. When the narrator talks about McMurray supporting amnesty, 'votemcmurray.com, 5/17/18,' flashes across the screen. It's a reference to McMurray's campaign website that is no longer live and must be accessed through the Wayback Machine, or internet archive. McMurray's statement on the archived website that he recognizes that immigrant communities have always been an asset for New York's 27th District is hardly evidence that he 'wants to reward illegals with amnesty.' Jacobs' claim contains an element of truth - McMurray's support for DACA - but makes a sweeping conclusion about his rival's broader position on amnety without sufficient evidence. We rate Jacobs' claim Mostly False. | []
|
'Nate McMurray wants to reward illegals with amnesty. | Contradiction | Republican Chris Jacobs focuses on immigration in a television ad against his rival, Democrat Nate McMurray, for New York's 27th Congressional District. Jacobs claims McMurray 'wants to reward illegals with amnesty.' 'They illegally stream across the border,' the ad's narrator says. 'Instead of stopping them, Nate McMurray wants to reward them with amnesty.' Jacobs and McMurray are competing in a special election scheduled for April 28. McMurray condemned the ad for its 'lies and hating foreigners.' The Jacobs campaign provided us a screenshot from McMurray's archived 2018 campaign website. The website references Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. In 2012, President Barack Obama began the DACA program. The archived webpage states: 'McMurray supported 'a Clean DACA bill.'' 'I am 100% in favor of a Clean DACA bill. I further recognize that immigrant communities have always been an asset for New York's 27th District,' the site quotes McMurray. A 'clean DACA bill' generally refers to legislation that would allow those who arrived in the United States as minors without legal status, so-called 'Dreamers,' to stay in the country or even provide a path to citizenship, without funding for other security initiatives, such as a wall on the southern border. Jacobs campaign spokesman Cam Savage sent us a link to an article from the conservative Heritage Foundation that equates DACA with amnesty. We asked the McMurray campaign about the ad, specifically the claim that he 'wants to reward illegals with amnesty,' which appears as text on-screen during the ad. The campaign provided us a statement from McMurray: 'I support efforts to create pathways to citizenship for DREAMers and to increase the number of visas for workers. Immigrants are important contributors to our community and help drive our region's industries, especially agriculture.' Disagreements over 'amnesty' Five immigration experts we spoke with for this fact-check disagreed on whether providing a legal way for 'Dreamers' to stay in this country or create a pathway to citizenship for them constituted 'amnesty.' Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst with the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, said amnesty is a grant of legal status with no strings attached. DACA requires having a clean criminal record, paying back taxes and attaining certain educational outcomes, she said. At the Center for Migration Studies, a nonpartisan think tank that supports immigrants' rights, Director of Programs Daniela Alulema said children who arrived with their parents did not commit an offense. To be eligible for the DACA program, applicants have to go through a vetting process and be contributing members of society. DACA recipients are 'not getting a freebie,' she said. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration, said he favors a legislative fix for DACA. He said amnesty applies to the program, because it would allow students who otherwise wouldn't have legal status to get legal status. Matthew J. O'Brien, director of research at the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform, which opposes DACA, cited the Black's Law Dictionary definition of amnesty as 'a sovereign act of forgiveness for past acts, granted by a government to all persons (or certain classes of persons) who have been guilty of crime or delict, generally political offenses - treason, sedition, rebellion, draft evasion - and often conditions upon their return to obedience and duty within a prescribed time.' 'A 'clean DACA bill,' the purpose of which would be to forgive illegal aliens for their unlawful entry into the United States would be a clear example of an amnesty,' O'Brien said. In a 2017 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Alex Nowrasteh, of the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote that the DACA program offers amnesty and also noted that 'Dreamers' constitute just 7 percent of the population of approximately 11 million immigrants who are in the country illegally. In 2017, PolitiFact ruled that conservative commentator Ann Coulter's claim that Trump had granted amnesty to 'nearly 100,000 Dreamers' to be Mostly True. Her number was correct, but the fact-check noted that there is not agreement among experts on whether the Trump administration's action constituted amnesty. It should be noted that what Trump did early in his term in continuing to accept DACA applications is not necessarily the same action that Congress would authorize in a 'clean DACA bill.' | Our ruling A Jacobs television ad said McMurray 'wants to reward illegals with amnesty.' McMurray favors creating a pathway to citizenship for young immigrants who arrived as children with their parents or guardians. This population makes up 7 percent of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country. The Jacobs campaign cites an archived 2018 McMurray campaign website that referenced his support for a 'Clean DACA bill.' The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, would create this pathway for 'Dreamers.' Experts disagree on whether a clean DACA bill constitutes amnesty, and the commercial gives the impression that McMurray favors amnesty for all people who cross the border illegally. The commercial does not even mention DACA. When the narrator talks about McMurray supporting amnesty, 'votemcmurray.com, 5/17/18,' flashes across the screen. It's a reference to McMurray's campaign website that is no longer live and must be accessed through the Wayback Machine, or internet archive. McMurray's statement on the archived website that he recognizes that immigrant communities have always been an asset for New York's 27th District is hardly evidence that he 'wants to reward illegals with amnesty.' Jacobs' claim contains an element of truth - McMurray's support for DACA - but makes a sweeping conclusion about his rival's broader position on amnety without sufficient evidence. We rate Jacobs' claim Mostly False. | []
|
Says Clint Eastwood called Joe Biden an 'incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical socialist. | Contradiction | Clint Eastwood didn't leave his estate to President Donald Trump's re-election campaign. The actor and director didn't say he was leaving Hollywood to 'fight against traitors with real American patriots with President Trump.' And there's no evidence that he authored an attack against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden that's now spreading on social media. 'Just in case I'm gone tomorrow, please know this: I voted against, Biden, that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical socialist, terrorist excusing, bleeding heart, narcissistic, scientific and economic moron that spent eight years-in the White House trying to destroy our wonderful country and turn it into Muslim loving, socialist crap hole like he came from and I don't mean Hawaii!' 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 fact-checked a nearly identical statement attributed to Eastwood in 2019. Only then, he supposedly said that that he had voted against former President Barack Obama, whom he described as an 'incompetent, lying, insincere, narcissisitc, double-talking, socialist hyporticte, and fiscally irresponsible moron.' Eastwood didn't say that, and we found nothing to support that he said this about Biden. In fact, a representative for Eastwood told the Daily Caller's Check Your Fact that the quote attributed to Eastwood is 'utterly false.' In 2016, Eastwood told Esquire that he would vote for Trump over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. 'I'd have to go for Trump,' he said at the time. 'You know, 'cause she's declared that she's gonna follow in Obama's footsteps.' But more recently, Eastwood has distanced himself from the president. In February, he told the Wall Street Journal that while he approves of 'certain things that Trump's done' he wishes Trump would act 'in a more genteel way, without tweeting and calling people names.' Eastwood also expressed support for former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who had not yet dropped out of the Democratic presidential race. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
'Democrats have accomplished a lot in just 2 months ... 1 Million energy jobs destroyed. | Contradiction | House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy took to Fox News to highlight the damage purportedly wrought by Democrats since President Joe Biden took office. He summarized his comments in a tweet. 'Democrats have accomplished a lot in just 2 months,' McCarthy tweeted March 14. 'Higher gas prices. Biden's border crisis. 1 Million energy jobs destroyed.' Democrats have accomplished a lot in just 2 months: ❌ Higher gas prices ❌ Biden's border crisis ❌ 1 Million energy jobs destroyed And they're just getting started. pic.twitter.com/8gUGmL0QFL- Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) March 14, 2021 The press of unaccompanied minors and families at the Mexico border is real. Gas prices have gone up, though most of the increase took place under President Donald Trump, and is driven by an improving economy and global oil markets, rather than Washington policy. McCarthy's statement about 1 million energy jobs, which he also made in the Fox News interview, is way off. We reached out to McCarthy's office for an explanation and did not hear back. The 1 million figure in his claim number aligns with a forecast from the American Petroleum Institute, a group that represents the oil and gas industry, but McCarthy misrepresented what the number means. In September, the American Petroleum Institute wrote that under a total ban on oil and gas leasing, 'nearly one million jobs would be lost by 2022.' Here's why that doesn't back up McCarthy's claim: Philip Jordan with BW Research tracks jobs in the energy sector for the National Association of State Energy Officials. Jobs in the oil, gas and coal industries have declined due to the pandemic downturn, Jordan said, but that was about 120,000 jobs, and took place before Biden took office. Jordan said that McCarthy's number is implausible on its face. 'The total of fossil fuel industries combined have about 1.6 million jobs,' Jordan said. 'A million energy jobs lost? I think the math is impossible.' | Our ruling McCarthy said in the past two months, Democrats led by Biden have 'destroyed 1 million energy jobs.' The 1 million figure matches a number from an American Petroleum Institute report, but that report assumed all new oil and gas development on federal property would cease, while the Biden policy affects only new leasing. And the projected job losses were across the entire economy - not solely in energy. McCarthy spoke as if the jobs were actually lost in the past two months, but the figure came from a projection, which might never come to pass. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"105684-proof-36-c8b710b3f68ec4a4fd5a94b77c6e93f5.jpg"
]
|
'Democrats have accomplished a lot in just 2 months ... 1 Million energy jobs destroyed. | Contradiction | House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy took to Fox News to highlight the damage purportedly wrought by Democrats since President Joe Biden took office. He summarized his comments in a tweet. 'Democrats have accomplished a lot in just 2 months,' McCarthy tweeted March 14. 'Higher gas prices. Biden's border crisis. 1 Million energy jobs destroyed.' Democrats have accomplished a lot in just 2 months: ❌ Higher gas prices ❌ Biden's border crisis ❌ 1 Million energy jobs destroyed And they're just getting started. pic.twitter.com/8gUGmL0QFL- Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) March 14, 2021 The press of unaccompanied minors and families at the Mexico border is real. Gas prices have gone up, though most of the increase took place under President Donald Trump, and is driven by an improving economy and global oil markets, rather than Washington policy. McCarthy's statement about 1 million energy jobs, which he also made in the Fox News interview, is way off. We reached out to McCarthy's office for an explanation and did not hear back. The 1 million figure in his claim number aligns with a forecast from the American Petroleum Institute, a group that represents the oil and gas industry, but McCarthy misrepresented what the number means. In September, the American Petroleum Institute wrote that under a total ban on oil and gas leasing, 'nearly one million jobs would be lost by 2022.' Here's why that doesn't back up McCarthy's claim: Philip Jordan with BW Research tracks jobs in the energy sector for the National Association of State Energy Officials. Jobs in the oil, gas and coal industries have declined due to the pandemic downturn, Jordan said, but that was about 120,000 jobs, and took place before Biden took office. Jordan said that McCarthy's number is implausible on its face. 'The total of fossil fuel industries combined have about 1.6 million jobs,' Jordan said. 'A million energy jobs lost? I think the math is impossible.' | Our ruling McCarthy said in the past two months, Democrats led by Biden have 'destroyed 1 million energy jobs.' The 1 million figure matches a number from an American Petroleum Institute report, but that report assumed all new oil and gas development on federal property would cease, while the Biden policy affects only new leasing. And the projected job losses were across the entire economy - not solely in energy. McCarthy spoke as if the jobs were actually lost in the past two months, but the figure came from a projection, which might never come to pass. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"105684-proof-36-c8b710b3f68ec4a4fd5a94b77c6e93f5.jpg"
]
|
'Democrats have accomplished a lot in just 2 months ... 1 Million energy jobs destroyed. | Contradiction | House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy took to Fox News to highlight the damage purportedly wrought by Democrats since President Joe Biden took office. He summarized his comments in a tweet. 'Democrats have accomplished a lot in just 2 months,' McCarthy tweeted March 14. 'Higher gas prices. Biden's border crisis. 1 Million energy jobs destroyed.' Democrats have accomplished a lot in just 2 months: ❌ Higher gas prices ❌ Biden's border crisis ❌ 1 Million energy jobs destroyed And they're just getting started. pic.twitter.com/8gUGmL0QFL- Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) March 14, 2021 The press of unaccompanied minors and families at the Mexico border is real. Gas prices have gone up, though most of the increase took place under President Donald Trump, and is driven by an improving economy and global oil markets, rather than Washington policy. McCarthy's statement about 1 million energy jobs, which he also made in the Fox News interview, is way off. We reached out to McCarthy's office for an explanation and did not hear back. The 1 million figure in his claim number aligns with a forecast from the American Petroleum Institute, a group that represents the oil and gas industry, but McCarthy misrepresented what the number means. In September, the American Petroleum Institute wrote that under a total ban on oil and gas leasing, 'nearly one million jobs would be lost by 2022.' Here's why that doesn't back up McCarthy's claim: Philip Jordan with BW Research tracks jobs in the energy sector for the National Association of State Energy Officials. Jobs in the oil, gas and coal industries have declined due to the pandemic downturn, Jordan said, but that was about 120,000 jobs, and took place before Biden took office. Jordan said that McCarthy's number is implausible on its face. 'The total of fossil fuel industries combined have about 1.6 million jobs,' Jordan said. 'A million energy jobs lost? I think the math is impossible.' | Our ruling McCarthy said in the past two months, Democrats led by Biden have 'destroyed 1 million energy jobs.' The 1 million figure matches a number from an American Petroleum Institute report, but that report assumed all new oil and gas development on federal property would cease, while the Biden policy affects only new leasing. And the projected job losses were across the entire economy - not solely in energy. McCarthy spoke as if the jobs were actually lost in the past two months, but the figure came from a projection, which might never come to pass. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | [
"105684-proof-36-c8b710b3f68ec4a4fd5a94b77c6e93f5.jpg"
]
|
Says Christopher Miller is 'in charge of the military. | Contradiction | In November, then-President Donald Trump announced that Defense Secretary Mark Esper had been 'terminated' and would be replaced by Christopher Miller, who was then director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Miller stayed in that post until Jan. 20, when President Joe Biden was inaugurated. The position is now held by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who was sworn in on Jan. 22. But casting unfounded and false aspersions on the validity of Biden's election, the narrator of a recent Facebook video says, 'Chris Miller is, I believe, right now, in charge of the military, second only to 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.) Miller has made public statements since leaving the Pentagon earlier this year, but none in the capacity of a man in charge of the military. A man who was once in charge of the military? Sure. In May, he told lawmakers that he believed the Jan. 6 insurrection was 'an organized conspiracy with assault elements in place.' RELATED VIDEO During an interview with Military Times in August, he criticized the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, saying, 'we mishandled this so dramatically.' Asked what he would have done, Miller said, 'It's easy for me to stay what I would have done. It's not relevant. I thought we very much had a plan for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in an orderly, deliberate process. Now, why that wasn't executed by this administration is beyond my knowledge at this time. I don't know why that is.' We rate this post Pants on Fire. | We rate this post Pants on Fire. | []
|
'We have a worse economy than any other country in the world that's going through COVID-19 by a factor of three. | Contradiction | Following last month's Democratic National Convention, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said Democrats would better handle the coronavirus and the nation's economy if they take control of the Senate next year. 'We have a worse economy than any other country in the world that's going through COVID-19 by a factor of three,' Durbin said on the 'Connected to Chicago' podcast hosted by WLS-AM's Bill Cameron. While the U.S. economy has been struggling in the aftermath of shutdowns caused by the pandemic, the Aug. 23 claim drew a very stark comparison between the U.S. and the rest of the world that we had never heard. So we decided to check it out. Asked repeatedly to provide records, studies or any other support to back up the claim, Durbin's staff did not respond. So we turned to experts and myriad data collected by economists to compare the U.S. economy to other countries. Experts we interviewed agreed the most effective measure is gross domestic product, or GDP. 'I don't think it's true that our economy is worse than any other country by a factor of three,' said Harry Holzer, a Georgetown University public policy professor who has studied the effects of COVID-19 on the economy. One publication experts commonly use for such comparisons is Our World in Data, a nonprofit based at Oxford University, which compiles and republishes statistics collected worldwide. On Sept. 1, Our World in Data published an examination of the health and economic impacts of the pandemic among 38 countries based on available GDP for the second quarter, which ended June 30. In it, the U.S. ranked above 24 other countries in a comparison to the same period in 2019. Among the two dozen countries doing worse than the U.S were the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Canada and Mexico, according to the study. Peru experienced the worst economic decline at 30% for the second quarter. The U.S sustained a GDP decline of 9.5%, the report said. Since Durbin made his claim about the U.S. having the worst economy during a discussion about unemployment, we decided to check that indicator to see whether the senator might have meant the U.S. jobless rate was three times worse than anywhere else in the world. In June, Holzer published a report with the Brookings Institution examining how COVID-19 had affected health and employment in 25 wealthy nations. He found the increase in unemployment during the first months of the pandemic was larger in the U.S. than in any of the other countries he reviewed. From January to April, data in his report shows, the U.S. unemployment rate quadrupled to 14.7%. That doesn't mean the jobless rate here was several times worse than any other nation's, or even increased at triple the rate of all other countries. For instance, Canada's unemployment rate jumped to 13% in April, more than double where it stood in January. While the U.S. experienced a somewhat sharper increase, it was not worse by a factor of three, as Durbin stated. We did find an assertion similar to Durbin's made at the Democratic convention by former president Bill Clinton. 'Donald Trump says we're leading the world,' Clinton declared. 'Well, we are the only major industrial economy to have its unemployment rate triple.' PolitiFact found Clinton's claim about the unemployment rate to be Mostly True. Holzer, who served under Clinton as chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, said if Durbin was attempting to repeat Clinton's claim, 'he mangled it.' | Our ruling Durbin said, 'We have a worse economy than any other country in the world that's going through COVID-19 by a factor of three.' As of August, when Durbin made his remarks, available data for the second quarter showed U.S. GDP declined by 9.5% relative to the same period last year, better than two dozen other countries around the world. And while other economic indicators such as unemployment rates showed the U.S. economy suffered staggering losses, they were not worse by a factor of three, according to published data and experts. We rate Durbin's claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"105702-proof-09-92161fccaa0c18803a3d19e36e87f229.jpg"
]
|
'We have a worse economy than any other country in the world that's going through COVID-19 by a factor of three. | Contradiction | Following last month's Democratic National Convention, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said Democrats would better handle the coronavirus and the nation's economy if they take control of the Senate next year. 'We have a worse economy than any other country in the world that's going through COVID-19 by a factor of three,' Durbin said on the 'Connected to Chicago' podcast hosted by WLS-AM's Bill Cameron. While the U.S. economy has been struggling in the aftermath of shutdowns caused by the pandemic, the Aug. 23 claim drew a very stark comparison between the U.S. and the rest of the world that we had never heard. So we decided to check it out. Asked repeatedly to provide records, studies or any other support to back up the claim, Durbin's staff did not respond. So we turned to experts and myriad data collected by economists to compare the U.S. economy to other countries. Experts we interviewed agreed the most effective measure is gross domestic product, or GDP. 'I don't think it's true that our economy is worse than any other country by a factor of three,' said Harry Holzer, a Georgetown University public policy professor who has studied the effects of COVID-19 on the economy. One publication experts commonly use for such comparisons is Our World in Data, a nonprofit based at Oxford University, which compiles and republishes statistics collected worldwide. On Sept. 1, Our World in Data published an examination of the health and economic impacts of the pandemic among 38 countries based on available GDP for the second quarter, which ended June 30. In it, the U.S. ranked above 24 other countries in a comparison to the same period in 2019. Among the two dozen countries doing worse than the U.S were the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Canada and Mexico, according to the study. Peru experienced the worst economic decline at 30% for the second quarter. The U.S sustained a GDP decline of 9.5%, the report said. Since Durbin made his claim about the U.S. having the worst economy during a discussion about unemployment, we decided to check that indicator to see whether the senator might have meant the U.S. jobless rate was three times worse than anywhere else in the world. In June, Holzer published a report with the Brookings Institution examining how COVID-19 had affected health and employment in 25 wealthy nations. He found the increase in unemployment during the first months of the pandemic was larger in the U.S. than in any of the other countries he reviewed. From January to April, data in his report shows, the U.S. unemployment rate quadrupled to 14.7%. That doesn't mean the jobless rate here was several times worse than any other nation's, or even increased at triple the rate of all other countries. For instance, Canada's unemployment rate jumped to 13% in April, more than double where it stood in January. While the U.S. experienced a somewhat sharper increase, it was not worse by a factor of three, as Durbin stated. We did find an assertion similar to Durbin's made at the Democratic convention by former president Bill Clinton. 'Donald Trump says we're leading the world,' Clinton declared. 'Well, we are the only major industrial economy to have its unemployment rate triple.' PolitiFact found Clinton's claim about the unemployment rate to be Mostly True. Holzer, who served under Clinton as chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, said if Durbin was attempting to repeat Clinton's claim, 'he mangled it.' | Our ruling Durbin said, 'We have a worse economy than any other country in the world that's going through COVID-19 by a factor of three.' As of August, when Durbin made his remarks, available data for the second quarter showed U.S. GDP declined by 9.5% relative to the same period last year, better than two dozen other countries around the world. And while other economic indicators such as unemployment rates showed the U.S. economy suffered staggering losses, they were not worse by a factor of three, according to published data and experts. We rate Durbin's claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"105702-proof-09-92161fccaa0c18803a3d19e36e87f229.jpg"
]
|
'We have a worse economy than any other country in the world that's going through COVID-19 by a factor of three. | Contradiction | Following last month's Democratic National Convention, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said Democrats would better handle the coronavirus and the nation's economy if they take control of the Senate next year. 'We have a worse economy than any other country in the world that's going through COVID-19 by a factor of three,' Durbin said on the 'Connected to Chicago' podcast hosted by WLS-AM's Bill Cameron. While the U.S. economy has been struggling in the aftermath of shutdowns caused by the pandemic, the Aug. 23 claim drew a very stark comparison between the U.S. and the rest of the world that we had never heard. So we decided to check it out. Asked repeatedly to provide records, studies or any other support to back up the claim, Durbin's staff did not respond. So we turned to experts and myriad data collected by economists to compare the U.S. economy to other countries. Experts we interviewed agreed the most effective measure is gross domestic product, or GDP. 'I don't think it's true that our economy is worse than any other country by a factor of three,' said Harry Holzer, a Georgetown University public policy professor who has studied the effects of COVID-19 on the economy. One publication experts commonly use for such comparisons is Our World in Data, a nonprofit based at Oxford University, which compiles and republishes statistics collected worldwide. On Sept. 1, Our World in Data published an examination of the health and economic impacts of the pandemic among 38 countries based on available GDP for the second quarter, which ended June 30. In it, the U.S. ranked above 24 other countries in a comparison to the same period in 2019. Among the two dozen countries doing worse than the U.S were the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Canada and Mexico, according to the study. Peru experienced the worst economic decline at 30% for the second quarter. The U.S sustained a GDP decline of 9.5%, the report said. Since Durbin made his claim about the U.S. having the worst economy during a discussion about unemployment, we decided to check that indicator to see whether the senator might have meant the U.S. jobless rate was three times worse than anywhere else in the world. In June, Holzer published a report with the Brookings Institution examining how COVID-19 had affected health and employment in 25 wealthy nations. He found the increase in unemployment during the first months of the pandemic was larger in the U.S. than in any of the other countries he reviewed. From January to April, data in his report shows, the U.S. unemployment rate quadrupled to 14.7%. That doesn't mean the jobless rate here was several times worse than any other nation's, or even increased at triple the rate of all other countries. For instance, Canada's unemployment rate jumped to 13% in April, more than double where it stood in January. While the U.S. experienced a somewhat sharper increase, it was not worse by a factor of three, as Durbin stated. We did find an assertion similar to Durbin's made at the Democratic convention by former president Bill Clinton. 'Donald Trump says we're leading the world,' Clinton declared. 'Well, we are the only major industrial economy to have its unemployment rate triple.' PolitiFact found Clinton's claim about the unemployment rate to be Mostly True. Holzer, who served under Clinton as chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, said if Durbin was attempting to repeat Clinton's claim, 'he mangled it.' | Our ruling Durbin said, 'We have a worse economy than any other country in the world that's going through COVID-19 by a factor of three.' As of August, when Durbin made his remarks, available data for the second quarter showed U.S. GDP declined by 9.5% relative to the same period last year, better than two dozen other countries around the world. And while other economic indicators such as unemployment rates showed the U.S. economy suffered staggering losses, they were not worse by a factor of three, according to published data and experts. We rate Durbin's claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"105702-proof-09-92161fccaa0c18803a3d19e36e87f229.jpg"
]
|
Democrats 'want to tax your retirement funds to pay for their new trillion dollar power grab. | Contradiction | Republicans are trying to put vulnerable 2022 House Democrats in a tough spot over a $3 trillion spending package that would include day care, paid family leave, climate change fixes and other Democratic priorities but also new fees and taxes to help offset the costs. The Republican-aligned PAC, the Common Sense Leadership Fund, is spending $10 million on ads targeting Democrats in Michigan, Iowa, New York, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Utah and Nebraska. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., faces this attack ad running in his district: 'For decades, Americans played by the rules with the promise they could invest in a secure retirement without penalty. But now Washington liberals want to tax your retirement funds to pay for their new trillion dollar power grab. They call it progress, but it's theft, pure and simple. Call Dan Kildee. Tell him America stands by its promises. Don't let Washington liberals steal our retirement.' The ad unspools a series of close-ups of ordinary elderly people. Their faces are lined, their expressions somber. At the heart of the ad is the claim that Washington liberals - read Democrats - 'want to tax your retirement funds.' What the ad omits is that this proposed tax change would apply only if you have more than $10 million in retirement funds. The Democratic plan The sprawling reconciliation bill called the Build Back Better Act has some new rules for people who have more than $10 million combined in their traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs and defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s. Decades ago, lawmakers crafted tax incentives to encourage people to save for retirement through individual retirement accounts. With a traditional IRA, the money goes in pretax, but gets taxed when it comes out. For a Roth IRA, the money gets taxed before it goes in, then - no matter how much the fund gains in value - withdrawals are tax-free. The Roth rules have produced some striking advantages for a few wealthy people who have been able to get around the income and annual contribution limits that apply to Roth IRAs. Investigative reporters with ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization, found that the co-founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel, had built a Roth IRA worth $5 billion, which he could withdraw tax-free. The House plan would make it more difficult for such huge sums to accumulate tax-free in Roth IRAs, barring additional contributions once a person hits the $10 million mark across their retirement savings accounts. The cap applies only to individuals making over $400,000 a year, or $450,000 for couples filing jointly. People with combined accounts worth over $10 million would have to start withdrawing money from their accounts, starting with their Roth accounts. These changes would affect about 3,600 taxpayers nationwide, the estimated number of people with combined balances over $10 million. That's out of over 51 million people who currently have traditional or Roth IRAs. The Democratic proposal would also shut the door on people converting money in traditional IRAs into Roth IRAs, a strategy many people use to reduce their taxes. But again, that change would apply to individuals making over $400,000 a year, or couples earning $450,000. Those people make up a group that's a bit larger than the top 1% of all taxpayers. According to IRS data, about 91,000 taxpayers in the top 1% of earners used the conversion option in 2018. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that in the first four years, the new rules would raise about $8.9 billion from these taxpayers. But by the fifth year, as taxpayers adapted, the changes would produce modest tax cuts. The net revenue gain after 10 years would be $4.3 billion. Mark Iwry, a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former senior Treasury official in charge of national retirement policy, said that while $4.3 billion is real money, it's a small part of the multi-trillion dollar reconciliation package. 'While this would contribute a bit toward paying for the bill, it is mainly a policy statement,' Iwry said. 'IRAs were designed to promote retirement security for most working households, not to shelter billionaire's multi-billion dollar gains from taxes.' Contrary to the ad's point that liberals want to 'steal' from people's retirement, other parts of the bill subsidize retirement savings by tens of millions of average income households. These proposals create a system of automatic enrollment in IRAs, and expand tax credits for lower and moderate income savers. These changes would cost the government about $47 billion over 10 years. These moves are not new ideas. Iwry co-authored these measures over 15 years ago. The savers tax credit has been on the books for a long time. We tried contacting the Common Sense Leadership Fund, but weren't able to reach the director. | Our ruling The Common Sense Leadership Fund said that Democrats 'want to tax your retirement funds to pay for their new trillion dollar power grab.' The ad implies that this refers broadly to people with retirement savings accounts. In fact, the Democratic plan it alludes to targets a thin sliver of very wealthy individuals: about 3,600 taxpayers, those with retirement accounts worth over $10 million. It creates no new tax, but exposes these people to existing tax rules through caps on the amount they can contribute to tax-advantaged savings accounts. The proposed ban on conversions from traditional to Roth IRAs would affect over 100,000 people, but that still applies only to roughly the top 1% of earners. The claim contains an element of truth about changes to tax laws on retirement savings but ignores important facts about who is affected. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"105724-proof-39-64b8a142506379808d321a4e26bced6a.jpg"
]
|
Democrats 'want to tax your retirement funds to pay for their new trillion dollar power grab. | Contradiction | Republicans are trying to put vulnerable 2022 House Democrats in a tough spot over a $3 trillion spending package that would include day care, paid family leave, climate change fixes and other Democratic priorities but also new fees and taxes to help offset the costs. The Republican-aligned PAC, the Common Sense Leadership Fund, is spending $10 million on ads targeting Democrats in Michigan, Iowa, New York, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Utah and Nebraska. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., faces this attack ad running in his district: 'For decades, Americans played by the rules with the promise they could invest in a secure retirement without penalty. But now Washington liberals want to tax your retirement funds to pay for their new trillion dollar power grab. They call it progress, but it's theft, pure and simple. Call Dan Kildee. Tell him America stands by its promises. Don't let Washington liberals steal our retirement.' The ad unspools a series of close-ups of ordinary elderly people. Their faces are lined, their expressions somber. At the heart of the ad is the claim that Washington liberals - read Democrats - 'want to tax your retirement funds.' What the ad omits is that this proposed tax change would apply only if you have more than $10 million in retirement funds. The Democratic plan The sprawling reconciliation bill called the Build Back Better Act has some new rules for people who have more than $10 million combined in their traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs and defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s. Decades ago, lawmakers crafted tax incentives to encourage people to save for retirement through individual retirement accounts. With a traditional IRA, the money goes in pretax, but gets taxed when it comes out. For a Roth IRA, the money gets taxed before it goes in, then - no matter how much the fund gains in value - withdrawals are tax-free. The Roth rules have produced some striking advantages for a few wealthy people who have been able to get around the income and annual contribution limits that apply to Roth IRAs. Investigative reporters with ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization, found that the co-founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel, had built a Roth IRA worth $5 billion, which he could withdraw tax-free. The House plan would make it more difficult for such huge sums to accumulate tax-free in Roth IRAs, barring additional contributions once a person hits the $10 million mark across their retirement savings accounts. The cap applies only to individuals making over $400,000 a year, or $450,000 for couples filing jointly. People with combined accounts worth over $10 million would have to start withdrawing money from their accounts, starting with their Roth accounts. These changes would affect about 3,600 taxpayers nationwide, the estimated number of people with combined balances over $10 million. That's out of over 51 million people who currently have traditional or Roth IRAs. The Democratic proposal would also shut the door on people converting money in traditional IRAs into Roth IRAs, a strategy many people use to reduce their taxes. But again, that change would apply to individuals making over $400,000 a year, or couples earning $450,000. Those people make up a group that's a bit larger than the top 1% of all taxpayers. According to IRS data, about 91,000 taxpayers in the top 1% of earners used the conversion option in 2018. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that in the first four years, the new rules would raise about $8.9 billion from these taxpayers. But by the fifth year, as taxpayers adapted, the changes would produce modest tax cuts. The net revenue gain after 10 years would be $4.3 billion. Mark Iwry, a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former senior Treasury official in charge of national retirement policy, said that while $4.3 billion is real money, it's a small part of the multi-trillion dollar reconciliation package. 'While this would contribute a bit toward paying for the bill, it is mainly a policy statement,' Iwry said. 'IRAs were designed to promote retirement security for most working households, not to shelter billionaire's multi-billion dollar gains from taxes.' Contrary to the ad's point that liberals want to 'steal' from people's retirement, other parts of the bill subsidize retirement savings by tens of millions of average income households. These proposals create a system of automatic enrollment in IRAs, and expand tax credits for lower and moderate income savers. These changes would cost the government about $47 billion over 10 years. These moves are not new ideas. Iwry co-authored these measures over 15 years ago. The savers tax credit has been on the books for a long time. We tried contacting the Common Sense Leadership Fund, but weren't able to reach the director. | Our ruling The Common Sense Leadership Fund said that Democrats 'want to tax your retirement funds to pay for their new trillion dollar power grab.' The ad implies that this refers broadly to people with retirement savings accounts. In fact, the Democratic plan it alludes to targets a thin sliver of very wealthy individuals: about 3,600 taxpayers, those with retirement accounts worth over $10 million. It creates no new tax, but exposes these people to existing tax rules through caps on the amount they can contribute to tax-advantaged savings accounts. The proposed ban on conversions from traditional to Roth IRAs would affect over 100,000 people, but that still applies only to roughly the top 1% of earners. The claim contains an element of truth about changes to tax laws on retirement savings but ignores important facts about who is affected. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"105724-proof-39-64b8a142506379808d321a4e26bced6a.jpg"
]
|
Democrats 'want to tax your retirement funds to pay for their new trillion dollar power grab. | Contradiction | Republicans are trying to put vulnerable 2022 House Democrats in a tough spot over a $3 trillion spending package that would include day care, paid family leave, climate change fixes and other Democratic priorities but also new fees and taxes to help offset the costs. The Republican-aligned PAC, the Common Sense Leadership Fund, is spending $10 million on ads targeting Democrats in Michigan, Iowa, New York, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Utah and Nebraska. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., faces this attack ad running in his district: 'For decades, Americans played by the rules with the promise they could invest in a secure retirement without penalty. But now Washington liberals want to tax your retirement funds to pay for their new trillion dollar power grab. They call it progress, but it's theft, pure and simple. Call Dan Kildee. Tell him America stands by its promises. Don't let Washington liberals steal our retirement.' The ad unspools a series of close-ups of ordinary elderly people. Their faces are lined, their expressions somber. At the heart of the ad is the claim that Washington liberals - read Democrats - 'want to tax your retirement funds.' What the ad omits is that this proposed tax change would apply only if you have more than $10 million in retirement funds. The Democratic plan The sprawling reconciliation bill called the Build Back Better Act has some new rules for people who have more than $10 million combined in their traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs and defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s. Decades ago, lawmakers crafted tax incentives to encourage people to save for retirement through individual retirement accounts. With a traditional IRA, the money goes in pretax, but gets taxed when it comes out. For a Roth IRA, the money gets taxed before it goes in, then - no matter how much the fund gains in value - withdrawals are tax-free. The Roth rules have produced some striking advantages for a few wealthy people who have been able to get around the income and annual contribution limits that apply to Roth IRAs. Investigative reporters with ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization, found that the co-founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel, had built a Roth IRA worth $5 billion, which he could withdraw tax-free. The House plan would make it more difficult for such huge sums to accumulate tax-free in Roth IRAs, barring additional contributions once a person hits the $10 million mark across their retirement savings accounts. The cap applies only to individuals making over $400,000 a year, or $450,000 for couples filing jointly. People with combined accounts worth over $10 million would have to start withdrawing money from their accounts, starting with their Roth accounts. These changes would affect about 3,600 taxpayers nationwide, the estimated number of people with combined balances over $10 million. That's out of over 51 million people who currently have traditional or Roth IRAs. The Democratic proposal would also shut the door on people converting money in traditional IRAs into Roth IRAs, a strategy many people use to reduce their taxes. But again, that change would apply to individuals making over $400,000 a year, or couples earning $450,000. Those people make up a group that's a bit larger than the top 1% of all taxpayers. According to IRS data, about 91,000 taxpayers in the top 1% of earners used the conversion option in 2018. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that in the first four years, the new rules would raise about $8.9 billion from these taxpayers. But by the fifth year, as taxpayers adapted, the changes would produce modest tax cuts. The net revenue gain after 10 years would be $4.3 billion. Mark Iwry, a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former senior Treasury official in charge of national retirement policy, said that while $4.3 billion is real money, it's a small part of the multi-trillion dollar reconciliation package. 'While this would contribute a bit toward paying for the bill, it is mainly a policy statement,' Iwry said. 'IRAs were designed to promote retirement security for most working households, not to shelter billionaire's multi-billion dollar gains from taxes.' Contrary to the ad's point that liberals want to 'steal' from people's retirement, other parts of the bill subsidize retirement savings by tens of millions of average income households. These proposals create a system of automatic enrollment in IRAs, and expand tax credits for lower and moderate income savers. These changes would cost the government about $47 billion over 10 years. These moves are not new ideas. Iwry co-authored these measures over 15 years ago. The savers tax credit has been on the books for a long time. We tried contacting the Common Sense Leadership Fund, but weren't able to reach the director. | Our ruling The Common Sense Leadership Fund said that Democrats 'want to tax your retirement funds to pay for their new trillion dollar power grab.' The ad implies that this refers broadly to people with retirement savings accounts. In fact, the Democratic plan it alludes to targets a thin sliver of very wealthy individuals: about 3,600 taxpayers, those with retirement accounts worth over $10 million. It creates no new tax, but exposes these people to existing tax rules through caps on the amount they can contribute to tax-advantaged savings accounts. The proposed ban on conversions from traditional to Roth IRAs would affect over 100,000 people, but that still applies only to roughly the top 1% of earners. The claim contains an element of truth about changes to tax laws on retirement savings but ignores important facts about who is affected. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"105724-proof-39-64b8a142506379808d321a4e26bced6a.jpg"
]
|
Exxon sign says drivers 'must show proof of a job for gas purchase. | Contradiction | Gasoline shortages are affecting some gas stations around the country and social media users are sharing what looks like an Exxon sign limiting who can pull up to a pump. 'Must show proof of a job for gas purchase,' the sign says. But it's not real, and posts sharing it 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.) If you do a reverse image search for the sign you'll find nearly identical images with one big difference - the text on the sign changes picture to picture, but the background doesn't. The same cars are idling in the parking lot. That's because anyone can punch in the text they want to appear on the sign at a website that lets you 'make your own gas station sign.' We created one. It says: 'Don't believe everything you see on the internet.' We rate claims that this is a real sign False. | We rate claims that this is a real sign False. | []
|
'The entire Database of Maricopa County in Arizona has been DELETED!' | Contradiction | On May 15, 6½ months after losing the presidential election to Joe Biden, Donald Trump continued his baseless claims about election fraud with a statement about the GOP-commissioned audit of results in Maricopa County, Ariz. 'The entire Database of Maricopa County in Arizona has been DELETED!' the statement said. Trump called the alleged deletion 'illegal,' then went on to make several other claims of 'election crime' and 'presidential election fraud.' Trump's statement didn't describe the database he referred to, and his office did not reply to our requests for information to support his claim. There is no evidence that an entire database from the 2020 election in Maricopa County was illegally deleted. In fact, one of the firms doing an audit of the election essentially walked back its initial claim of the database being deleted. Final official results of the November election showed Biden beat Trump in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix, 1,040,774 votes to 995,665. Even though the original result has been validated by a hand-count sample audit and a forensic audit of tabulation equipment that found no abnormalities, this ongoing Maricopa audit was ordered up by Republican state senators. It began April 23. Cyber Ninjas, a technology company lacking election audit experience, is leading the audit. The firm is headed by Doug Logan, who promoted 'stop the steal' conspiracy theories about the election that culminated in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. On May 12, three days before Trump issued his statement, the audit's Twitter account stated: 'Breaking Update: Maricopa County deleted a directory full of election databases from the 2020 election cycle days before the election equipment was delivered to the audit. This is spoliation of evidence!' On May 17, the Maricopa County Elections Department issued a memo refuting the claim. An analysis confirmed that 'the original database folder on the 'EMSPrimary' server was not deleted or otherwise tampered with during packaging and delivery' of election materials to the Arizona Senate for the audit, the memo said. The next day, at a public meeting on the audit called by Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, one of the auditors backtracked on the database claim. 'I discovered a (Master File Table) that clearly indicated that the database directory was deleted from that server,' Ben Cotton, founder of CyFir, one of the firms involved in the audit, said at the hearing. 'So, all of this, however, may be a moot point because subsequently, I've been able to recover all of those deleted files and I have access to that data.' The auditor simply did not know how to look for the data, according to an email to Fann from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in response to the tweet. The tweet 'is demonstrably false; the only thing it does demonstrate is your auditors' incompetence,' the board's letter said. 'Their stunning lack of a basic understanding for how their software works is egregious and only made worse by the false tweet sent defaming the hardworking employees of Maricopa County.' | Our ruling Trump claimed: 'The entire Database of Maricopa County in Arizona has been DELETED!' His statement came three days after the Twitter account for an ongoing audit of the 2020 election in Maricopa County claimed that the county 'deleted a directory full of election databases.' A few days later, the head of one of the firms helping do the audit said he in fact was able to access the data. There is no evidence any election database was deleted illegally. We rate Trump's claim False. | [
"105730-proof-07-97dd5a12a28161f4470a1b2ad17d29c3.jpg"
]
|
'The entire Database of Maricopa County in Arizona has been DELETED!' | Contradiction | On May 15, 6½ months after losing the presidential election to Joe Biden, Donald Trump continued his baseless claims about election fraud with a statement about the GOP-commissioned audit of results in Maricopa County, Ariz. 'The entire Database of Maricopa County in Arizona has been DELETED!' the statement said. Trump called the alleged deletion 'illegal,' then went on to make several other claims of 'election crime' and 'presidential election fraud.' Trump's statement didn't describe the database he referred to, and his office did not reply to our requests for information to support his claim. There is no evidence that an entire database from the 2020 election in Maricopa County was illegally deleted. In fact, one of the firms doing an audit of the election essentially walked back its initial claim of the database being deleted. Final official results of the November election showed Biden beat Trump in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix, 1,040,774 votes to 995,665. Even though the original result has been validated by a hand-count sample audit and a forensic audit of tabulation equipment that found no abnormalities, this ongoing Maricopa audit was ordered up by Republican state senators. It began April 23. Cyber Ninjas, a technology company lacking election audit experience, is leading the audit. The firm is headed by Doug Logan, who promoted 'stop the steal' conspiracy theories about the election that culminated in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. On May 12, three days before Trump issued his statement, the audit's Twitter account stated: 'Breaking Update: Maricopa County deleted a directory full of election databases from the 2020 election cycle days before the election equipment was delivered to the audit. This is spoliation of evidence!' On May 17, the Maricopa County Elections Department issued a memo refuting the claim. An analysis confirmed that 'the original database folder on the 'EMSPrimary' server was not deleted or otherwise tampered with during packaging and delivery' of election materials to the Arizona Senate for the audit, the memo said. The next day, at a public meeting on the audit called by Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, one of the auditors backtracked on the database claim. 'I discovered a (Master File Table) that clearly indicated that the database directory was deleted from that server,' Ben Cotton, founder of CyFir, one of the firms involved in the audit, said at the hearing. 'So, all of this, however, may be a moot point because subsequently, I've been able to recover all of those deleted files and I have access to that data.' The auditor simply did not know how to look for the data, according to an email to Fann from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in response to the tweet. The tweet 'is demonstrably false; the only thing it does demonstrate is your auditors' incompetence,' the board's letter said. 'Their stunning lack of a basic understanding for how their software works is egregious and only made worse by the false tweet sent defaming the hardworking employees of Maricopa County.' | Our ruling Trump claimed: 'The entire Database of Maricopa County in Arizona has been DELETED!' His statement came three days after the Twitter account for an ongoing audit of the 2020 election in Maricopa County claimed that the county 'deleted a directory full of election databases.' A few days later, the head of one of the firms helping do the audit said he in fact was able to access the data. There is no evidence any election database was deleted illegally. We rate Trump's claim False. | [
"105730-proof-07-97dd5a12a28161f4470a1b2ad17d29c3.jpg"
]
|
'The entire Database of Maricopa County in Arizona has been DELETED!' | Contradiction | On May 15, 6½ months after losing the presidential election to Joe Biden, Donald Trump continued his baseless claims about election fraud with a statement about the GOP-commissioned audit of results in Maricopa County, Ariz. 'The entire Database of Maricopa County in Arizona has been DELETED!' the statement said. Trump called the alleged deletion 'illegal,' then went on to make several other claims of 'election crime' and 'presidential election fraud.' Trump's statement didn't describe the database he referred to, and his office did not reply to our requests for information to support his claim. There is no evidence that an entire database from the 2020 election in Maricopa County was illegally deleted. In fact, one of the firms doing an audit of the election essentially walked back its initial claim of the database being deleted. Final official results of the November election showed Biden beat Trump in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix, 1,040,774 votes to 995,665. Even though the original result has been validated by a hand-count sample audit and a forensic audit of tabulation equipment that found no abnormalities, this ongoing Maricopa audit was ordered up by Republican state senators. It began April 23. Cyber Ninjas, a technology company lacking election audit experience, is leading the audit. The firm is headed by Doug Logan, who promoted 'stop the steal' conspiracy theories about the election that culminated in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. On May 12, three days before Trump issued his statement, the audit's Twitter account stated: 'Breaking Update: Maricopa County deleted a directory full of election databases from the 2020 election cycle days before the election equipment was delivered to the audit. This is spoliation of evidence!' On May 17, the Maricopa County Elections Department issued a memo refuting the claim. An analysis confirmed that 'the original database folder on the 'EMSPrimary' server was not deleted or otherwise tampered with during packaging and delivery' of election materials to the Arizona Senate for the audit, the memo said. The next day, at a public meeting on the audit called by Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, one of the auditors backtracked on the database claim. 'I discovered a (Master File Table) that clearly indicated that the database directory was deleted from that server,' Ben Cotton, founder of CyFir, one of the firms involved in the audit, said at the hearing. 'So, all of this, however, may be a moot point because subsequently, I've been able to recover all of those deleted files and I have access to that data.' The auditor simply did not know how to look for the data, according to an email to Fann from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in response to the tweet. The tweet 'is demonstrably false; the only thing it does demonstrate is your auditors' incompetence,' the board's letter said. 'Their stunning lack of a basic understanding for how their software works is egregious and only made worse by the false tweet sent defaming the hardworking employees of Maricopa County.' | Our ruling Trump claimed: 'The entire Database of Maricopa County in Arizona has been DELETED!' His statement came three days after the Twitter account for an ongoing audit of the 2020 election in Maricopa County claimed that the county 'deleted a directory full of election databases.' A few days later, the head of one of the firms helping do the audit said he in fact was able to access the data. There is no evidence any election database was deleted illegally. We rate Trump's claim False. | [
"105730-proof-07-97dd5a12a28161f4470a1b2ad17d29c3.jpg"
]
|
Bergen County in New Jersey gave more votes to the Democratic gubernatorial candidate after all the ballots were counted. | Contradiction | New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy beat his Republican challenger Jack Ciattarelli in a tight race that was punctuated with unfounded accusations of voter fraud. One image being shared on Facebook shows screenshots of election results posted on the New York Times website. 'At midnight Bergen County (the biggest county) was 100% reported... and red..' the post said. 'By 7:30 AM they 'found' 40,000 more votes and flipped to blue?!?!' The screenshot shows Ciattarelli with 52% of the vote at 12:23 a.m. with 100% of votes reported. The total number of votes shown is 219,984. Another screenshot shows Murphy with 52% of the vote at 7:32 a.m., and 100% of votes reported. The total number of votes shown is 261,528. A similar set of screenshots from election results posted on NPR's website that are being shared online highlight the same thing. It looks like the vote is '100% in' in Bergen County, but the candidate with the edge shifts from the Republican to the Democrat. 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.) We reached out to the Bergen County clerk's office about the posts. Sabrina Taranto, the elections division supervisor in the Bergen County clerk's office, told PolitiFact that because of the way the county tallies its votes, 100% means that '70 of the 70 towns in Bergen County's election day machines were received and counted.' In this case, 100% does not include other types of votes, such as mail-in ballots, provisional ballots, and early voting ballots. 'This is the standard method followed by our office for every election,' Taranto said. Most of the early voting results were tabulated on election night and then integrated with the election day results on the clerk's website, she said. After early voting results were finalized on Nov. 3, the results on the website were updated again. RELATED VIDEO The Associated Press has called the race for Murphy, but the county's election results are still unofficial until the election is certified. Clearly, some people have been confused by the county's method for presenting its election results. But it's not evidence of fraud, and 40,000 weren't 'found' - they were counted. We rate claims that Bergen County fraudulently gave more votes to Murphy than Ciattarelli after all ballots were counted False. | We rate claims that Bergen County fraudulently gave more votes to Murphy than Ciattarelli after all ballots were counted False. | []
|
'The death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people]. | Contradiction | An Instagram post claimed that 'the death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people].' The post featured a screenshot of a tweet by Chuck Callesto, a former candidate for Florida's 3rd congressional district. The tweet reads, 'Breaking report: according to the CDC 7,157 fully vaccinated Americans have contracted COVID-19, 88 have died.' It appears the post has since been deleted from Callesto's Twitter. We've fact-checked several other claims about the purported effects of the COVID-19 vaccines and their effectiveness before, and we found them to be false. The numbers in the post come from actual figures provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In fact, the CDC's most recent data on breakthrough cases shows that, as of April 26, more than 9,000 COVID-19 breakthrough infections have been reported. However, these breakthrough infections are not evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. Public health experts agreed that the author likely miscalculated the rate. Furthermore, they said that it's misleading to use these figures to calculate a death rate and compare it to the unvaccinated population. Facebook flagged this story as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) It had been shared more than 42,800 times when we first saw this post on April 30. The post no longer appears on the author's Instagram page, which has been flagged multiple times by Facebook for posting misleading and false information. Breakthrough Infections and Vaccine Effectiveness COVID-19 vaccines are effective. However, a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated will still get COVID-19 if they are exposed to the virus that causes it, according to the CDC. These infections are defined as 'vaccine breakthrough cases.' Vaccine breakthrough cases only occur in a small percentage of vaccinated people. And public health officials say that these cases actually reinforce the effectiveness of the vaccines, unlike the post suggests. As of May 4, more than 105 million people in the United States have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the CDC. During this same time, the CDC received 9,245 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections. That's less than .01% of fully vaccinated Americans. Vaccine breakthrough cases are expected. In the original clinical trials, none of the vaccines were 100% effective, nor have they ever claimed to be. No vaccine is 100% effective at preventing illness, according to public health experts and the CDC. So the vaccines are actually performing better in real-life situations than expected in some regards, according to the public health experts we interviewed. The CDC has acknowledged that these cases actually represent an undercount of the actual number of breakthrough vaccine infections. Since the surveillance system relies on voluntary reporting and testing, the total number of breakthrough infections is likely higher. 'Not all real-world breakthrough cases will be identified because of lack of testing,' the CDC's website reads. 'This is particularly true in instances of asymptomatic or mild illness.' That means that the CDC's data on breakthrough cases is skewed towards more severe infections that result in hospitalization or death. But it's worth acknowledging that more than a quarter of these cases were reported as asymptomatic, meaning that vaccinated individuals were 'infected with SARS-CoV-2 but never showed symptoms of the disease,' according to the CDC. Going forward, the CDC will be 'transitioning to reporting only patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or died to help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance,' according to their website. That change in reporting will begin on May 14. Comparing Death Rates Breakthrough infections have resulted in 835 hospitalizations and 132 deaths, according to the latest figures from CDC. The CDC's website notes that 20 of the 132 fatal cases were 'reported as asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19.' That means that less than 1% of these breakthrough infections resulted in the patient dying because of COVID-19 related illness. New data from the CDC found that fully vaccinated adults 65 or older are 94% less likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than their non-vaccinated peers - and 64% less likely if they have only received one shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. According to the latest figures from the CDC on May 10, there have been 32,543,257 reported cases of COVID in the U.S., of which 578,945 people have died. That's a rate of 1.8% - a higher rate compared to the data we have on breakthrough infections. However, the post claims that the death rate for vaccinated people is greater than the death rate for unvaccinated people, a number that experts say is difficult to quantify. Public health experts said that Smith likely miscalculated the death rate. 'What they're saying is completely wrong,' said Dr. Lee Riley, a professor and chair of the Division of Infectious Disease and Vaccinology at UC Berkeley. 'I think they're just miscalculating.' Erin Mordecai, an assistant professor of biology at Stanford University, agreed with Riley about the miscalculation, and cautioned against the comparison. She said it's impossible to accurately calculate a death rate for each group - vaccinated versus vaccinated - because demographics skew the data. 'Those breakthrough cases may not be an average subset of the population, they may be a more at risk group that's more likely to have severe disease anyway,' Mordecai said. 'To better understand what's going on with the relative risk, you would need to know the demographics of the underlying health conditions of the people who experienced those breakthrough cases and deaths.' For example, throughout the country the people most at risk were prioritized in vaccination, including by age. That means that the vaccinated population skews much older than the unvaccinated population, with adults ages 65 and older making up more than 30% of the vaccinated population. We already know that older adults are at a greater risk of requiring hospitalization or dying after being infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, so it's not surprising that most of these breakout deaths (45%) were among those ages 60 and older. California and Vaccinations According to the latest state data, more than 13 million Californians have been fully vaccinated - that's 32% of eligible Californians over 16 years of age. Almost half of eligible Californians have had at least one dose of the vaccine. 'The number of post vaccination cases remains small considering there are more than 12.9 million fully vaccinated individuals in California,' the California Department of Public Health said in a statement. 'Currently, 3,084 post-vaccination cases have been identified between January 1, 2021 and April 28, 2021.' To put that number in perspective, that's about 1 in 4,200 or so vaccinated Californians. Both of the public health experts we spoke to encouraged Californians to continue to get their COVID vaccines and help the state reach 'herd immunity.' Our Ruling An Instagram post deceptively uses CDC data on vaccine breakthrough infections to claim that 'the death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people].' That's not the case. Public health experts agree that this claim is false and that the author of the post likely miscalculated the death rates of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The experts we talked to also said that it's misleading to use these figures to calculate a death rate and compare it to the unvaccinated population. The vaccinated population skews much older than the unvaccinated population and are more likely to have underlying health conditions due to vaccination roll-out restrictions. The post also includes a screenshot of a Tweet to claim that 'the CDC has reported 7,157 fully vaccinated Americans have contracted COVID-19, 88 have died.' The figures on breakthrough infections are real - in fact, there are now more than 9,000 recorded cases, which have resulted in 132 deaths. But it is widely misleading to use these numbers as evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective, and the post leaves out crucial facts about breakthrough infections. We rate this statement as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | Our Ruling An Instagram post deceptively uses CDC data on vaccine breakthrough infections to claim that 'the death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people].' That's not the case. Public health experts agree that this claim is false and that the author of the post likely miscalculated the death rates of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The experts we talked to also said that it's misleading to use these figures to calculate a death rate and compare it to the unvaccinated population. The vaccinated population skews much older than the unvaccinated population and are more likely to have underlying health conditions due to vaccination roll-out restrictions. The post also includes a screenshot of a Tweet to claim that 'the CDC has reported 7,157 fully vaccinated Americans have contracted COVID-19, 88 have died.' The figures on breakthrough infections are real - in fact, there are now more than 9,000 recorded cases, which have resulted in 132 deaths. But it is widely misleading to use these numbers as evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective, and the post leaves out crucial facts about breakthrough infections. We rate this statement as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"105743-proof-08-KW3Dd9av0Ep-E_KE8KIRIXCMwstLthn7qLHbWOSp2En57gGvrS2AYxcofSuQXYCU9I3E7omTBBZhYJDg.jpg"
]
|
'The death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people]. | Contradiction | An Instagram post claimed that 'the death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people].' The post featured a screenshot of a tweet by Chuck Callesto, a former candidate for Florida's 3rd congressional district. The tweet reads, 'Breaking report: according to the CDC 7,157 fully vaccinated Americans have contracted COVID-19, 88 have died.' It appears the post has since been deleted from Callesto's Twitter. We've fact-checked several other claims about the purported effects of the COVID-19 vaccines and their effectiveness before, and we found them to be false. The numbers in the post come from actual figures provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In fact, the CDC's most recent data on breakthrough cases shows that, as of April 26, more than 9,000 COVID-19 breakthrough infections have been reported. However, these breakthrough infections are not evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. Public health experts agreed that the author likely miscalculated the rate. Furthermore, they said that it's misleading to use these figures to calculate a death rate and compare it to the unvaccinated population. Facebook flagged this story as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) It had been shared more than 42,800 times when we first saw this post on April 30. The post no longer appears on the author's Instagram page, which has been flagged multiple times by Facebook for posting misleading and false information. Breakthrough Infections and Vaccine Effectiveness COVID-19 vaccines are effective. However, a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated will still get COVID-19 if they are exposed to the virus that causes it, according to the CDC. These infections are defined as 'vaccine breakthrough cases.' Vaccine breakthrough cases only occur in a small percentage of vaccinated people. And public health officials say that these cases actually reinforce the effectiveness of the vaccines, unlike the post suggests. As of May 4, more than 105 million people in the United States have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the CDC. During this same time, the CDC received 9,245 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections. That's less than .01% of fully vaccinated Americans. Vaccine breakthrough cases are expected. In the original clinical trials, none of the vaccines were 100% effective, nor have they ever claimed to be. No vaccine is 100% effective at preventing illness, according to public health experts and the CDC. So the vaccines are actually performing better in real-life situations than expected in some regards, according to the public health experts we interviewed. The CDC has acknowledged that these cases actually represent an undercount of the actual number of breakthrough vaccine infections. Since the surveillance system relies on voluntary reporting and testing, the total number of breakthrough infections is likely higher. 'Not all real-world breakthrough cases will be identified because of lack of testing,' the CDC's website reads. 'This is particularly true in instances of asymptomatic or mild illness.' That means that the CDC's data on breakthrough cases is skewed towards more severe infections that result in hospitalization or death. But it's worth acknowledging that more than a quarter of these cases were reported as asymptomatic, meaning that vaccinated individuals were 'infected with SARS-CoV-2 but never showed symptoms of the disease,' according to the CDC. Going forward, the CDC will be 'transitioning to reporting only patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or died to help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance,' according to their website. That change in reporting will begin on May 14. Comparing Death Rates Breakthrough infections have resulted in 835 hospitalizations and 132 deaths, according to the latest figures from CDC. The CDC's website notes that 20 of the 132 fatal cases were 'reported as asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19.' That means that less than 1% of these breakthrough infections resulted in the patient dying because of COVID-19 related illness. New data from the CDC found that fully vaccinated adults 65 or older are 94% less likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than their non-vaccinated peers - and 64% less likely if they have only received one shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. According to the latest figures from the CDC on May 10, there have been 32,543,257 reported cases of COVID in the U.S., of which 578,945 people have died. That's a rate of 1.8% - a higher rate compared to the data we have on breakthrough infections. However, the post claims that the death rate for vaccinated people is greater than the death rate for unvaccinated people, a number that experts say is difficult to quantify. Public health experts said that Smith likely miscalculated the death rate. 'What they're saying is completely wrong,' said Dr. Lee Riley, a professor and chair of the Division of Infectious Disease and Vaccinology at UC Berkeley. 'I think they're just miscalculating.' Erin Mordecai, an assistant professor of biology at Stanford University, agreed with Riley about the miscalculation, and cautioned against the comparison. She said it's impossible to accurately calculate a death rate for each group - vaccinated versus vaccinated - because demographics skew the data. 'Those breakthrough cases may not be an average subset of the population, they may be a more at risk group that's more likely to have severe disease anyway,' Mordecai said. 'To better understand what's going on with the relative risk, you would need to know the demographics of the underlying health conditions of the people who experienced those breakthrough cases and deaths.' For example, throughout the country the people most at risk were prioritized in vaccination, including by age. That means that the vaccinated population skews much older than the unvaccinated population, with adults ages 65 and older making up more than 30% of the vaccinated population. We already know that older adults are at a greater risk of requiring hospitalization or dying after being infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, so it's not surprising that most of these breakout deaths (45%) were among those ages 60 and older. California and Vaccinations According to the latest state data, more than 13 million Californians have been fully vaccinated - that's 32% of eligible Californians over 16 years of age. Almost half of eligible Californians have had at least one dose of the vaccine. 'The number of post vaccination cases remains small considering there are more than 12.9 million fully vaccinated individuals in California,' the California Department of Public Health said in a statement. 'Currently, 3,084 post-vaccination cases have been identified between January 1, 2021 and April 28, 2021.' To put that number in perspective, that's about 1 in 4,200 or so vaccinated Californians. Both of the public health experts we spoke to encouraged Californians to continue to get their COVID vaccines and help the state reach 'herd immunity.' Our Ruling An Instagram post deceptively uses CDC data on vaccine breakthrough infections to claim that 'the death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people].' That's not the case. Public health experts agree that this claim is false and that the author of the post likely miscalculated the death rates of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The experts we talked to also said that it's misleading to use these figures to calculate a death rate and compare it to the unvaccinated population. The vaccinated population skews much older than the unvaccinated population and are more likely to have underlying health conditions due to vaccination roll-out restrictions. The post also includes a screenshot of a Tweet to claim that 'the CDC has reported 7,157 fully vaccinated Americans have contracted COVID-19, 88 have died.' The figures on breakthrough infections are real - in fact, there are now more than 9,000 recorded cases, which have resulted in 132 deaths. But it is widely misleading to use these numbers as evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective, and the post leaves out crucial facts about breakthrough infections. We rate this statement as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | Our Ruling An Instagram post deceptively uses CDC data on vaccine breakthrough infections to claim that 'the death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people].' That's not the case. Public health experts agree that this claim is false and that the author of the post likely miscalculated the death rates of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The experts we talked to also said that it's misleading to use these figures to calculate a death rate and compare it to the unvaccinated population. The vaccinated population skews much older than the unvaccinated population and are more likely to have underlying health conditions due to vaccination roll-out restrictions. The post also includes a screenshot of a Tweet to claim that 'the CDC has reported 7,157 fully vaccinated Americans have contracted COVID-19, 88 have died.' The figures on breakthrough infections are real - in fact, there are now more than 9,000 recorded cases, which have resulted in 132 deaths. But it is widely misleading to use these numbers as evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective, and the post leaves out crucial facts about breakthrough infections. We rate this statement as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"105743-proof-08-KW3Dd9av0Ep-E_KE8KIRIXCMwstLthn7qLHbWOSp2En57gGvrS2AYxcofSuQXYCU9I3E7omTBBZhYJDg.jpg"
]
|
'The death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people]. | Contradiction | An Instagram post claimed that 'the death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people].' The post featured a screenshot of a tweet by Chuck Callesto, a former candidate for Florida's 3rd congressional district. The tweet reads, 'Breaking report: according to the CDC 7,157 fully vaccinated Americans have contracted COVID-19, 88 have died.' It appears the post has since been deleted from Callesto's Twitter. We've fact-checked several other claims about the purported effects of the COVID-19 vaccines and their effectiveness before, and we found them to be false. The numbers in the post come from actual figures provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In fact, the CDC's most recent data on breakthrough cases shows that, as of April 26, more than 9,000 COVID-19 breakthrough infections have been reported. However, these breakthrough infections are not evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. Public health experts agreed that the author likely miscalculated the rate. Furthermore, they said that it's misleading to use these figures to calculate a death rate and compare it to the unvaccinated population. Facebook flagged this story as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) It had been shared more than 42,800 times when we first saw this post on April 30. The post no longer appears on the author's Instagram page, which has been flagged multiple times by Facebook for posting misleading and false information. Breakthrough Infections and Vaccine Effectiveness COVID-19 vaccines are effective. However, a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated will still get COVID-19 if they are exposed to the virus that causes it, according to the CDC. These infections are defined as 'vaccine breakthrough cases.' Vaccine breakthrough cases only occur in a small percentage of vaccinated people. And public health officials say that these cases actually reinforce the effectiveness of the vaccines, unlike the post suggests. As of May 4, more than 105 million people in the United States have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the CDC. During this same time, the CDC received 9,245 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections. That's less than .01% of fully vaccinated Americans. Vaccine breakthrough cases are expected. In the original clinical trials, none of the vaccines were 100% effective, nor have they ever claimed to be. No vaccine is 100% effective at preventing illness, according to public health experts and the CDC. So the vaccines are actually performing better in real-life situations than expected in some regards, according to the public health experts we interviewed. The CDC has acknowledged that these cases actually represent an undercount of the actual number of breakthrough vaccine infections. Since the surveillance system relies on voluntary reporting and testing, the total number of breakthrough infections is likely higher. 'Not all real-world breakthrough cases will be identified because of lack of testing,' the CDC's website reads. 'This is particularly true in instances of asymptomatic or mild illness.' That means that the CDC's data on breakthrough cases is skewed towards more severe infections that result in hospitalization or death. But it's worth acknowledging that more than a quarter of these cases were reported as asymptomatic, meaning that vaccinated individuals were 'infected with SARS-CoV-2 but never showed symptoms of the disease,' according to the CDC. Going forward, the CDC will be 'transitioning to reporting only patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or died to help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance,' according to their website. That change in reporting will begin on May 14. Comparing Death Rates Breakthrough infections have resulted in 835 hospitalizations and 132 deaths, according to the latest figures from CDC. The CDC's website notes that 20 of the 132 fatal cases were 'reported as asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19.' That means that less than 1% of these breakthrough infections resulted in the patient dying because of COVID-19 related illness. New data from the CDC found that fully vaccinated adults 65 or older are 94% less likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than their non-vaccinated peers - and 64% less likely if they have only received one shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. According to the latest figures from the CDC on May 10, there have been 32,543,257 reported cases of COVID in the U.S., of which 578,945 people have died. That's a rate of 1.8% - a higher rate compared to the data we have on breakthrough infections. However, the post claims that the death rate for vaccinated people is greater than the death rate for unvaccinated people, a number that experts say is difficult to quantify. Public health experts said that Smith likely miscalculated the death rate. 'What they're saying is completely wrong,' said Dr. Lee Riley, a professor and chair of the Division of Infectious Disease and Vaccinology at UC Berkeley. 'I think they're just miscalculating.' Erin Mordecai, an assistant professor of biology at Stanford University, agreed with Riley about the miscalculation, and cautioned against the comparison. She said it's impossible to accurately calculate a death rate for each group - vaccinated versus vaccinated - because demographics skew the data. 'Those breakthrough cases may not be an average subset of the population, they may be a more at risk group that's more likely to have severe disease anyway,' Mordecai said. 'To better understand what's going on with the relative risk, you would need to know the demographics of the underlying health conditions of the people who experienced those breakthrough cases and deaths.' For example, throughout the country the people most at risk were prioritized in vaccination, including by age. That means that the vaccinated population skews much older than the unvaccinated population, with adults ages 65 and older making up more than 30% of the vaccinated population. We already know that older adults are at a greater risk of requiring hospitalization or dying after being infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, so it's not surprising that most of these breakout deaths (45%) were among those ages 60 and older. California and Vaccinations According to the latest state data, more than 13 million Californians have been fully vaccinated - that's 32% of eligible Californians over 16 years of age. Almost half of eligible Californians have had at least one dose of the vaccine. 'The number of post vaccination cases remains small considering there are more than 12.9 million fully vaccinated individuals in California,' the California Department of Public Health said in a statement. 'Currently, 3,084 post-vaccination cases have been identified between January 1, 2021 and April 28, 2021.' To put that number in perspective, that's about 1 in 4,200 or so vaccinated Californians. Both of the public health experts we spoke to encouraged Californians to continue to get their COVID vaccines and help the state reach 'herd immunity.' Our Ruling An Instagram post deceptively uses CDC data on vaccine breakthrough infections to claim that 'the death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people].' That's not the case. Public health experts agree that this claim is false and that the author of the post likely miscalculated the death rates of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The experts we talked to also said that it's misleading to use these figures to calculate a death rate and compare it to the unvaccinated population. The vaccinated population skews much older than the unvaccinated population and are more likely to have underlying health conditions due to vaccination roll-out restrictions. The post also includes a screenshot of a Tweet to claim that 'the CDC has reported 7,157 fully vaccinated Americans have contracted COVID-19, 88 have died.' The figures on breakthrough infections are real - in fact, there are now more than 9,000 recorded cases, which have resulted in 132 deaths. But it is widely misleading to use these numbers as evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective, and the post leaves out crucial facts about breakthrough infections. We rate this statement as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | Our Ruling An Instagram post deceptively uses CDC data on vaccine breakthrough infections to claim that 'the death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people].' That's not the case. Public health experts agree that this claim is false and that the author of the post likely miscalculated the death rates of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The experts we talked to also said that it's misleading to use these figures to calculate a death rate and compare it to the unvaccinated population. The vaccinated population skews much older than the unvaccinated population and are more likely to have underlying health conditions due to vaccination roll-out restrictions. The post also includes a screenshot of a Tweet to claim that 'the CDC has reported 7,157 fully vaccinated Americans have contracted COVID-19, 88 have died.' The figures on breakthrough infections are real - in fact, there are now more than 9,000 recorded cases, which have resulted in 132 deaths. But it is widely misleading to use these numbers as evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective, and the post leaves out crucial facts about breakthrough infections. We rate this statement as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"105743-proof-08-KW3Dd9av0Ep-E_KE8KIRIXCMwstLthn7qLHbWOSp2En57gGvrS2AYxcofSuQXYCU9I3E7omTBBZhYJDg.jpg"
]
|
'The death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people]. | Contradiction | An Instagram post claimed that 'the death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people].' The post featured a screenshot of a tweet by Chuck Callesto, a former candidate for Florida's 3rd congressional district. The tweet reads, 'Breaking report: according to the CDC 7,157 fully vaccinated Americans have contracted COVID-19, 88 have died.' It appears the post has since been deleted from Callesto's Twitter. We've fact-checked several other claims about the purported effects of the COVID-19 vaccines and their effectiveness before, and we found them to be false. The numbers in the post come from actual figures provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In fact, the CDC's most recent data on breakthrough cases shows that, as of April 26, more than 9,000 COVID-19 breakthrough infections have been reported. However, these breakthrough infections are not evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective. Public health experts agreed that the author likely miscalculated the rate. Furthermore, they said that it's misleading to use these figures to calculate a death rate and compare it to the unvaccinated population. Facebook flagged this story as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) It had been shared more than 42,800 times when we first saw this post on April 30. The post no longer appears on the author's Instagram page, which has been flagged multiple times by Facebook for posting misleading and false information. Breakthrough Infections and Vaccine Effectiveness COVID-19 vaccines are effective. However, a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated will still get COVID-19 if they are exposed to the virus that causes it, according to the CDC. These infections are defined as 'vaccine breakthrough cases.' Vaccine breakthrough cases only occur in a small percentage of vaccinated people. And public health officials say that these cases actually reinforce the effectiveness of the vaccines, unlike the post suggests. As of May 4, more than 105 million people in the United States have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the CDC. During this same time, the CDC received 9,245 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections. That's less than .01% of fully vaccinated Americans. Vaccine breakthrough cases are expected. In the original clinical trials, none of the vaccines were 100% effective, nor have they ever claimed to be. No vaccine is 100% effective at preventing illness, according to public health experts and the CDC. So the vaccines are actually performing better in real-life situations than expected in some regards, according to the public health experts we interviewed. The CDC has acknowledged that these cases actually represent an undercount of the actual number of breakthrough vaccine infections. Since the surveillance system relies on voluntary reporting and testing, the total number of breakthrough infections is likely higher. 'Not all real-world breakthrough cases will be identified because of lack of testing,' the CDC's website reads. 'This is particularly true in instances of asymptomatic or mild illness.' That means that the CDC's data on breakthrough cases is skewed towards more severe infections that result in hospitalization or death. But it's worth acknowledging that more than a quarter of these cases were reported as asymptomatic, meaning that vaccinated individuals were 'infected with SARS-CoV-2 but never showed symptoms of the disease,' according to the CDC. Going forward, the CDC will be 'transitioning to reporting only patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or died to help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance,' according to their website. That change in reporting will begin on May 14. Comparing Death Rates Breakthrough infections have resulted in 835 hospitalizations and 132 deaths, according to the latest figures from CDC. The CDC's website notes that 20 of the 132 fatal cases were 'reported as asymptomatic or not related to COVID-19.' That means that less than 1% of these breakthrough infections resulted in the patient dying because of COVID-19 related illness. New data from the CDC found that fully vaccinated adults 65 or older are 94% less likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 than their non-vaccinated peers - and 64% less likely if they have only received one shot of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. According to the latest figures from the CDC on May 10, there have been 32,543,257 reported cases of COVID in the U.S., of which 578,945 people have died. That's a rate of 1.8% - a higher rate compared to the data we have on breakthrough infections. However, the post claims that the death rate for vaccinated people is greater than the death rate for unvaccinated people, a number that experts say is difficult to quantify. Public health experts said that Smith likely miscalculated the death rate. 'What they're saying is completely wrong,' said Dr. Lee Riley, a professor and chair of the Division of Infectious Disease and Vaccinology at UC Berkeley. 'I think they're just miscalculating.' Erin Mordecai, an assistant professor of biology at Stanford University, agreed with Riley about the miscalculation, and cautioned against the comparison. She said it's impossible to accurately calculate a death rate for each group - vaccinated versus vaccinated - because demographics skew the data. 'Those breakthrough cases may not be an average subset of the population, they may be a more at risk group that's more likely to have severe disease anyway,' Mordecai said. 'To better understand what's going on with the relative risk, you would need to know the demographics of the underlying health conditions of the people who experienced those breakthrough cases and deaths.' For example, throughout the country the people most at risk were prioritized in vaccination, including by age. That means that the vaccinated population skews much older than the unvaccinated population, with adults ages 65 and older making up more than 30% of the vaccinated population. We already know that older adults are at a greater risk of requiring hospitalization or dying after being infected with the virus that causes COVID-19, so it's not surprising that most of these breakout deaths (45%) were among those ages 60 and older. California and Vaccinations According to the latest state data, more than 13 million Californians have been fully vaccinated - that's 32% of eligible Californians over 16 years of age. Almost half of eligible Californians have had at least one dose of the vaccine. 'The number of post vaccination cases remains small considering there are more than 12.9 million fully vaccinated individuals in California,' the California Department of Public Health said in a statement. 'Currently, 3,084 post-vaccination cases have been identified between January 1, 2021 and April 28, 2021.' To put that number in perspective, that's about 1 in 4,200 or so vaccinated Californians. Both of the public health experts we spoke to encouraged Californians to continue to get their COVID vaccines and help the state reach 'herd immunity.' Our Ruling An Instagram post deceptively uses CDC data on vaccine breakthrough infections to claim that 'the death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people].' That's not the case. Public health experts agree that this claim is false and that the author of the post likely miscalculated the death rates of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The experts we talked to also said that it's misleading to use these figures to calculate a death rate and compare it to the unvaccinated population. The vaccinated population skews much older than the unvaccinated population and are more likely to have underlying health conditions due to vaccination roll-out restrictions. The post also includes a screenshot of a Tweet to claim that 'the CDC has reported 7,157 fully vaccinated Americans have contracted COVID-19, 88 have died.' The figures on breakthrough infections are real - in fact, there are now more than 9,000 recorded cases, which have resulted in 132 deaths. But it is widely misleading to use these numbers as evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective, and the post leaves out crucial facts about breakthrough infections. We rate this statement as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | Our Ruling An Instagram post deceptively uses CDC data on vaccine breakthrough infections to claim that 'the death rate for fully vaccinated people is significantly higher than non-vaccinated [people].' That's not the case. Public health experts agree that this claim is false and that the author of the post likely miscalculated the death rates of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The experts we talked to also said that it's misleading to use these figures to calculate a death rate and compare it to the unvaccinated population. The vaccinated population skews much older than the unvaccinated population and are more likely to have underlying health conditions due to vaccination roll-out restrictions. The post also includes a screenshot of a Tweet to claim that 'the CDC has reported 7,157 fully vaccinated Americans have contracted COVID-19, 88 have died.' The figures on breakthrough infections are real - in fact, there are now more than 9,000 recorded cases, which have resulted in 132 deaths. But it is widely misleading to use these numbers as evidence that vaccines are dangerous and ineffective, and the post leaves out crucial facts about breakthrough infections. We rate this statement as False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. | [
"105743-proof-08-KW3Dd9av0Ep-E_KE8KIRIXCMwstLthn7qLHbWOSp2En57gGvrS2AYxcofSuQXYCU9I3E7omTBBZhYJDg.jpg"
]
|
A new Facebook/Meta rule allows the company to use people's photos without their permission, and posting a notice on your page will stop it from doing so. | Contradiction | After Facebook announced that it changed its name to 'Meta,' a refurbished rumor surfaced that claims the company can freely use people's photos and messages. 'The new Facebook/Meta rule starts tomorrow where they can use your photos. Don't forget the deadline is today! This could be used in lawsuits against you. Everything you've ever posted is posted today - even messages that have been deleted. It doesn't cost anything, just copy and post, better than regretting later,' the warning message begins. The second half then instructs people to post a legal notice telling Facebook it isn't allowed to use their content: 'Under UCC Law Sections 1-207, 1-308... I am imposing my Reservation of Rights...I DO NOT ALLOW Facebook/Meta or any other Facebook/Meta related person to use my photos, information, messages or messages, both in the past and in the future. This statement I inform Facebook/Meta that it is strictly prohibited to disclose, copy, distribute or take any other action against me based on this account and / or its contents. This account content is private and confidential information. Violation of my personal life may be punished by law.' We've seen these posts about fake social media rules before, and this one is just as wrong as the others that came before it. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat potential false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no such rule change and posting a notice barring Facebook from implementing it doesn't have any effect. This online rumor first appeared in November 2012 when Facebook started trading publicly, and while the language is tweaked from earlier iterations, the message remains the same: Post this or else Facebook has control of your content. But users cannot just undo the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they first signed up and made an account. As well, simply posting a notice will not have any impact on new policy changes. Meanwhile, the company's data policy and terms of service haven't changed. 'The Facebook company is now Meta,' reads a disclaimer at the top of the company's terms of service page. 'While our company name is changing, we are continuing to offer the same products, including the Facebook app from Meta. Our Data Policy and Terms of Service remain in effect, and this name change does not affect how we use or share data.' The website adds: 'You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want.' While users own the rights to their content, they gave Facebook license to do certain things with that content when they signed up and agreed to the company's terms of service: 'When you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings).' But it isn't so much status updates or photos that Facebook is necessarily interested in, it's data. Facebook, as well as other websites, wants to know details like age, gender, marital status and general interests to help it better target advertisements to its users. | Our ruling Social media posts claim that Facebook has a new rule that gives the company permission to use your photos and that posting a notice on your page will bar it from doing so. This is an old hoax. There is no such rule change and posting a notice doesn't override the company's terms of use that users agree to when they sign up for an account. We rate it Pants on Fire! | []
|
A new Facebook/Meta rule allows the company to use people's photos without their permission, and posting a notice on your page will stop it from doing so. | Contradiction | After Facebook announced that it changed its name to 'Meta,' a refurbished rumor surfaced that claims the company can freely use people's photos and messages. 'The new Facebook/Meta rule starts tomorrow where they can use your photos. Don't forget the deadline is today! This could be used in lawsuits against you. Everything you've ever posted is posted today - even messages that have been deleted. It doesn't cost anything, just copy and post, better than regretting later,' the warning message begins. The second half then instructs people to post a legal notice telling Facebook it isn't allowed to use their content: 'Under UCC Law Sections 1-207, 1-308... I am imposing my Reservation of Rights...I DO NOT ALLOW Facebook/Meta or any other Facebook/Meta related person to use my photos, information, messages or messages, both in the past and in the future. This statement I inform Facebook/Meta that it is strictly prohibited to disclose, copy, distribute or take any other action against me based on this account and / or its contents. This account content is private and confidential information. Violation of my personal life may be punished by law.' We've seen these posts about fake social media rules before, and this one is just as wrong as the others that came before it. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat potential false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no such rule change and posting a notice barring Facebook from implementing it doesn't have any effect. This online rumor first appeared in November 2012 when Facebook started trading publicly, and while the language is tweaked from earlier iterations, the message remains the same: Post this or else Facebook has control of your content. But users cannot just undo the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they first signed up and made an account. As well, simply posting a notice will not have any impact on new policy changes. Meanwhile, the company's data policy and terms of service haven't changed. 'The Facebook company is now Meta,' reads a disclaimer at the top of the company's terms of service page. 'While our company name is changing, we are continuing to offer the same products, including the Facebook app from Meta. Our Data Policy and Terms of Service remain in effect, and this name change does not affect how we use or share data.' The website adds: 'You own the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and the other Facebook Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want.' While users own the rights to their content, they gave Facebook license to do certain things with that content when they signed up and agreed to the company's terms of service: 'When you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings).' But it isn't so much status updates or photos that Facebook is necessarily interested in, it's data. Facebook, as well as other websites, wants to know details like age, gender, marital status and general interests to help it better target advertisements to its users. | Our ruling Social media posts claim that Facebook has a new rule that gives the company permission to use your photos and that posting a notice on your page will bar it from doing so. This is an old hoax. There is no such rule change and posting a notice doesn't override the company's terms of use that users agree to when they sign up for an account. We rate it Pants on Fire! | []
|
'Tennessee new law passed 48 hours ago now makes it illegal to teach Black history in the grades K-12. | Contradiction | With controversy around the country over critical race theory, a viral Facebook post made a stark claim about schools in Tennessee. 'Tennessee new law passed 48 hours ago now makes it illegal to teach Black history in the grades K-12.' The Oct. 13 Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A law Tennessee adopted in May puts restrictions on certain concepts related to Black history By effectively banning the teaching of critical race theory, and allowing the state to withhold funding from public schools as punishment for violating the law. But schools are not prohibited from teaching the history of an ethnic group. What critical race theory is Critical race theory is a collection of ideas about systemic bias and privilege. It holds that racism is part of a broader pattern in America: It is woven into laws, and it shows up in who gets a job interview, the sort of home loans people are offered, how they are treated by police, and other facets of daily life. Conservative elected officials in about two dozen states have moved to prohibit critical race theory from being taught in public schools or state agencies. Critics say it presents solely a negative picture of the United States and is designed to make students feel bad about their country. 'Critical race theory' doesn't appear in the law The '48 hours ago' part of the claim is wrong. The GOP-controlled General Assembly adjourned its 2021 session more than five months before the post, on May 5. That day, it approved the critical race theory bill. The bill was signed later that month by Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican. The term critical race theory does not appear in the law; rather the law says schools 'shall not include or promote' 14 concepts 'as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program,' or allow teachers or other employees 'to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote' the concepts, which include: The law says schools are not prohibited from teaching the history of an ethnic group; 'the impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history; the impartial instruction on the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion, or geographic region.' David Barber, a history professor at the University of Tennessee at Martin, wrote that the Tennessee law's 'real intent is not to prevent our public schools from 'teaching' the superiority of one race over another, since no one is doing that. No, the real object here is to prevent educators from discussing nearly four centuries of white domination over Black people.' 'You cannot teach Black History - the history of this country from the perspective of Black people - without calling into question everything we know about ourselves and about our nation,' Barber wrote. The law has caused some teachers to seek state approval of their lesson plans. Beth Brown, president of the state teachers union, invited teachers to submit lesson plans to her, which she is sending without their names attached to the state education department to get pre-approval for anything potentially contentious, Reuters reported. She had received about 20 submissions, according to the Sept. 21 article. 'We are professionals with integrity, we are committed to doing our jobs well, to providing a well-rounded and high-quality education to our students. Sometimes that includes conversations about difficult topics that have occurred in history,' Brown has said. 'This law is a slap in the face of Tennessee's educators, it is a disservice to our students.' | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that a Tennessee law 'passed 48 hours ago now makes it illegal to teach Black history in the grades K-12.' A Tennessee law adopted in May does not prohibit the teaching of Black history in public schools. The law does impose restrictions on teaching by banning critical race theory, which is a collection of ideas about systemic bias and privilege. The law prohibits the teaching of certain concepts, including that 'an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously'; and that 'an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.' The statement contains an element of truth but gives a misleading impression of the scope of the law. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"105758-proof-00-d0f7806d89b47450d21d45c0a01fdb9f.jpg"
]
|
'Tennessee new law passed 48 hours ago now makes it illegal to teach Black history in the grades K-12. | Contradiction | With controversy around the country over critical race theory, a viral Facebook post made a stark claim about schools in Tennessee. 'Tennessee new law passed 48 hours ago now makes it illegal to teach Black history in the grades K-12.' The Oct. 13 Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A law Tennessee adopted in May puts restrictions on certain concepts related to Black history By effectively banning the teaching of critical race theory, and allowing the state to withhold funding from public schools as punishment for violating the law. But schools are not prohibited from teaching the history of an ethnic group. What critical race theory is Critical race theory is a collection of ideas about systemic bias and privilege. It holds that racism is part of a broader pattern in America: It is woven into laws, and it shows up in who gets a job interview, the sort of home loans people are offered, how they are treated by police, and other facets of daily life. Conservative elected officials in about two dozen states have moved to prohibit critical race theory from being taught in public schools or state agencies. Critics say it presents solely a negative picture of the United States and is designed to make students feel bad about their country. 'Critical race theory' doesn't appear in the law The '48 hours ago' part of the claim is wrong. The GOP-controlled General Assembly adjourned its 2021 session more than five months before the post, on May 5. That day, it approved the critical race theory bill. The bill was signed later that month by Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican. The term critical race theory does not appear in the law; rather the law says schools 'shall not include or promote' 14 concepts 'as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program,' or allow teachers or other employees 'to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote' the concepts, which include: The law says schools are not prohibited from teaching the history of an ethnic group; 'the impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history; the impartial instruction on the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion, or geographic region.' David Barber, a history professor at the University of Tennessee at Martin, wrote that the Tennessee law's 'real intent is not to prevent our public schools from 'teaching' the superiority of one race over another, since no one is doing that. No, the real object here is to prevent educators from discussing nearly four centuries of white domination over Black people.' 'You cannot teach Black History - the history of this country from the perspective of Black people - without calling into question everything we know about ourselves and about our nation,' Barber wrote. The law has caused some teachers to seek state approval of their lesson plans. Beth Brown, president of the state teachers union, invited teachers to submit lesson plans to her, which she is sending without their names attached to the state education department to get pre-approval for anything potentially contentious, Reuters reported. She had received about 20 submissions, according to the Sept. 21 article. 'We are professionals with integrity, we are committed to doing our jobs well, to providing a well-rounded and high-quality education to our students. Sometimes that includes conversations about difficult topics that have occurred in history,' Brown has said. 'This law is a slap in the face of Tennessee's educators, it is a disservice to our students.' | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that a Tennessee law 'passed 48 hours ago now makes it illegal to teach Black history in the grades K-12.' A Tennessee law adopted in May does not prohibit the teaching of Black history in public schools. The law does impose restrictions on teaching by banning critical race theory, which is a collection of ideas about systemic bias and privilege. The law prohibits the teaching of certain concepts, including that 'an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously'; and that 'an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.' The statement contains an element of truth but gives a misleading impression of the scope of the law. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"105758-proof-00-d0f7806d89b47450d21d45c0a01fdb9f.jpg"
]
|
'Tennessee new law passed 48 hours ago now makes it illegal to teach Black history in the grades K-12. | Contradiction | With controversy around the country over critical race theory, a viral Facebook post made a stark claim about schools in Tennessee. 'Tennessee new law passed 48 hours ago now makes it illegal to teach Black history in the grades K-12.' The Oct. 13 Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A law Tennessee adopted in May puts restrictions on certain concepts related to Black history By effectively banning the teaching of critical race theory, and allowing the state to withhold funding from public schools as punishment for violating the law. But schools are not prohibited from teaching the history of an ethnic group. What critical race theory is Critical race theory is a collection of ideas about systemic bias and privilege. It holds that racism is part of a broader pattern in America: It is woven into laws, and it shows up in who gets a job interview, the sort of home loans people are offered, how they are treated by police, and other facets of daily life. Conservative elected officials in about two dozen states have moved to prohibit critical race theory from being taught in public schools or state agencies. Critics say it presents solely a negative picture of the United States and is designed to make students feel bad about their country. 'Critical race theory' doesn't appear in the law The '48 hours ago' part of the claim is wrong. The GOP-controlled General Assembly adjourned its 2021 session more than five months before the post, on May 5. That day, it approved the critical race theory bill. The bill was signed later that month by Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican. The term critical race theory does not appear in the law; rather the law says schools 'shall not include or promote' 14 concepts 'as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program,' or allow teachers or other employees 'to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote' the concepts, which include: The law says schools are not prohibited from teaching the history of an ethnic group; 'the impartial discussion of controversial aspects of history; the impartial instruction on the historical oppression of a particular group of people based on race, ethnicity, class, nationality, religion, or geographic region.' David Barber, a history professor at the University of Tennessee at Martin, wrote that the Tennessee law's 'real intent is not to prevent our public schools from 'teaching' the superiority of one race over another, since no one is doing that. No, the real object here is to prevent educators from discussing nearly four centuries of white domination over Black people.' 'You cannot teach Black History - the history of this country from the perspective of Black people - without calling into question everything we know about ourselves and about our nation,' Barber wrote. The law has caused some teachers to seek state approval of their lesson plans. Beth Brown, president of the state teachers union, invited teachers to submit lesson plans to her, which she is sending without their names attached to the state education department to get pre-approval for anything potentially contentious, Reuters reported. She had received about 20 submissions, according to the Sept. 21 article. 'We are professionals with integrity, we are committed to doing our jobs well, to providing a well-rounded and high-quality education to our students. Sometimes that includes conversations about difficult topics that have occurred in history,' Brown has said. 'This law is a slap in the face of Tennessee's educators, it is a disservice to our students.' | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that a Tennessee law 'passed 48 hours ago now makes it illegal to teach Black history in the grades K-12.' A Tennessee law adopted in May does not prohibit the teaching of Black history in public schools. The law does impose restrictions on teaching by banning critical race theory, which is a collection of ideas about systemic bias and privilege. The law prohibits the teaching of certain concepts, including that 'an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously'; and that 'an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.' The statement contains an element of truth but gives a misleading impression of the scope of the law. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"105758-proof-00-d0f7806d89b47450d21d45c0a01fdb9f.jpg"
]
|
'Biden is computer generated.' | Contradiction | An eight-hour video recently posted on Facebook makes multiple wild and unfounded allegations about President Joe Biden, including a claim that appears in the video's title: 'Biden is computer generated.' This comes up about two hours into the video, when the host discusses a clip of the president walking to a waiting helicopter on the White House grounds on March 16. Biden stopped and briefly spoke with reporters before boarding the helicopter that day, and we've previously debunked claims that the interview was faked and that Biden was standing in front of a green screen. This Facebook post goes further. Focusing on a clip of the president in which the top of his head seems to disappear against the sky, the host says, 'This is not Joe Biden making an appearance.' 'What you're actually seeing here is a holographic image of Joe Biden being transmitted from behind the scenes,' he 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.) Another version of the video shows that Biden's head is not cut off. While his white hair blends into the cloud-covered sky, he was appearing in person in front of a group of reporters. And journalists from multiple news outlets were there to witness it. Both The Hill and the Washington Post published footage of the president, and Steve Herman, a Voice of America reporter, tweeted about rumors that the president had faked the interview. 'I was the one holding the lighter-colored fuzzy microphone and thus literally in front of @POTUS on the South Lawn,' Herman wrote. 'It's all real.' Other images from that day show the president, microphones and reporters from other angles. In a Reuters image taken by photographer Tom Brenner, Biden can be seen from the side talking to reporters who are standing several feet away with their microphones extended. A Getty Images shot by photographer Drew Angerer, shows Biden standing behind the microphones from below. We rate claims that Biden appeared as a 'computer generated' image Pants on Fire. | We rate claims that Biden appeared as a 'computer generated' image Pants on Fire. | []
|
'Biden is computer generated.' | Contradiction | An eight-hour video recently posted on Facebook makes multiple wild and unfounded allegations about President Joe Biden, including a claim that appears in the video's title: 'Biden is computer generated.' This comes up about two hours into the video, when the host discusses a clip of the president walking to a waiting helicopter on the White House grounds on March 16. Biden stopped and briefly spoke with reporters before boarding the helicopter that day, and we've previously debunked claims that the interview was faked and that Biden was standing in front of a green screen. This Facebook post goes further. Focusing on a clip of the president in which the top of his head seems to disappear against the sky, the host says, 'This is not Joe Biden making an appearance.' 'What you're actually seeing here is a holographic image of Joe Biden being transmitted from behind the scenes,' he 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.) Another version of the video shows that Biden's head is not cut off. While his white hair blends into the cloud-covered sky, he was appearing in person in front of a group of reporters. And journalists from multiple news outlets were there to witness it. Both The Hill and the Washington Post published footage of the president, and Steve Herman, a Voice of America reporter, tweeted about rumors that the president had faked the interview. 'I was the one holding the lighter-colored fuzzy microphone and thus literally in front of @POTUS on the South Lawn,' Herman wrote. 'It's all real.' Other images from that day show the president, microphones and reporters from other angles. In a Reuters image taken by photographer Tom Brenner, Biden can be seen from the side talking to reporters who are standing several feet away with their microphones extended. A Getty Images shot by photographer Drew Angerer, shows Biden standing behind the microphones from below. We rate claims that Biden appeared as a 'computer generated' image Pants on Fire. | We rate claims that Biden appeared as a 'computer generated' image Pants on Fire. | []
|
'Active crime scene in Spalding County, Ga., where ballots for President Donald Trump were discovered in a dumpster. | Contradiction | The deadline for overseas absentee ballots to be received at county election offices in Georgia, or for voters there to correct problems with provisional and absentee ballots, is Nov. 6. So news that law enforcement officials discovered ballots for President Donald Trump in a dumpster in Spalding County, south of Atlanta, is understandably alarming. But the Republican sheriff there says that's misinformation - no ballots were discovered. One video posted on Facebook shows people gathered around a dumpster and looking at piles of papers. '2020 ELECTION FRAUD ALERT,' the post said. 'Active crime scene in Spalding County, Georgia where ballots for President Donald Trump were discovered in a dumpster.' 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.) Here's what happened, according to a Nov. 6 statement from Spalding County Sheriff Darrell Dix. The sheriff's office received a report on Nov. 5 about paperwork found in a dumpster behind the Spalding County Elections Office. A sheriff's office supervisor went to the office and then called the sheriff to confirm that there was paperwork in the dumpster. Dix told the supervisor to clear the area around the dumpster, block it off with crime scene tape, and ask investigators to report to the scene. Investigators photographed and documented the dumpster and its contents, according to Dix, and then they bagged everything that was in the dumpster and brought it back to the sheriff's office. Dix said he also dispatched deputies to all of the county's polling places to check the dumpsters and trash for election materials; none were discovered, he said. At 9 a.m. on Nov. 5, an investigator from the Georgia secretary of state's office arrived at the sheriff's office and reviewed the documents recovered from the elections office dumpster, Dix statement said. In the end, no ballots were found in the documents from the dumpster. 'What we found were empty envelopes that were used to mail ballots to the elections office,' Dix said. 'Those envelopes are marked 'ballot.' Each had been opened and they were all empty.' Dix added that documents found in the dumpster were improperly disposed of but did not elaborate. However, no ballots cast for Trump - or cast for anyone - were discovered. 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. | []
|
'Active crime scene in Spalding County, Ga., where ballots for President Donald Trump were discovered in a dumpster. | Contradiction | The deadline for overseas absentee ballots to be received at county election offices in Georgia, or for voters there to correct problems with provisional and absentee ballots, is Nov. 6. So news that law enforcement officials discovered ballots for President Donald Trump in a dumpster in Spalding County, south of Atlanta, is understandably alarming. But the Republican sheriff there says that's misinformation - no ballots were discovered. One video posted on Facebook shows people gathered around a dumpster and looking at piles of papers. '2020 ELECTION FRAUD ALERT,' the post said. 'Active crime scene in Spalding County, Georgia where ballots for President Donald Trump were discovered in a dumpster.' 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.) Here's what happened, according to a Nov. 6 statement from Spalding County Sheriff Darrell Dix. The sheriff's office received a report on Nov. 5 about paperwork found in a dumpster behind the Spalding County Elections Office. A sheriff's office supervisor went to the office and then called the sheriff to confirm that there was paperwork in the dumpster. Dix told the supervisor to clear the area around the dumpster, block it off with crime scene tape, and ask investigators to report to the scene. Investigators photographed and documented the dumpster and its contents, according to Dix, and then they bagged everything that was in the dumpster and brought it back to the sheriff's office. Dix said he also dispatched deputies to all of the county's polling places to check the dumpsters and trash for election materials; none were discovered, he said. At 9 a.m. on Nov. 5, an investigator from the Georgia secretary of state's office arrived at the sheriff's office and reviewed the documents recovered from the elections office dumpster, Dix statement said. In the end, no ballots were found in the documents from the dumpster. 'What we found were empty envelopes that were used to mail ballots to the elections office,' Dix said. 'Those envelopes are marked 'ballot.' Each had been opened and they were all empty.' Dix added that documents found in the dumpster were improperly disposed of but did not elaborate. However, no ballots cast for Trump - or cast for anyone - were discovered. 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. | []
|
Quotes Donald Trump as saying, 'I'll tell you the funniest thing. I'll go backstage before a Miss Teen USA show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything and no men are anywhere. ... You know, I'm inspecting. The girls (14-16) are standing there with no clothes on. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump, a former beauty pageant owner, has come under fire for his behavior around contestants. But a post is distorting remarks Trump made about his actions at Miss Universe pageants to make it sound like he boasted about walking into a changing room full of Miss Teen USA pageant contestants as young as 14 and 'inspecting.' A Facebook post quotes Trump as saying, 'I'll tell you the funniest thing. I'll go backstage before a Miss Teen USA show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything and no men are anywhere. And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it.' Beneath the first part of the quote there is a photo of Trump beside a photo of four contestants at the 2007 Miss Teen USA pageant. 'You know, I'm inspecting,' the quote continues. 'The girls (14-16) are standing there with no clothes on. And you see these incredible looking women (teens), and so, I sort of get away with things like that.' 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 isn't what Trump said. It's an alteration of comments Trump made during a 2005 interview with radio personality Howard Stern regarding Miss Universe and Miss USA pageants. In the exchange, Stern asks Trump if, in the years he owned Miss Universe and Miss USA, there were times he had sex with the contestants, all of whom are over age 18. Trump first answers, 'I never comment on things like that.' After more than two minutes of back and forth, Trump says: 'Well, I'll tell you the funniest is that I'll go backstage before a show, and everyone's getting dressed, and ready and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it. You know, I'm inspecting because I want to make sure that everything is good. 'You know, the dresses. 'Is everyone okay?' You know, they're standing there with no clothes. 'Is everybody okay?' And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that. But no, I've been very good.' After audio of the Stern interview resurfaced during Trump's 2016 run for president, Miss USA 2001 contestant Tasha Dixon told a Los Angeles TV station that Trump had walked into the Miss USA dressing room when contestants were not fully clothed. Miss Teen USA contestants' allegations While there is no evidence that Trump boasted about viewing minors unclothed as this Facebook post claims, five Miss Teen USA 1997 contestants did allege in 2016 that Trump walked into the dressing room as contestants - some as young as 15 years old - were changing. Buzzfeed reported the allegations against Trump in 2016, when he was the Republican presidential nominee. A fifth contestant later came forward, also alleging that Trump came into the dressing room as contestants were changing. Buzzfeed reported that 11 other contestants from the 1997 Miss Teen USA pageant said they 'did not recall' Trump entering the dressing room. The Trump campaign issued a statement denying the allegations when they emerged, saying they have 'no merit.' | Our ruling A Facebook post quotes President Trump as saying, 'I'll tell you the funniest thing. I'll go backstage before a Miss Teen USA show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything and no men are anywhere. ... You know, I'm inspecting. The girls (14-16) are standing there with no clothes on.' The post distorts remarks Trump made when speaking with radio show host Howard Stern in 2005. At the time, Trump was talking about his behavior during the Miss Universe and Miss USA pageants, where all contestants are over the age of 18. Five former Miss Teen USA contestants have accused Trump of walking into the dressing room when girls were changing during the 1997 pageant. But there is no evidence he said this quote about the Miss Teen USA pageant. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Quotes Donald Trump as saying, 'I'll tell you the funniest thing. I'll go backstage before a Miss Teen USA show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything and no men are anywhere. ... You know, I'm inspecting. The girls (14-16) are standing there with no clothes on. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump, a former beauty pageant owner, has come under fire for his behavior around contestants. But a post is distorting remarks Trump made about his actions at Miss Universe pageants to make it sound like he boasted about walking into a changing room full of Miss Teen USA pageant contestants as young as 14 and 'inspecting.' A Facebook post quotes Trump as saying, 'I'll tell you the funniest thing. I'll go backstage before a Miss Teen USA show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything and no men are anywhere. And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it.' Beneath the first part of the quote there is a photo of Trump beside a photo of four contestants at the 2007 Miss Teen USA pageant. 'You know, I'm inspecting,' the quote continues. 'The girls (14-16) are standing there with no clothes on. And you see these incredible looking women (teens), and so, I sort of get away with things like that.' 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 isn't what Trump said. It's an alteration of comments Trump made during a 2005 interview with radio personality Howard Stern regarding Miss Universe and Miss USA pageants. In the exchange, Stern asks Trump if, in the years he owned Miss Universe and Miss USA, there were times he had sex with the contestants, all of whom are over age 18. Trump first answers, 'I never comment on things like that.' After more than two minutes of back and forth, Trump says: 'Well, I'll tell you the funniest is that I'll go backstage before a show, and everyone's getting dressed, and ready and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it. You know, I'm inspecting because I want to make sure that everything is good. 'You know, the dresses. 'Is everyone okay?' You know, they're standing there with no clothes. 'Is everybody okay?' And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that. But no, I've been very good.' After audio of the Stern interview resurfaced during Trump's 2016 run for president, Miss USA 2001 contestant Tasha Dixon told a Los Angeles TV station that Trump had walked into the Miss USA dressing room when contestants were not fully clothed. Miss Teen USA contestants' allegations While there is no evidence that Trump boasted about viewing minors unclothed as this Facebook post claims, five Miss Teen USA 1997 contestants did allege in 2016 that Trump walked into the dressing room as contestants - some as young as 15 years old - were changing. Buzzfeed reported the allegations against Trump in 2016, when he was the Republican presidential nominee. A fifth contestant later came forward, also alleging that Trump came into the dressing room as contestants were changing. Buzzfeed reported that 11 other contestants from the 1997 Miss Teen USA pageant said they 'did not recall' Trump entering the dressing room. The Trump campaign issued a statement denying the allegations when they emerged, saying they have 'no merit.' | Our ruling A Facebook post quotes President Trump as saying, 'I'll tell you the funniest thing. I'll go backstage before a Miss Teen USA show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything and no men are anywhere. ... You know, I'm inspecting. The girls (14-16) are standing there with no clothes on.' The post distorts remarks Trump made when speaking with radio show host Howard Stern in 2005. At the time, Trump was talking about his behavior during the Miss Universe and Miss USA pageants, where all contestants are over the age of 18. Five former Miss Teen USA contestants have accused Trump of walking into the dressing room when girls were changing during the 1997 pageant. But there is no evidence he said this quote about the Miss Teen USA pageant. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Coroner saying George Floyd died of drug overdose, not police brutality. | Contradiction | A blog post being shared on Facebook has a headline that contradicts reality in the killing of George Floyd, who died after a Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee into Floyd's neck on May 25. 'Coroner saying George Floyd died of drug overdose, not police brutality,' the Aug. 27 post says. As evidence, it cites comments from Andrew Baker, the chief medical examiner in Hennepin County, who performed an autopsy on Floyd. But Baker didn't say that Floyd died of a drug overdose. The medical examiner's office ruled that the manner of Floyd's death was homicide. The cause of death, according to the medical examiner, was 'cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.' The report goes on to say that Floyd 'experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained' by law enforcement officers. What that means: Floyd's heart stopped as Chauvin restrained him. 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.) Here's what else you should know. The county medical examiner noted significant conditions related to Floyd's death. Arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use. Derek Chauvin, the officer who pressed his knee into Floyd's neck, was fired from the Minneapolis Police Department and he's been charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslauter in Floyd's death. Documents filed in that case include handwritten notes from a law enforcement interview with Baker, the medical examiner, a local NBC News affiliate reported on Aug. 26. Baker said that Floyd's toxicology report showed he had a 'fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances' and that 'if he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD.' Baker also said: 'I am not saying this killed him.' Chauvin's lawyer is asking the judge to drop the charges in the case against the ex-police officer, arguing that Floyd died from a drug overdose and not because Chauvin put his knee on Floyd's neck. But the results of the two autopsies in this case don't support that. One, requested by Floyd's family, and conducted by two doctors also found that Floyd's death was a homicide, though it concluded that they thought he died of asphyxia - or suffocation - not cardiopulmonary arrest as the county medical examiner concluded. We rate this blog post False. | We rate this blog post False. | []
|
'Coroner saying George Floyd died of drug overdose, not police brutality. | Contradiction | A blog post being shared on Facebook has a headline that contradicts reality in the killing of George Floyd, who died after a Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee into Floyd's neck on May 25. 'Coroner saying George Floyd died of drug overdose, not police brutality,' the Aug. 27 post says. As evidence, it cites comments from Andrew Baker, the chief medical examiner in Hennepin County, who performed an autopsy on Floyd. But Baker didn't say that Floyd died of a drug overdose. The medical examiner's office ruled that the manner of Floyd's death was homicide. The cause of death, according to the medical examiner, was 'cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.' The report goes on to say that Floyd 'experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained' by law enforcement officers. What that means: Floyd's heart stopped as Chauvin restrained him. 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.) Here's what else you should know. The county medical examiner noted significant conditions related to Floyd's death. Arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease, fentanyl intoxication, and recent methamphetamine use. Derek Chauvin, the officer who pressed his knee into Floyd's neck, was fired from the Minneapolis Police Department and he's been charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslauter in Floyd's death. Documents filed in that case include handwritten notes from a law enforcement interview with Baker, the medical examiner, a local NBC News affiliate reported on Aug. 26. Baker said that Floyd's toxicology report showed he had a 'fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances' and that 'if he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD.' Baker also said: 'I am not saying this killed him.' Chauvin's lawyer is asking the judge to drop the charges in the case against the ex-police officer, arguing that Floyd died from a drug overdose and not because Chauvin put his knee on Floyd's neck. But the results of the two autopsies in this case don't support that. One, requested by Floyd's family, and conducted by two doctors also found that Floyd's death was a homicide, though it concluded that they thought he died of asphyxia - or suffocation - not cardiopulmonary arrest as the county medical examiner concluded. We rate this blog post False. | We rate this blog post False. | []
|
Photo shows 'the plane that brings our dead military home. It is made so that when they shoot their salute for their service it looks like an angel carrying them home. | Contradiction | An image of what looks like a plane shooting flares mid-flight so that it appears adorned with angel's wings is again being shared on social media with old misinformation. 'This is the plane that brings our dead military home,' one Facebook post says. 'It is made so that when they shoot their salute for their service it looks like an angel carrying them home. Their call sign is angel flight and they have priority in US air space.' But this is wrong. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Facebook) We reached out to the U.S. Defense Department about the post. A public affairs duty officer told PolitiFact that flares aren't used on U.S. military aircraft to return fallen service members. 'They are only used for defensive maneuvers,' the officer said in an email. And 'Angel Flight' isn't an official military term. Fallen military members are returned from overseas to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware 'by the most expedient means possible,' according to Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations. In 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that employees of the Air Force's Air Mobility Command 'function as the nation's pallbearers, ferrying flag-draped remains' to the base. The Pentagon employs four companies, including UPS and Federal Express, to help bring bodies back to Dover, the newspaper said. Some of the dead are flown back on civilian planes while others are returned via military aircraft. We couldn't identify the plane in the Facebook post, but the claim isn't a new one. Snopes looked into a similar post back in 2017. Then, the fact-checking site reported that it appears to be a Russian Ilyushin Il-76. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
Photo shows 'the plane that brings our dead military home. It is made so that when they shoot their salute for their service it looks like an angel carrying them home. | Contradiction | An image of what looks like a plane shooting flares mid-flight so that it appears adorned with angel's wings is again being shared on social media with old misinformation. 'This is the plane that brings our dead military home,' one Facebook post says. 'It is made so that when they shoot their salute for their service it looks like an angel carrying them home. Their call sign is angel flight and they have priority in US air space.' But this is wrong. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Facebook) We reached out to the U.S. Defense Department about the post. A public affairs duty officer told PolitiFact that flares aren't used on U.S. military aircraft to return fallen service members. 'They are only used for defensive maneuvers,' the officer said in an email. And 'Angel Flight' isn't an official military term. Fallen military members are returned from overseas to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware 'by the most expedient means possible,' according to Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations. In 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that employees of the Air Force's Air Mobility Command 'function as the nation's pallbearers, ferrying flag-draped remains' to the base. The Pentagon employs four companies, including UPS and Federal Express, to help bring bodies back to Dover, the newspaper said. Some of the dead are flown back on civilian planes while others are returned via military aircraft. We couldn't identify the plane in the Facebook post, but the claim isn't a new one. Snopes looked into a similar post back in 2017. Then, the fact-checking site reported that it appears to be a Russian Ilyushin Il-76. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
Photo shows 'the plane that brings our dead military home. It is made so that when they shoot their salute for their service it looks like an angel carrying them home. | Contradiction | An image of what looks like a plane shooting flares mid-flight so that it appears adorned with angel's wings is again being shared on social media with old misinformation. 'This is the plane that brings our dead military home,' one Facebook post says. 'It is made so that when they shoot their salute for their service it looks like an angel carrying them home. Their call sign is angel flight and they have priority in US air space.' But this is wrong. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Facebook) We reached out to the U.S. Defense Department about the post. A public affairs duty officer told PolitiFact that flares aren't used on U.S. military aircraft to return fallen service members. 'They are only used for defensive maneuvers,' the officer said in an email. And 'Angel Flight' isn't an official military term. Fallen military members are returned from overseas to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware 'by the most expedient means possible,' according to Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations. In 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that employees of the Air Force's Air Mobility Command 'function as the nation's pallbearers, ferrying flag-draped remains' to the base. The Pentagon employs four companies, including UPS and Federal Express, to help bring bodies back to Dover, the newspaper said. Some of the dead are flown back on civilian planes while others are returned via military aircraft. We couldn't identify the plane in the Facebook post, but the claim isn't a new one. Snopes looked into a similar post back in 2017. Then, the fact-checking site reported that it appears to be a Russian Ilyushin Il-76. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
'There are 43 states that have now passed voter suppression laws. | Contradiction | One of the biggest political controversies today involves laws that govern voting and elections. In Washington, D.C., Democrats passed a bill that would use national standards to preempt many of the proposed state laws pushed by Republicans. State by state, Republican legislators have offered measures that tighten procedures for registering to vote and casting a ballot. Republicans say these proposals would target voter fraud, but Democrats counter that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, and that these proposals would unfairly disenfranchise voters. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the third-ranking Democrat in the House leadership, touted the House bill on MSNBC on March 25. 'There are 43 states that have now passed voter suppression laws,' Clyburn said. 'So I believe, and I've talked to Sen. (Jeff) Merkley about this, I said to him, if you've got 43 states, that's only seven short of all 50 states. We ought to make the Voting Rights Act apply to all 50 states. Just put it out there and have it applied (to) all 50 states. Because 43 have now proved that they needed it to apply for it. Every state will be treated alike.' A reader emailed us, suggesting that we check the claim. The reader noted that if 43 states have enacted such restrictive laws, that number would include a lot of solidly Democratic states - and that would run counter to the conventional thinking that Democratic states favor easing restrictions on voting, not tightening them. The reader was correct to question Clyburn's statement. When we checked with Clyburn's office, a spokesperson told us, 'Yes, he misspoke.' Clyburn appears to have been thinking of a widely shared finding by the liberal Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. In February, the group published a report detailing efforts at the state level to enact bills that either restrict or expand voting-related procedures. (The term 'voter suppression' is hard to define and is subject to dispute, but for the purposes of this fact-check, we'll stipulate that it means proposals to tighten registration or voting procedures.) The group counted 253 voting-restrictive bills that had been proposed in 43 states. (It also found 704 bills to expand voting access in a different set of 43 states.) Some states, notably Iowa and Georgia, have passed significant bills that tighten prior election rules. But because many state legislatures are still in session, most of the measures tracked by the Brennan Center have not yet had a final vote. And the restrictive bills proposed by Republicans in Democratic-controlled states face no clear route to passage. The bottom line is that the standard used by the Brennan Center was to track laws that had been 'proposed.' Due to Clyburn's mistake in the interview, a viewer would take away the message that many more states had actually enacted restrictive election laws than have done so in reality. | Our ruling Clyburn said, 'There are 43 states that have now passed voter suppression laws.' His office acknowledged to PolitiFact that he misspoke. Bills to restrict voting procedures have been proposed in 43 states - not passed. That's a significant distinction, because any lawmaker in a chamber controlled by the other party can propose a bill, but it's vastly harder to actually enact the legislation into law. We rate the statement False. | [
"105792-proof-09-b88f1bc214244b387a27ceaac072cdbd.jpg"
]
|
'There are 43 states that have now passed voter suppression laws. | Contradiction | One of the biggest political controversies today involves laws that govern voting and elections. In Washington, D.C., Democrats passed a bill that would use national standards to preempt many of the proposed state laws pushed by Republicans. State by state, Republican legislators have offered measures that tighten procedures for registering to vote and casting a ballot. Republicans say these proposals would target voter fraud, but Democrats counter that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent, and that these proposals would unfairly disenfranchise voters. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the third-ranking Democrat in the House leadership, touted the House bill on MSNBC on March 25. 'There are 43 states that have now passed voter suppression laws,' Clyburn said. 'So I believe, and I've talked to Sen. (Jeff) Merkley about this, I said to him, if you've got 43 states, that's only seven short of all 50 states. We ought to make the Voting Rights Act apply to all 50 states. Just put it out there and have it applied (to) all 50 states. Because 43 have now proved that they needed it to apply for it. Every state will be treated alike.' A reader emailed us, suggesting that we check the claim. The reader noted that if 43 states have enacted such restrictive laws, that number would include a lot of solidly Democratic states - and that would run counter to the conventional thinking that Democratic states favor easing restrictions on voting, not tightening them. The reader was correct to question Clyburn's statement. When we checked with Clyburn's office, a spokesperson told us, 'Yes, he misspoke.' Clyburn appears to have been thinking of a widely shared finding by the liberal Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School. In February, the group published a report detailing efforts at the state level to enact bills that either restrict or expand voting-related procedures. (The term 'voter suppression' is hard to define and is subject to dispute, but for the purposes of this fact-check, we'll stipulate that it means proposals to tighten registration or voting procedures.) The group counted 253 voting-restrictive bills that had been proposed in 43 states. (It also found 704 bills to expand voting access in a different set of 43 states.) Some states, notably Iowa and Georgia, have passed significant bills that tighten prior election rules. But because many state legislatures are still in session, most of the measures tracked by the Brennan Center have not yet had a final vote. And the restrictive bills proposed by Republicans in Democratic-controlled states face no clear route to passage. The bottom line is that the standard used by the Brennan Center was to track laws that had been 'proposed.' Due to Clyburn's mistake in the interview, a viewer would take away the message that many more states had actually enacted restrictive election laws than have done so in reality. | Our ruling Clyburn said, 'There are 43 states that have now passed voter suppression laws.' His office acknowledged to PolitiFact that he misspoke. Bills to restrict voting procedures have been proposed in 43 states - not passed. That's a significant distinction, because any lawmaker in a chamber controlled by the other party can propose a bill, but it's vastly harder to actually enact the legislation into law. We rate the statement False. | [
"105792-proof-09-b88f1bc214244b387a27ceaac072cdbd.jpg"
]
|
'If you have the Flu... get these two items... Sambucol (and) Oscillococcinum... in 48 hours you will feel better. In 72 hours you will be almost symptom-free. | Contradiction | You wouldn't expect drops that taste like 'sweet tarts' or elderberry syrup to cure anything, but one Facebook post claims that these homeopathic supplements can rid you of flu symptoms after only three days. This post, which has been shared more than 70,000 times, was flagged by Facebook as part of efforts to combat false news and information on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post from Nov. 15, 2019, claimed that Sambucol, an elderberry extract, and Oscillococcinum, a diluted duck heart and liver pill, offer flu relief. 'A nurse friend taught me this,' the post says. 'If you have the Flu... get these two items... Sambucol [and] Oscillococcinum... in 48 hours you will feel better. In 72 hours you will be almost symptom-free.' The medical community is still debating how effective these supplements are, with a few small studies showing positive results. While doctors agree that Sambucol has the most flu-fighting potential, there is little evidence that Oscillococcinum can considerably shorten the length of the flu. Both Sambucol and Oscillococcinum's websites note that their claims to treat influenza symptoms 'have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.' The Mayo Clinic recommends using an antiviral drug like Tamiflu if you 'have severe infection or are at higher risk for complications.' Effectiveness of Sambucol Sambucol is an elderberry extract that originates in folk medicine, where elderberries were used to treat various illnesses, including sinus congestion, sore throat, common cold and rheumatism. Elderberries contain tannins and viburnic acid, which have been shown to help with nasal congestion and to improve respiration. They also have one of the three highest anti-inflammatory capacities ever seen in fruit or berries, according to a study from the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. A study in 2001 found that Sambucol has antiviral properties and was connected to an increase in the inflammatory cytokines found in patients' blood, effectively activating the immune systems of influenza patients. A small 2004 study of the healing properties of Sambucol in Norway found that otherwise-healthy flu patients treated with the elderberry extract had symptom relief on average four days earlier than the placebo group. Patients treated with Sambucol had no symptoms after 48 to 72 hours. The study found that Sambucol 'seems to offer an efficient, safe and cost-effective treatment for influenza.' The study included only 80 influenza patients, and the administrators called for a larger study of elderberry extracts to verify their findings. Effectiveness of Oscillococcinum Oscillococcinum is made from highly diluted heart and liver of wild duck, but essentially no molecules of duck heart or liver are found in the actual pill, according to Pharmacy Times. Cochrane, an independent health care research center, did a review of Oscillococcinum trials in 2015. Cochrane found that Oscillococcinum did not prevent the flu in preventative trials, and that the trials that 'proved' the supplement helped with flu symptoms were biased because they were performed by employees at Boiron, the company that produces Oscillococcinum. A study in Italy in 2018 did use Oscillococcinum to treat patients with respiratory tract infections and found that patients taking the supplement had fewer RTI episodes than patients without treatment. Their study spanned an eight-year period with 455 patients and found that it had the potential to save health center funds, with 'significantly lower costs in the patient population being treated.' | Our ruling A post claims, 'If you have the Flu... get these two items... Sambucol [and] Oscillococcinum... in 48 hours you will feel better. In 72 hours you will be almost symptom-free.' Overall, Sambucol has the most flu-fighting potential, but there is little evidence that Oscillococcinum can considerably shorten the length of the flu. And there isn't enough evidence to prove that either of them can treat influenza better than antiviral medications. The post's claim has an element of truth but leaves out critical context. We rate it Mostly False. | []
|
'If you have the Flu... get these two items... Sambucol (and) Oscillococcinum... in 48 hours you will feel better. In 72 hours you will be almost symptom-free. | Contradiction | You wouldn't expect drops that taste like 'sweet tarts' or elderberry syrup to cure anything, but one Facebook post claims that these homeopathic supplements can rid you of flu symptoms after only three days. This post, which has been shared more than 70,000 times, was flagged by Facebook as part of efforts to combat false news and information on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post from Nov. 15, 2019, claimed that Sambucol, an elderberry extract, and Oscillococcinum, a diluted duck heart and liver pill, offer flu relief. 'A nurse friend taught me this,' the post says. 'If you have the Flu... get these two items... Sambucol [and] Oscillococcinum... in 48 hours you will feel better. In 72 hours you will be almost symptom-free.' The medical community is still debating how effective these supplements are, with a few small studies showing positive results. While doctors agree that Sambucol has the most flu-fighting potential, there is little evidence that Oscillococcinum can considerably shorten the length of the flu. Both Sambucol and Oscillococcinum's websites note that their claims to treat influenza symptoms 'have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.' The Mayo Clinic recommends using an antiviral drug like Tamiflu if you 'have severe infection or are at higher risk for complications.' Effectiveness of Sambucol Sambucol is an elderberry extract that originates in folk medicine, where elderberries were used to treat various illnesses, including sinus congestion, sore throat, common cold and rheumatism. Elderberries contain tannins and viburnic acid, which have been shown to help with nasal congestion and to improve respiration. They also have one of the three highest anti-inflammatory capacities ever seen in fruit or berries, according to a study from the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. A study in 2001 found that Sambucol has antiviral properties and was connected to an increase in the inflammatory cytokines found in patients' blood, effectively activating the immune systems of influenza patients. A small 2004 study of the healing properties of Sambucol in Norway found that otherwise-healthy flu patients treated with the elderberry extract had symptom relief on average four days earlier than the placebo group. Patients treated with Sambucol had no symptoms after 48 to 72 hours. The study found that Sambucol 'seems to offer an efficient, safe and cost-effective treatment for influenza.' The study included only 80 influenza patients, and the administrators called for a larger study of elderberry extracts to verify their findings. Effectiveness of Oscillococcinum Oscillococcinum is made from highly diluted heart and liver of wild duck, but essentially no molecules of duck heart or liver are found in the actual pill, according to Pharmacy Times. Cochrane, an independent health care research center, did a review of Oscillococcinum trials in 2015. Cochrane found that Oscillococcinum did not prevent the flu in preventative trials, and that the trials that 'proved' the supplement helped with flu symptoms were biased because they were performed by employees at Boiron, the company that produces Oscillococcinum. A study in Italy in 2018 did use Oscillococcinum to treat patients with respiratory tract infections and found that patients taking the supplement had fewer RTI episodes than patients without treatment. Their study spanned an eight-year period with 455 patients and found that it had the potential to save health center funds, with 'significantly lower costs in the patient population being treated.' | Our ruling A post claims, 'If you have the Flu... get these two items... Sambucol [and] Oscillococcinum... in 48 hours you will feel better. In 72 hours you will be almost symptom-free.' Overall, Sambucol has the most flu-fighting potential, but there is little evidence that Oscillococcinum can considerably shorten the length of the flu. And there isn't enough evidence to prove that either of them can treat influenza better than antiviral medications. The post's claim has an element of truth but leaves out critical context. We rate it Mostly False. | []
|
Sen. Raphael Warnock 'voted for welfare for politicians plan. Up to $25 million of government money for Warnock's own political campaign. | Contradiction | A voting rights bill authored by Democrats includes a provision - to provide public financing of campaigns in some circumstances - that Republicans have derided as 'welfare.' After the For the People Act failed to proceed in the Senate, the National Republican Senatorial Committee launched an ad attacking Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., for supporting the legislation. (Warnock won his Senate seat in a special election this year and would be up for re-election in 2022.) 'He voted for welfare for politicians plan,' says the narrator. 'Up to $25 million of government money for Warnock's own political campaign.' A slip of paper resembling a receipt includes the text 'SR1' - the only clue that the ad refers to the For the People Act. The NRSC didn't respond to our queries seeking evidence, but it looks like they are referring to a provision that provides public matching to small dollar donations to Senate campaigns. (There is a similar counterpart in the House legislation.) The law isn't 'welfare,' and the $25 million estimate is based on a maximum match. For the People Act includes small dollar matching for campaigns The For the People Act combines proposals for voter registration, absentee voting, in-person voting, campaign finance and ethics related to federal elections. The House passed the bill earlier this year. The Senate voted 50-50 along party lines on a motion to proceed on the bill June 22, falling short of the needed 60 votes to move ahead. Technically that was a procedural motion and not a vote on the bill itself, but it's fair to call Warnock a supporter, because he is a co-sponsor of the previous version of the legislation. Although the bill is dead for now, politicians in both parties are continuing to talk about voting laws in advance of the midterms. Democrats want federal legislation to expand voting rights, while Republicans have argued that state lawmakers are the best equipped to set election laws for their states. One goal of the For the People Act is to reduce the power of big donors. The legislation includes a provision for small dollar financing of Senate election campaigns, which would provide a six-to-one match for each donation in aggregate under $200. For example, if a person donated $100 to a candidate, that would result in $600 in matching funds. The idea is to reduce the role of wealthy large donors in financing political campaigns. Senate candidates who want to participate would opt in and have to meet certain criteria, such as not accepting other donations over $1,000. The matching dollars would come from a new 'Freedom From Influence Fund' - which would come from 4.75% surcharges on federal criminal offenses and settlements. If the amount in the fund comes up short, such matching dollars would be provided on a pro-rata basis. The legislation states: 'No taxpayer funds may be deposited into the fund.' The matching program would not start until 2028, which means that Warnock isn't eligible to get any money from it for his 2022 election. Experts on the bill or campaign finance didn't generally object to the math. The legislation includes a formula and caps that would determine how much a Senate candidate could get in matching dollars. This amount varies state by state because it takes into account the state's size based on how many congressional districts it has. The Brennan Center for Justice, a group that supports the legislation, did the math for Georgia and found it would add up to about $23.8 million - but if a candidate also got the enhanced matching funds, that would result in an extra $2.1 million, said Dan Weiner, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Election Reform Program. But this includes the assumption that in 2028 the race would be competitive and that Warnock would raise the maximum amount. Warnock hasn't said if he would participate in the public financing program. Warnock raised about $124 million for his 2020 campaign, about half from small donors. If such legislation passes in the future, his opponents could use it, too. 'Both Republicans and Democrats have developed robust networks of small dollar donors, and both parties could use the program to amplify the voices of those grassroots supporters,' said Brendan M. Fischer, director of the federal reform program at the Campaign Legal Center, an organization that supports the legislation. Why it's a distortion to call this 'welfare' for Warnock The NRSC called the program 'welfare' in the ad attacking Warnock, who is Black, but not in a similar ad against Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H, who is white. Generally the term 'welfare' is used to refer to government dollars given to low-income people to help them pay for rent, clothes, food or other basic living expenses. A small dollar matching program to encourage candidates to focus on donations from average Americans rather than millionaires isn't comparable to welfare. 'I do not think the 'welfare for politicians' phrase is accurate,' said Michael Malbin, a University at Albany political scientist and expert on campaign finance. 'This is a subsidy to enhance the value of small-dollar donors. It is not meant to, and would not, benefit politicians directly.' The idea of small donor matching programs is not new - and it is not only for Democrats. Presidential candidates from both major parties used a presidential public financing program between 1976 and 2008 until it became outdated, said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an organization that promotes democracy. That includes former President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. 'If they are claiming this is welfare for politicians, they are claiming Reagan was a beneficiary of welfare for politicians, because he used the system run in 1976 when he lost and in 1980 and 1984 when he won,' Wertheimer said. Wertheimer was involved in crafting the public financing law in the 1970s, as well as the provisions in the For the People Act. For decades, multiple states have provided their own campaign public financing programs. For example, Florida voters in 1998 approved a constitutional amendment for matching funds for statewide campaigns. In 2018, Republican Ron DeSantis, who won the governor's race, received more than any other candidate in matching funds, nearly $3.23 million. His opponent, Democrat Andrew Gillum, received $2.62 million from the program. | Our ruling The NRSC ad says Warnock 'voted for welfare for politicians plan. Up to $25 million of government money for Warnock's own political campaign.' It's inaccurate to call the public financing for political campaigns 'welfare.' The goal of public campaign finance is to reduce the influence of rich donors and give more power to average Americans who want to donate to campaigns. That's not comparable to 'welfare' programs designed to help poor people with basic living expenses. Also, unlike programs associated with welfare, the public financing program would not come from tax dollars but surcharges on legal cases and settlements. The claim is also speculative. Warnock hasn't said if he would choose to opt into the program, which wouldn't go into effect until a 2028 campaign cycle. Warnock first has to win re-election in 2022 under existing campaign finance rules. We rate this statement False. RELATED: SC Rep. Cunningham did not vote for $5M in tax funds to go to campaign coffers RELATED: Fact-checking Mark Walker's video on HR 1's campaign-finance provisions RELATED: Did Spanberger, other House Democrats, vote to use public money for their campaigns? | [
"105810-proof-26-0b3fd4fbf4358a906439657de68eb32b.jpg"
]
|
Sen. Raphael Warnock 'voted for welfare for politicians plan. Up to $25 million of government money for Warnock's own political campaign. | Contradiction | A voting rights bill authored by Democrats includes a provision - to provide public financing of campaigns in some circumstances - that Republicans have derided as 'welfare.' After the For the People Act failed to proceed in the Senate, the National Republican Senatorial Committee launched an ad attacking Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., for supporting the legislation. (Warnock won his Senate seat in a special election this year and would be up for re-election in 2022.) 'He voted for welfare for politicians plan,' says the narrator. 'Up to $25 million of government money for Warnock's own political campaign.' A slip of paper resembling a receipt includes the text 'SR1' - the only clue that the ad refers to the For the People Act. The NRSC didn't respond to our queries seeking evidence, but it looks like they are referring to a provision that provides public matching to small dollar donations to Senate campaigns. (There is a similar counterpart in the House legislation.) The law isn't 'welfare,' and the $25 million estimate is based on a maximum match. For the People Act includes small dollar matching for campaigns The For the People Act combines proposals for voter registration, absentee voting, in-person voting, campaign finance and ethics related to federal elections. The House passed the bill earlier this year. The Senate voted 50-50 along party lines on a motion to proceed on the bill June 22, falling short of the needed 60 votes to move ahead. Technically that was a procedural motion and not a vote on the bill itself, but it's fair to call Warnock a supporter, because he is a co-sponsor of the previous version of the legislation. Although the bill is dead for now, politicians in both parties are continuing to talk about voting laws in advance of the midterms. Democrats want federal legislation to expand voting rights, while Republicans have argued that state lawmakers are the best equipped to set election laws for their states. One goal of the For the People Act is to reduce the power of big donors. The legislation includes a provision for small dollar financing of Senate election campaigns, which would provide a six-to-one match for each donation in aggregate under $200. For example, if a person donated $100 to a candidate, that would result in $600 in matching funds. The idea is to reduce the role of wealthy large donors in financing political campaigns. Senate candidates who want to participate would opt in and have to meet certain criteria, such as not accepting other donations over $1,000. The matching dollars would come from a new 'Freedom From Influence Fund' - which would come from 4.75% surcharges on federal criminal offenses and settlements. If the amount in the fund comes up short, such matching dollars would be provided on a pro-rata basis. The legislation states: 'No taxpayer funds may be deposited into the fund.' The matching program would not start until 2028, which means that Warnock isn't eligible to get any money from it for his 2022 election. Experts on the bill or campaign finance didn't generally object to the math. The legislation includes a formula and caps that would determine how much a Senate candidate could get in matching dollars. This amount varies state by state because it takes into account the state's size based on how many congressional districts it has. The Brennan Center for Justice, a group that supports the legislation, did the math for Georgia and found it would add up to about $23.8 million - but if a candidate also got the enhanced matching funds, that would result in an extra $2.1 million, said Dan Weiner, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Election Reform Program. But this includes the assumption that in 2028 the race would be competitive and that Warnock would raise the maximum amount. Warnock hasn't said if he would participate in the public financing program. Warnock raised about $124 million for his 2020 campaign, about half from small donors. If such legislation passes in the future, his opponents could use it, too. 'Both Republicans and Democrats have developed robust networks of small dollar donors, and both parties could use the program to amplify the voices of those grassroots supporters,' said Brendan M. Fischer, director of the federal reform program at the Campaign Legal Center, an organization that supports the legislation. Why it's a distortion to call this 'welfare' for Warnock The NRSC called the program 'welfare' in the ad attacking Warnock, who is Black, but not in a similar ad against Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H, who is white. Generally the term 'welfare' is used to refer to government dollars given to low-income people to help them pay for rent, clothes, food or other basic living expenses. A small dollar matching program to encourage candidates to focus on donations from average Americans rather than millionaires isn't comparable to welfare. 'I do not think the 'welfare for politicians' phrase is accurate,' said Michael Malbin, a University at Albany political scientist and expert on campaign finance. 'This is a subsidy to enhance the value of small-dollar donors. It is not meant to, and would not, benefit politicians directly.' The idea of small donor matching programs is not new - and it is not only for Democrats. Presidential candidates from both major parties used a presidential public financing program between 1976 and 2008 until it became outdated, said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an organization that promotes democracy. That includes former President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. 'If they are claiming this is welfare for politicians, they are claiming Reagan was a beneficiary of welfare for politicians, because he used the system run in 1976 when he lost and in 1980 and 1984 when he won,' Wertheimer said. Wertheimer was involved in crafting the public financing law in the 1970s, as well as the provisions in the For the People Act. For decades, multiple states have provided their own campaign public financing programs. For example, Florida voters in 1998 approved a constitutional amendment for matching funds for statewide campaigns. In 2018, Republican Ron DeSantis, who won the governor's race, received more than any other candidate in matching funds, nearly $3.23 million. His opponent, Democrat Andrew Gillum, received $2.62 million from the program. | Our ruling The NRSC ad says Warnock 'voted for welfare for politicians plan. Up to $25 million of government money for Warnock's own political campaign.' It's inaccurate to call the public financing for political campaigns 'welfare.' The goal of public campaign finance is to reduce the influence of rich donors and give more power to average Americans who want to donate to campaigns. That's not comparable to 'welfare' programs designed to help poor people with basic living expenses. Also, unlike programs associated with welfare, the public financing program would not come from tax dollars but surcharges on legal cases and settlements. The claim is also speculative. Warnock hasn't said if he would choose to opt into the program, which wouldn't go into effect until a 2028 campaign cycle. Warnock first has to win re-election in 2022 under existing campaign finance rules. We rate this statement False. RELATED: SC Rep. Cunningham did not vote for $5M in tax funds to go to campaign coffers RELATED: Fact-checking Mark Walker's video on HR 1's campaign-finance provisions RELATED: Did Spanberger, other House Democrats, vote to use public money for their campaigns? | [
"105810-proof-26-0b3fd4fbf4358a906439657de68eb32b.jpg"
]
|
Sen. Raphael Warnock 'voted for welfare for politicians plan. Up to $25 million of government money for Warnock's own political campaign. | Contradiction | A voting rights bill authored by Democrats includes a provision - to provide public financing of campaigns in some circumstances - that Republicans have derided as 'welfare.' After the For the People Act failed to proceed in the Senate, the National Republican Senatorial Committee launched an ad attacking Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., for supporting the legislation. (Warnock won his Senate seat in a special election this year and would be up for re-election in 2022.) 'He voted for welfare for politicians plan,' says the narrator. 'Up to $25 million of government money for Warnock's own political campaign.' A slip of paper resembling a receipt includes the text 'SR1' - the only clue that the ad refers to the For the People Act. The NRSC didn't respond to our queries seeking evidence, but it looks like they are referring to a provision that provides public matching to small dollar donations to Senate campaigns. (There is a similar counterpart in the House legislation.) The law isn't 'welfare,' and the $25 million estimate is based on a maximum match. For the People Act includes small dollar matching for campaigns The For the People Act combines proposals for voter registration, absentee voting, in-person voting, campaign finance and ethics related to federal elections. The House passed the bill earlier this year. The Senate voted 50-50 along party lines on a motion to proceed on the bill June 22, falling short of the needed 60 votes to move ahead. Technically that was a procedural motion and not a vote on the bill itself, but it's fair to call Warnock a supporter, because he is a co-sponsor of the previous version of the legislation. Although the bill is dead for now, politicians in both parties are continuing to talk about voting laws in advance of the midterms. Democrats want federal legislation to expand voting rights, while Republicans have argued that state lawmakers are the best equipped to set election laws for their states. One goal of the For the People Act is to reduce the power of big donors. The legislation includes a provision for small dollar financing of Senate election campaigns, which would provide a six-to-one match for each donation in aggregate under $200. For example, if a person donated $100 to a candidate, that would result in $600 in matching funds. The idea is to reduce the role of wealthy large donors in financing political campaigns. Senate candidates who want to participate would opt in and have to meet certain criteria, such as not accepting other donations over $1,000. The matching dollars would come from a new 'Freedom From Influence Fund' - which would come from 4.75% surcharges on federal criminal offenses and settlements. If the amount in the fund comes up short, such matching dollars would be provided on a pro-rata basis. The legislation states: 'No taxpayer funds may be deposited into the fund.' The matching program would not start until 2028, which means that Warnock isn't eligible to get any money from it for his 2022 election. Experts on the bill or campaign finance didn't generally object to the math. The legislation includes a formula and caps that would determine how much a Senate candidate could get in matching dollars. This amount varies state by state because it takes into account the state's size based on how many congressional districts it has. The Brennan Center for Justice, a group that supports the legislation, did the math for Georgia and found it would add up to about $23.8 million - but if a candidate also got the enhanced matching funds, that would result in an extra $2.1 million, said Dan Weiner, deputy director of the Brennan Center's Election Reform Program. But this includes the assumption that in 2028 the race would be competitive and that Warnock would raise the maximum amount. Warnock hasn't said if he would participate in the public financing program. Warnock raised about $124 million for his 2020 campaign, about half from small donors. If such legislation passes in the future, his opponents could use it, too. 'Both Republicans and Democrats have developed robust networks of small dollar donors, and both parties could use the program to amplify the voices of those grassroots supporters,' said Brendan M. Fischer, director of the federal reform program at the Campaign Legal Center, an organization that supports the legislation. Why it's a distortion to call this 'welfare' for Warnock The NRSC called the program 'welfare' in the ad attacking Warnock, who is Black, but not in a similar ad against Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H, who is white. Generally the term 'welfare' is used to refer to government dollars given to low-income people to help them pay for rent, clothes, food or other basic living expenses. A small dollar matching program to encourage candidates to focus on donations from average Americans rather than millionaires isn't comparable to welfare. 'I do not think the 'welfare for politicians' phrase is accurate,' said Michael Malbin, a University at Albany political scientist and expert on campaign finance. 'This is a subsidy to enhance the value of small-dollar donors. It is not meant to, and would not, benefit politicians directly.' The idea of small donor matching programs is not new - and it is not only for Democrats. Presidential candidates from both major parties used a presidential public financing program between 1976 and 2008 until it became outdated, said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an organization that promotes democracy. That includes former President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. 'If they are claiming this is welfare for politicians, they are claiming Reagan was a beneficiary of welfare for politicians, because he used the system run in 1976 when he lost and in 1980 and 1984 when he won,' Wertheimer said. Wertheimer was involved in crafting the public financing law in the 1970s, as well as the provisions in the For the People Act. For decades, multiple states have provided their own campaign public financing programs. For example, Florida voters in 1998 approved a constitutional amendment for matching funds for statewide campaigns. In 2018, Republican Ron DeSantis, who won the governor's race, received more than any other candidate in matching funds, nearly $3.23 million. His opponent, Democrat Andrew Gillum, received $2.62 million from the program. | Our ruling The NRSC ad says Warnock 'voted for welfare for politicians plan. Up to $25 million of government money for Warnock's own political campaign.' It's inaccurate to call the public financing for political campaigns 'welfare.' The goal of public campaign finance is to reduce the influence of rich donors and give more power to average Americans who want to donate to campaigns. That's not comparable to 'welfare' programs designed to help poor people with basic living expenses. Also, unlike programs associated with welfare, the public financing program would not come from tax dollars but surcharges on legal cases and settlements. The claim is also speculative. Warnock hasn't said if he would choose to opt into the program, which wouldn't go into effect until a 2028 campaign cycle. Warnock first has to win re-election in 2022 under existing campaign finance rules. We rate this statement False. RELATED: SC Rep. Cunningham did not vote for $5M in tax funds to go to campaign coffers RELATED: Fact-checking Mark Walker's video on HR 1's campaign-finance provisions RELATED: Did Spanberger, other House Democrats, vote to use public money for their campaigns? | [
"105810-proof-26-0b3fd4fbf4358a906439657de68eb32b.jpg"
]
|
Says Target ended its 'Heroes & Helpers' program that pairs children with police officers for holiday shopping trips. | Contradiction | A Facebook post shared thousands of times says that Target ended its 'Shop with a Cop' program, officially known as 'Heroes & Helpers,' in light of the recent protests against police brutality. It reads: 'In an effort to distance themselves from Police Officers, Target has cut ties with participating in 'Shop with a Cop.' So, underprivileged kids can not shop for Christmas gifts because the police ruin Target's image.' 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.) Similar claims also circulated on Twitter, and a website called the Courier Daily amplified the rumor without offering any evidence. The annual holiday event 'pairs officers with underprivileged elementary school students as they shop for holiday gifts for their families with gift cards donated by police and retailers,' Target says on its website. The event celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2019. Target hasn't issued any announcement that the program has been discontinued. On the contrary, a Target spokesperson told PolitiFact that the company plans to keep it going. 'We plan to continue to support children with Heroes & Helpers events across the country this holiday season,' the spokesperson wrote in an email. 'Like many of our holiday programs, we're carefully considering how to manage these events during the COVID-19 environment in a way that ensures the health and safety of our team and guests. We will have additional details to share as we approach the holiday season.' We rate this False. | We rate this False. | []
|
'Rand Paul's medical license was just revoked!' | Contradiction | YouTube recently suspended Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., after he posted a video questioning the effectiveness of masks against COVID-19. But did Paul, an ophthalmologist, also lose his medical license? That's the word on social media. Still, don't believe everything you read there. 'Rand Paul's medical license was just revoked!' one post said. Another claimed that the American Medical Association 'revoked the ophthalmologist's ability due to 'ethical concerns' and Paul's 'blatant disregard for the Hippocratic Oath.'' 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.) That's because this claim originated on a satirical section of a website called Patheos. The text about Paul losing his license due to 'ethical concerns' comes straight from an Aug. 10 post on Patheos tagged as satire. But that context is missing in the posts that are being shared on social media. According to the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure, Paul is an active, licensed physician. We rate this post Pants on Fire! | We rate this post Pants on Fire! | []
|
'Biden said today, if he loses, his people will keep burning, looting and killing. | Contradiction | In late August, social media posts shared the inaccurate claim that Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris said she wants riots to continue even after the presidential election. A few days later, a similar allegation was leveled at her running mate, presidential candidate Joe Biden. 'Biden said today, if he loses, his people will keep burning, looting and killing,' an Aug. 31 Facebook post says. 'He said it.' 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.) He did not say this. On Aug. 31, Biden was in Pittsburgh, where he gave a campaign speech on public safety and law enforcement. You can watch the video on C-SPAN, which said that Biden 'condemned the rioting and looting taking place around the country and blamed President Trump for the increase in violence.' We watched the speech - you can also read the transcript here - and Biden didn't threaten that if he loses, 'his people' will continue to burn, loot and kill. Rather, he commented on 'the senseless violence of looting and burning.' Here's what else he said on the subject: 'I want to make absolutely clear, so I am going to be very clear about all of this. Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It's lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted. Violence will not bring change, it will only bring destruction. It's wrong in every way.' 'Fires are burning, and we have a president who fans the flames rather than fighting the flames. We must not burn, we have to build. This president, long ago, forfeited any moral leadership in this country. He can't stop the violence because for years he fomented it. ... Does anyone believe there'll be less violence in America if Donald Trump is re-elected?' 'I want a safe America, safe from COVID, safe from crime and looting, safe from racially motivated violence, safe from bad cops. Let me be crystal clear - safe from four more years of Donald Trump. I look at this violence because I see lives and communities and dreams of small businesses being destroyed and the opportunity for real progress on issues of race and police reform and justice being put to the test. Donald Trump looks at this violence and he sees a political lifeline. Having failed to protect this nation from the virus that has killed more than 180,000 Americans so far, Trump posts an all-caps tweet, screaming 'LAW AND ORDER,' to save his campaign.' Biden accused Trump of mishandling the demonstrations that have roiled the country, saying that the president 'adds fuel to every fire because he refuses to even acknowledge that there's a racial justice problem in America.' He also contrasted how he would lead as a president. He never said 'his people will keep burning, looting and killing' if he loses the election. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
'Biden said today, if he loses, his people will keep burning, looting and killing. | Contradiction | In late August, social media posts shared the inaccurate claim that Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris said she wants riots to continue even after the presidential election. A few days later, a similar allegation was leveled at her running mate, presidential candidate Joe Biden. 'Biden said today, if he loses, his people will keep burning, looting and killing,' an Aug. 31 Facebook post says. 'He said it.' 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.) He did not say this. On Aug. 31, Biden was in Pittsburgh, where he gave a campaign speech on public safety and law enforcement. You can watch the video on C-SPAN, which said that Biden 'condemned the rioting and looting taking place around the country and blamed President Trump for the increase in violence.' We watched the speech - you can also read the transcript here - and Biden didn't threaten that if he loses, 'his people' will continue to burn, loot and kill. Rather, he commented on 'the senseless violence of looting and burning.' Here's what else he said on the subject: 'I want to make absolutely clear, so I am going to be very clear about all of this. Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It's lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted. Violence will not bring change, it will only bring destruction. It's wrong in every way.' 'Fires are burning, and we have a president who fans the flames rather than fighting the flames. We must not burn, we have to build. This president, long ago, forfeited any moral leadership in this country. He can't stop the violence because for years he fomented it. ... Does anyone believe there'll be less violence in America if Donald Trump is re-elected?' 'I want a safe America, safe from COVID, safe from crime and looting, safe from racially motivated violence, safe from bad cops. Let me be crystal clear - safe from four more years of Donald Trump. I look at this violence because I see lives and communities and dreams of small businesses being destroyed and the opportunity for real progress on issues of race and police reform and justice being put to the test. Donald Trump looks at this violence and he sees a political lifeline. Having failed to protect this nation from the virus that has killed more than 180,000 Americans so far, Trump posts an all-caps tweet, screaming 'LAW AND ORDER,' to save his campaign.' Biden accused Trump of mishandling the demonstrations that have roiled the country, saying that the president 'adds fuel to every fire because he refuses to even acknowledge that there's a racial justice problem in America.' He also contrasted how he would lead as a president. He never said 'his people will keep burning, looting and killing' if he loses the election. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
If the voting bill H.R. 1 is passed, 'absentee ballots would be mailed out to anyone without proof of the voter's identity. | Contradiction | An expansive voting rights bill that passed the House has inspired a flood of claims on social media. The measure, known as H.R. 1 or the For the People Act, passed the House narrowly on a near-party-line vote, and the bill is now under consideration in the Senate. A conservative group posted a video to Facebook that calls the bill a 'recipe for disaster.' The video says in part, 'The 2020 election was a procedural nightmare. Many people wonder whether it was fair and honest. And now Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want to make all of that permanent with what they call the For the People Act. If passed, it would put Congress in charge of our elections. Absentee ballots would be mailed out to anyone without proof of the voter's identity.' The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The 2020 election saw record turnout, and widespread use of absentee ballots, due in part to the pandemic. A joint statement by federal and state election officials on Nov. 12 declared the 2020 election 'the most secure in American history.' But here, we will focus on the statement that, if the bill is passed, 'absentee ballots would be mailed out to anyone without proof of the voter's identity.' In short, it's inaccurate. The Conservative Caucus did not reply to an inquiry. All-mail elections The group's statement describes elements of a process used by a handful of states that use 'all-mail elections,' and suggests that they would be universal if the bill is passed. In all-mail elections, ballots are automatically mailed to every registered voter. 'The voter marks the ballot, puts it in a secrecy envelope or sleeve and then into a separate mailing envelope, signs an affidavit on the exterior of the mailing envelope, and returns the package via mail or by dropping it off,' according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This system is used in Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington state and Utah. In addition, California has moved to temporarily extend its use of all-mail voting after adopting it during the coronavirus pandemic. Some all-mail election states offer an in-person alternative for voting as well, but it's used infrequently. The key point for our analysis of H.R. 1 is that the bill doesn't force any state to adopt the all-mail system and send out ballots automatically. Rather, the bill's focus is on making it easier for registered voters who choose to cast their ballot by mail. The bill requires states to give everyone access to voting by mail if they want to use it. And under the bill, those mail ballots would be sent to registered voters who want them, not 'anyone.' Because they're registered, their identity would already be known to state election officials. Opting in to mail voting In states that don't use all-mail voting, voters typically have to request a mail ballot. H.R. 1 would allow eligible voters to request a mail ballot in person, online, by phone, or by mail, and they wouldn't have to give a reason. Some states currently require a voter to present a valid excuse for voting by mail. In addition, H.R. 1 lets states treat one request for a mail ballot as that voter's default choice for future elections. The bill doesn't require this, but it offers states the option. So the video's claim of ballots being sent 'without proof of the voter's identity' is false. The voter would be registered, so their initial application and supporting information would be on file. And in many cases, a voter would have also filed a second form to request a mail ballot. H.R. 1 says that a valid registration requires the applicant to have 'substantially completed the application form and attested to' the statements in it. Automatic voter registration H.R. 1 also requires that states offer 'automatic voter registration,' a system by which other state agencies, such as the department of motor vehicles, automatically register new voters, subject to verification of their eligibility. (Individuals could decline to register by opting out.) Nationally, nearly 20 states and the District of Columbia already use this system, including such Republican-run states as Alaska and West Virginia. This provision of H.R. 1 is about registering to vote, not mailing ballots. Only in the all-mail states would ballots go out automatically to these newly registered voters. Automatic sending of mail-ballot applications H.R. 1 does require states that aren't all-mail to send out absentee ballot application forms to all registered voters, no later than 60 days before a federal election. But this provision doesn't support the claim in the video that 'absentee ballots' are being mailed out. A ballot application, once completed and returned by the voter, is just a request for a mailed ballot. And under the bill, the application forms would be sent to registered voters only. | Our ruling The post says that if the voting bill H.R. 1 is passed, 'absentee ballots would be mailed out to anyone without proof of the voter's identity.' That's not the case. A few states already do send ballots to all registered voters, but their process would not be changed by the bill. In every other state, registered voters would typically have to request a mail ballot to receive one. The bill would require states to make it easier for voters to do that. The bill would require states to send mail ballot applications to all registered voters before federal elections, but sending an application is not the same thing as sending an actual ballot, and these would go to registered voters only, whose identity and eligibility to vote are known. We rate the statement False. | [
"105841-proof-00-a56c59e35c261503bad8a989c9592753.jpg"
]
|
If the voting bill H.R. 1 is passed, 'absentee ballots would be mailed out to anyone without proof of the voter's identity. | Contradiction | An expansive voting rights bill that passed the House has inspired a flood of claims on social media. The measure, known as H.R. 1 or the For the People Act, passed the House narrowly on a near-party-line vote, and the bill is now under consideration in the Senate. A conservative group posted a video to Facebook that calls the bill a 'recipe for disaster.' The video says in part, 'The 2020 election was a procedural nightmare. Many people wonder whether it was fair and honest. And now Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want to make all of that permanent with what they call the For the People Act. If passed, it would put Congress in charge of our elections. Absentee ballots would be mailed out to anyone without proof of the voter's identity.' The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The 2020 election saw record turnout, and widespread use of absentee ballots, due in part to the pandemic. A joint statement by federal and state election officials on Nov. 12 declared the 2020 election 'the most secure in American history.' But here, we will focus on the statement that, if the bill is passed, 'absentee ballots would be mailed out to anyone without proof of the voter's identity.' In short, it's inaccurate. The Conservative Caucus did not reply to an inquiry. All-mail elections The group's statement describes elements of a process used by a handful of states that use 'all-mail elections,' and suggests that they would be universal if the bill is passed. In all-mail elections, ballots are automatically mailed to every registered voter. 'The voter marks the ballot, puts it in a secrecy envelope or sleeve and then into a separate mailing envelope, signs an affidavit on the exterior of the mailing envelope, and returns the package via mail or by dropping it off,' according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This system is used in Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington state and Utah. In addition, California has moved to temporarily extend its use of all-mail voting after adopting it during the coronavirus pandemic. Some all-mail election states offer an in-person alternative for voting as well, but it's used infrequently. The key point for our analysis of H.R. 1 is that the bill doesn't force any state to adopt the all-mail system and send out ballots automatically. Rather, the bill's focus is on making it easier for registered voters who choose to cast their ballot by mail. The bill requires states to give everyone access to voting by mail if they want to use it. And under the bill, those mail ballots would be sent to registered voters who want them, not 'anyone.' Because they're registered, their identity would already be known to state election officials. Opting in to mail voting In states that don't use all-mail voting, voters typically have to request a mail ballot. H.R. 1 would allow eligible voters to request a mail ballot in person, online, by phone, or by mail, and they wouldn't have to give a reason. Some states currently require a voter to present a valid excuse for voting by mail. In addition, H.R. 1 lets states treat one request for a mail ballot as that voter's default choice for future elections. The bill doesn't require this, but it offers states the option. So the video's claim of ballots being sent 'without proof of the voter's identity' is false. The voter would be registered, so their initial application and supporting information would be on file. And in many cases, a voter would have also filed a second form to request a mail ballot. H.R. 1 says that a valid registration requires the applicant to have 'substantially completed the application form and attested to' the statements in it. Automatic voter registration H.R. 1 also requires that states offer 'automatic voter registration,' a system by which other state agencies, such as the department of motor vehicles, automatically register new voters, subject to verification of their eligibility. (Individuals could decline to register by opting out.) Nationally, nearly 20 states and the District of Columbia already use this system, including such Republican-run states as Alaska and West Virginia. This provision of H.R. 1 is about registering to vote, not mailing ballots. Only in the all-mail states would ballots go out automatically to these newly registered voters. Automatic sending of mail-ballot applications H.R. 1 does require states that aren't all-mail to send out absentee ballot application forms to all registered voters, no later than 60 days before a federal election. But this provision doesn't support the claim in the video that 'absentee ballots' are being mailed out. A ballot application, once completed and returned by the voter, is just a request for a mailed ballot. And under the bill, the application forms would be sent to registered voters only. | Our ruling The post says that if the voting bill H.R. 1 is passed, 'absentee ballots would be mailed out to anyone without proof of the voter's identity.' That's not the case. A few states already do send ballots to all registered voters, but their process would not be changed by the bill. In every other state, registered voters would typically have to request a mail ballot to receive one. The bill would require states to make it easier for voters to do that. The bill would require states to send mail ballot applications to all registered voters before federal elections, but sending an application is not the same thing as sending an actual ballot, and these would go to registered voters only, whose identity and eligibility to vote are known. We rate the statement False. | [
"105841-proof-00-a56c59e35c261503bad8a989c9592753.jpg"
]
|
If the voting bill H.R. 1 is passed, 'absentee ballots would be mailed out to anyone without proof of the voter's identity. | Contradiction | An expansive voting rights bill that passed the House has inspired a flood of claims on social media. The measure, known as H.R. 1 or the For the People Act, passed the House narrowly on a near-party-line vote, and the bill is now under consideration in the Senate. A conservative group posted a video to Facebook that calls the bill a 'recipe for disaster.' The video says in part, 'The 2020 election was a procedural nightmare. Many people wonder whether it was fair and honest. And now Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want to make all of that permanent with what they call the For the People Act. If passed, it would put Congress in charge of our elections. Absentee ballots would be mailed out to anyone without proof of the voter's identity.' The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The 2020 election saw record turnout, and widespread use of absentee ballots, due in part to the pandemic. A joint statement by federal and state election officials on Nov. 12 declared the 2020 election 'the most secure in American history.' But here, we will focus on the statement that, if the bill is passed, 'absentee ballots would be mailed out to anyone without proof of the voter's identity.' In short, it's inaccurate. The Conservative Caucus did not reply to an inquiry. All-mail elections The group's statement describes elements of a process used by a handful of states that use 'all-mail elections,' and suggests that they would be universal if the bill is passed. In all-mail elections, ballots are automatically mailed to every registered voter. 'The voter marks the ballot, puts it in a secrecy envelope or sleeve and then into a separate mailing envelope, signs an affidavit on the exterior of the mailing envelope, and returns the package via mail or by dropping it off,' according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This system is used in Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington state and Utah. In addition, California has moved to temporarily extend its use of all-mail voting after adopting it during the coronavirus pandemic. Some all-mail election states offer an in-person alternative for voting as well, but it's used infrequently. The key point for our analysis of H.R. 1 is that the bill doesn't force any state to adopt the all-mail system and send out ballots automatically. Rather, the bill's focus is on making it easier for registered voters who choose to cast their ballot by mail. The bill requires states to give everyone access to voting by mail if they want to use it. And under the bill, those mail ballots would be sent to registered voters who want them, not 'anyone.' Because they're registered, their identity would already be known to state election officials. Opting in to mail voting In states that don't use all-mail voting, voters typically have to request a mail ballot. H.R. 1 would allow eligible voters to request a mail ballot in person, online, by phone, or by mail, and they wouldn't have to give a reason. Some states currently require a voter to present a valid excuse for voting by mail. In addition, H.R. 1 lets states treat one request for a mail ballot as that voter's default choice for future elections. The bill doesn't require this, but it offers states the option. So the video's claim of ballots being sent 'without proof of the voter's identity' is false. The voter would be registered, so their initial application and supporting information would be on file. And in many cases, a voter would have also filed a second form to request a mail ballot. H.R. 1 says that a valid registration requires the applicant to have 'substantially completed the application form and attested to' the statements in it. Automatic voter registration H.R. 1 also requires that states offer 'automatic voter registration,' a system by which other state agencies, such as the department of motor vehicles, automatically register new voters, subject to verification of their eligibility. (Individuals could decline to register by opting out.) Nationally, nearly 20 states and the District of Columbia already use this system, including such Republican-run states as Alaska and West Virginia. This provision of H.R. 1 is about registering to vote, not mailing ballots. Only in the all-mail states would ballots go out automatically to these newly registered voters. Automatic sending of mail-ballot applications H.R. 1 does require states that aren't all-mail to send out absentee ballot application forms to all registered voters, no later than 60 days before a federal election. But this provision doesn't support the claim in the video that 'absentee ballots' are being mailed out. A ballot application, once completed and returned by the voter, is just a request for a mailed ballot. And under the bill, the application forms would be sent to registered voters only. | Our ruling The post says that if the voting bill H.R. 1 is passed, 'absentee ballots would be mailed out to anyone without proof of the voter's identity.' That's not the case. A few states already do send ballots to all registered voters, but their process would not be changed by the bill. In every other state, registered voters would typically have to request a mail ballot to receive one. The bill would require states to make it easier for voters to do that. The bill would require states to send mail ballot applications to all registered voters before federal elections, but sending an application is not the same thing as sending an actual ballot, and these would go to registered voters only, whose identity and eligibility to vote are known. We rate the statement False. | [
"105841-proof-00-a56c59e35c261503bad8a989c9592753.jpg"
]
|
Says Queen Elizabeth said Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte 'is the kind of leader who knows the way .... Filipinos are very lucky to have him. | Contradiction | Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte warned that people who flout the country's lockdown to slow the spread of the coronavirus could be shot. On April 5, Al Jazeera reported that police had killed a man for refusing to follow restrictions. Did Queen Elizabeth offer words of support for the president the following day? A Facebook post claims that during her 'message of hope amid the coronavirus pandemic,' the queen called Duterte 'the kind of leader who knows the way.' 'Filipinos are very fortunate to have him,' the quote continues. 'Seriously, he looked so overworked. He may not be perfect, but he truly loves his country. Philippines doesn't have the worst government. It actually has the worst citizens.' 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.) Queen Elizabeth did deliver a rare speech on April 5 (not April 6, like the Facebook post says), thanking United Kingdom residents for staying inside and vowing that they would succeed in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. She didn't mention Duterte or the Philippines. Searching for the quote online, we didn't find any credible sources showing that she said it elsewhere, either. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. | We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire. | []
|
Says Nancy Pelosi bought $1.25 million in Tesla stock the day before Joe Biden signed an order 'for all federal vehicles' to be electric. | Contradiction | Implying that Nancy Pelosi used insider information for personal gain, a post widely shared on Facebook claims that the House speaker bought $1.25 million in Tesla stock the day before President Joe Biden signed an executive order for all federal vehicles to be electric. We looked at the substance and implications of the broadside against the California Democrat and found that it paints a misleading picture of the timing and nature of Pelosi's and Biden's actions. 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 gets several facts wrong. In short: The purchase - by Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi - was not of stock in Tesla, the California-based maker of electric cars, but of options to buy Tesla stock. The options were bought more than a month before Biden announced his goal to eventually make the federal fleet electric, not the day before. Biden has not ordered that the entire federal fleet be electric. He has directed federal agencies to move toward buying zero-emission vehicles. And Biden's intent to steer the government toward zero-emission vehicles was not inside information. It was among his campaign promises and a matter of public record well before he took office. What the post says The post shows photos of Pelosi and Biden, along with captions that use abbreviations for executive order and electric vehicles. The caption to the Pelosi photo is: '1/24/21 Nancy buys $1.25M in Tesla stock.' The Biden photo caption says: '1/25/21 Joe signs EO for all fed vehicles to be EV!' The headline above the images reads: 'Wow! What are the odds of that? Talk about luck!! What are the odds?' The poster wrote: 'Wake up, realizing that it's all about them making money, well (sic) restricting us.' The transaction and the timing The post misstates the timing of both the securities transaction and the executive order. Under the Ethics in Government Act, members of Congress must file periodic transaction reports when they buy or sell stock or other securities for any transaction that exceeds $1,000. (The requirement also covers transactions by a lawmaker's spouse and dependent children.) Only a range of the value of a transaction must be disclosed. The reports must be filed within 30 days of when the member was notified of the transaction, and no later than 45 days after the transaction occurred. Nancy Pelosi filed a report with the House dated Jan. 21 listing her husband's securities transactions involving Tesla and a few other companies. 'The Speaker has no involvement or prior knowledge of these transactions,' said her spokesman, Drew Hammill. According to the report, on Dec. 22, Paul Pelosi bought 25 call options of Tesla stock for between $500,001 and $1 million. The options had a strike price of $500 and an expiration date of March 18, 2022. In other words, Paul Pelosi purchased the right to buy Tesla stock at $500 per share prior to the expiration date. On Dec. 22, Tesla stock was trading at around $650, having climbed from less than $90 at the start of 2020, on a split-adjusted basis. At the time of this writing on Feb. 2, Tesla's stock was trading at about $878 a share Nancy Pelosi's report appears to be in line with what members of Congress are required to disclose. Biden's actions During his run for president, Biden pledged to 'make a major federal commitment to purchase clean vehicles for federal, state, tribal, postal, and local fleets.' So his intent to steer the government toward an electric fleet was a matter of public record, though it didn't take the form of an executive order until Jan. 27, a week after he took office. The post we're checking alludes to an executive order Biden signed Jan. 25. That 'Buy American' order does not mention any federal government purchases of electric vehicles. But in signing the order, Biden announced that he plans to eventually replace the government's fleet of cars and trucks with electric vehicles assembled in the United States. He did not state a timeline, or mention any specific manufacturer. The Jan. 27 order, on climate, included a 'federal clean electricity and vehicle procurement strategy.' It directed 'all available procurement authorities to achieve or facilitate ... clean and zero-emission vehicles for Federal, State, local, and Tribal government fleets, including vehicles of the United States Postal Service.' The order specifically calls for 'spurring the creation of union jobs' in the manufacture of those new vehicles. Tesla's assembly workers in California are not unionized. No manufacturer of electric vehicles in the United States complies with the new 'Buy American' and unionized labor provisions, according to Wired. Replacing the federal fleet with American-produced EVs will be costly and take time, as only a handful of all-electric vehicle models are assembled in the United States, CNBC reported. | Our ruling An image shared on Facebook claims that Nancy Pelosi bought $1.25 million in Tesla stock the day before Biden signed an order 'for all federal vehicles' to be electric, implying that she sought to profit from inside information about new government policies. The House speaker did report transactions involving Tesla stock, but the post misrepresented the purchases and Biden's policies to create the false impression that the transactions represented improper insider trading in Tesla shares. The statement contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts would give a different impression - our definition of Mostly False. | [
"105860-proof-09-22037f08b6ddfb6ca9e44fc627f8e2fb.jpg"
]
|
Says Nancy Pelosi bought $1.25 million in Tesla stock the day before Joe Biden signed an order 'for all federal vehicles' to be electric. | Contradiction | Implying that Nancy Pelosi used insider information for personal gain, a post widely shared on Facebook claims that the House speaker bought $1.25 million in Tesla stock the day before President Joe Biden signed an executive order for all federal vehicles to be electric. We looked at the substance and implications of the broadside against the California Democrat and found that it paints a misleading picture of the timing and nature of Pelosi's and Biden's actions. 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 gets several facts wrong. In short: The purchase - by Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi - was not of stock in Tesla, the California-based maker of electric cars, but of options to buy Tesla stock. The options were bought more than a month before Biden announced his goal to eventually make the federal fleet electric, not the day before. Biden has not ordered that the entire federal fleet be electric. He has directed federal agencies to move toward buying zero-emission vehicles. And Biden's intent to steer the government toward zero-emission vehicles was not inside information. It was among his campaign promises and a matter of public record well before he took office. What the post says The post shows photos of Pelosi and Biden, along with captions that use abbreviations for executive order and electric vehicles. The caption to the Pelosi photo is: '1/24/21 Nancy buys $1.25M in Tesla stock.' The Biden photo caption says: '1/25/21 Joe signs EO for all fed vehicles to be EV!' The headline above the images reads: 'Wow! What are the odds of that? Talk about luck!! What are the odds?' The poster wrote: 'Wake up, realizing that it's all about them making money, well (sic) restricting us.' The transaction and the timing The post misstates the timing of both the securities transaction and the executive order. Under the Ethics in Government Act, members of Congress must file periodic transaction reports when they buy or sell stock or other securities for any transaction that exceeds $1,000. (The requirement also covers transactions by a lawmaker's spouse and dependent children.) Only a range of the value of a transaction must be disclosed. The reports must be filed within 30 days of when the member was notified of the transaction, and no later than 45 days after the transaction occurred. Nancy Pelosi filed a report with the House dated Jan. 21 listing her husband's securities transactions involving Tesla and a few other companies. 'The Speaker has no involvement or prior knowledge of these transactions,' said her spokesman, Drew Hammill. According to the report, on Dec. 22, Paul Pelosi bought 25 call options of Tesla stock for between $500,001 and $1 million. The options had a strike price of $500 and an expiration date of March 18, 2022. In other words, Paul Pelosi purchased the right to buy Tesla stock at $500 per share prior to the expiration date. On Dec. 22, Tesla stock was trading at around $650, having climbed from less than $90 at the start of 2020, on a split-adjusted basis. At the time of this writing on Feb. 2, Tesla's stock was trading at about $878 a share Nancy Pelosi's report appears to be in line with what members of Congress are required to disclose. Biden's actions During his run for president, Biden pledged to 'make a major federal commitment to purchase clean vehicles for federal, state, tribal, postal, and local fleets.' So his intent to steer the government toward an electric fleet was a matter of public record, though it didn't take the form of an executive order until Jan. 27, a week after he took office. The post we're checking alludes to an executive order Biden signed Jan. 25. That 'Buy American' order does not mention any federal government purchases of electric vehicles. But in signing the order, Biden announced that he plans to eventually replace the government's fleet of cars and trucks with electric vehicles assembled in the United States. He did not state a timeline, or mention any specific manufacturer. The Jan. 27 order, on climate, included a 'federal clean electricity and vehicle procurement strategy.' It directed 'all available procurement authorities to achieve or facilitate ... clean and zero-emission vehicles for Federal, State, local, and Tribal government fleets, including vehicles of the United States Postal Service.' The order specifically calls for 'spurring the creation of union jobs' in the manufacture of those new vehicles. Tesla's assembly workers in California are not unionized. No manufacturer of electric vehicles in the United States complies with the new 'Buy American' and unionized labor provisions, according to Wired. Replacing the federal fleet with American-produced EVs will be costly and take time, as only a handful of all-electric vehicle models are assembled in the United States, CNBC reported. | Our ruling An image shared on Facebook claims that Nancy Pelosi bought $1.25 million in Tesla stock the day before Biden signed an order 'for all federal vehicles' to be electric, implying that she sought to profit from inside information about new government policies. The House speaker did report transactions involving Tesla stock, but the post misrepresented the purchases and Biden's policies to create the false impression that the transactions represented improper insider trading in Tesla shares. The statement contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts would give a different impression - our definition of Mostly False. | [
"105860-proof-09-22037f08b6ddfb6ca9e44fc627f8e2fb.jpg"
]
|
Says Nancy Pelosi bought $1.25 million in Tesla stock the day before Joe Biden signed an order 'for all federal vehicles' to be electric. | Contradiction | Implying that Nancy Pelosi used insider information for personal gain, a post widely shared on Facebook claims that the House speaker bought $1.25 million in Tesla stock the day before President Joe Biden signed an executive order for all federal vehicles to be electric. We looked at the substance and implications of the broadside against the California Democrat and found that it paints a misleading picture of the timing and nature of Pelosi's and Biden's actions. 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 gets several facts wrong. In short: The purchase - by Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi - was not of stock in Tesla, the California-based maker of electric cars, but of options to buy Tesla stock. The options were bought more than a month before Biden announced his goal to eventually make the federal fleet electric, not the day before. Biden has not ordered that the entire federal fleet be electric. He has directed federal agencies to move toward buying zero-emission vehicles. And Biden's intent to steer the government toward zero-emission vehicles was not inside information. It was among his campaign promises and a matter of public record well before he took office. What the post says The post shows photos of Pelosi and Biden, along with captions that use abbreviations for executive order and electric vehicles. The caption to the Pelosi photo is: '1/24/21 Nancy buys $1.25M in Tesla stock.' The Biden photo caption says: '1/25/21 Joe signs EO for all fed vehicles to be EV!' The headline above the images reads: 'Wow! What are the odds of that? Talk about luck!! What are the odds?' The poster wrote: 'Wake up, realizing that it's all about them making money, well (sic) restricting us.' The transaction and the timing The post misstates the timing of both the securities transaction and the executive order. Under the Ethics in Government Act, members of Congress must file periodic transaction reports when they buy or sell stock or other securities for any transaction that exceeds $1,000. (The requirement also covers transactions by a lawmaker's spouse and dependent children.) Only a range of the value of a transaction must be disclosed. The reports must be filed within 30 days of when the member was notified of the transaction, and no later than 45 days after the transaction occurred. Nancy Pelosi filed a report with the House dated Jan. 21 listing her husband's securities transactions involving Tesla and a few other companies. 'The Speaker has no involvement or prior knowledge of these transactions,' said her spokesman, Drew Hammill. According to the report, on Dec. 22, Paul Pelosi bought 25 call options of Tesla stock for between $500,001 and $1 million. The options had a strike price of $500 and an expiration date of March 18, 2022. In other words, Paul Pelosi purchased the right to buy Tesla stock at $500 per share prior to the expiration date. On Dec. 22, Tesla stock was trading at around $650, having climbed from less than $90 at the start of 2020, on a split-adjusted basis. At the time of this writing on Feb. 2, Tesla's stock was trading at about $878 a share Nancy Pelosi's report appears to be in line with what members of Congress are required to disclose. Biden's actions During his run for president, Biden pledged to 'make a major federal commitment to purchase clean vehicles for federal, state, tribal, postal, and local fleets.' So his intent to steer the government toward an electric fleet was a matter of public record, though it didn't take the form of an executive order until Jan. 27, a week after he took office. The post we're checking alludes to an executive order Biden signed Jan. 25. That 'Buy American' order does not mention any federal government purchases of electric vehicles. But in signing the order, Biden announced that he plans to eventually replace the government's fleet of cars and trucks with electric vehicles assembled in the United States. He did not state a timeline, or mention any specific manufacturer. The Jan. 27 order, on climate, included a 'federal clean electricity and vehicle procurement strategy.' It directed 'all available procurement authorities to achieve or facilitate ... clean and zero-emission vehicles for Federal, State, local, and Tribal government fleets, including vehicles of the United States Postal Service.' The order specifically calls for 'spurring the creation of union jobs' in the manufacture of those new vehicles. Tesla's assembly workers in California are not unionized. No manufacturer of electric vehicles in the United States complies with the new 'Buy American' and unionized labor provisions, according to Wired. Replacing the federal fleet with American-produced EVs will be costly and take time, as only a handful of all-electric vehicle models are assembled in the United States, CNBC reported. | Our ruling An image shared on Facebook claims that Nancy Pelosi bought $1.25 million in Tesla stock the day before Biden signed an order 'for all federal vehicles' to be electric, implying that she sought to profit from inside information about new government policies. The House speaker did report transactions involving Tesla stock, but the post misrepresented the purchases and Biden's policies to create the false impression that the transactions represented improper insider trading in Tesla shares. The statement contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts would give a different impression - our definition of Mostly False. | [
"105860-proof-09-22037f08b6ddfb6ca9e44fc627f8e2fb.jpg"
]
|
Says Nancy Pelosi bought $1.25 million in Tesla stock the day before Joe Biden signed an order 'for all federal vehicles' to be electric. | Contradiction | Implying that Nancy Pelosi used insider information for personal gain, a post widely shared on Facebook claims that the House speaker bought $1.25 million in Tesla stock the day before President Joe Biden signed an executive order for all federal vehicles to be electric. We looked at the substance and implications of the broadside against the California Democrat and found that it paints a misleading picture of the timing and nature of Pelosi's and Biden's actions. 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 gets several facts wrong. In short: The purchase - by Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi - was not of stock in Tesla, the California-based maker of electric cars, but of options to buy Tesla stock. The options were bought more than a month before Biden announced his goal to eventually make the federal fleet electric, not the day before. Biden has not ordered that the entire federal fleet be electric. He has directed federal agencies to move toward buying zero-emission vehicles. And Biden's intent to steer the government toward zero-emission vehicles was not inside information. It was among his campaign promises and a matter of public record well before he took office. What the post says The post shows photos of Pelosi and Biden, along with captions that use abbreviations for executive order and electric vehicles. The caption to the Pelosi photo is: '1/24/21 Nancy buys $1.25M in Tesla stock.' The Biden photo caption says: '1/25/21 Joe signs EO for all fed vehicles to be EV!' The headline above the images reads: 'Wow! What are the odds of that? Talk about luck!! What are the odds?' The poster wrote: 'Wake up, realizing that it's all about them making money, well (sic) restricting us.' The transaction and the timing The post misstates the timing of both the securities transaction and the executive order. Under the Ethics in Government Act, members of Congress must file periodic transaction reports when they buy or sell stock or other securities for any transaction that exceeds $1,000. (The requirement also covers transactions by a lawmaker's spouse and dependent children.) Only a range of the value of a transaction must be disclosed. The reports must be filed within 30 days of when the member was notified of the transaction, and no later than 45 days after the transaction occurred. Nancy Pelosi filed a report with the House dated Jan. 21 listing her husband's securities transactions involving Tesla and a few other companies. 'The Speaker has no involvement or prior knowledge of these transactions,' said her spokesman, Drew Hammill. According to the report, on Dec. 22, Paul Pelosi bought 25 call options of Tesla stock for between $500,001 and $1 million. The options had a strike price of $500 and an expiration date of March 18, 2022. In other words, Paul Pelosi purchased the right to buy Tesla stock at $500 per share prior to the expiration date. On Dec. 22, Tesla stock was trading at around $650, having climbed from less than $90 at the start of 2020, on a split-adjusted basis. At the time of this writing on Feb. 2, Tesla's stock was trading at about $878 a share Nancy Pelosi's report appears to be in line with what members of Congress are required to disclose. Biden's actions During his run for president, Biden pledged to 'make a major federal commitment to purchase clean vehicles for federal, state, tribal, postal, and local fleets.' So his intent to steer the government toward an electric fleet was a matter of public record, though it didn't take the form of an executive order until Jan. 27, a week after he took office. The post we're checking alludes to an executive order Biden signed Jan. 25. That 'Buy American' order does not mention any federal government purchases of electric vehicles. But in signing the order, Biden announced that he plans to eventually replace the government's fleet of cars and trucks with electric vehicles assembled in the United States. He did not state a timeline, or mention any specific manufacturer. The Jan. 27 order, on climate, included a 'federal clean electricity and vehicle procurement strategy.' It directed 'all available procurement authorities to achieve or facilitate ... clean and zero-emission vehicles for Federal, State, local, and Tribal government fleets, including vehicles of the United States Postal Service.' The order specifically calls for 'spurring the creation of union jobs' in the manufacture of those new vehicles. Tesla's assembly workers in California are not unionized. No manufacturer of electric vehicles in the United States complies with the new 'Buy American' and unionized labor provisions, according to Wired. Replacing the federal fleet with American-produced EVs will be costly and take time, as only a handful of all-electric vehicle models are assembled in the United States, CNBC reported. | Our ruling An image shared on Facebook claims that Nancy Pelosi bought $1.25 million in Tesla stock the day before Biden signed an order 'for all federal vehicles' to be electric, implying that she sought to profit from inside information about new government policies. The House speaker did report transactions involving Tesla stock, but the post misrepresented the purchases and Biden's policies to create the false impression that the transactions represented improper insider trading in Tesla shares. The statement contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts would give a different impression - our definition of Mostly False. | [
"105860-proof-09-22037f08b6ddfb6ca9e44fc627f8e2fb.jpg"
]
|
Says Joe Biden is proposing a tax increase that's 'the largest in American history. | Contradiction | Preserve America PAC, a super PAC that supports President Donald Trump's reelection campaign, is running a 15-second Facebook ad bashing Biden for his tax plan. 'Joe Biden is proposing a $4 trillion tax increase, the largest in American history,' the narrator says. In public appearances, Trump has made similar claims, telling Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo that Biden 'want(s) to tax $4 trillion, it's going to be the biggest tax increase in history by far.' Biden's tax plan would seek to grow federal revenue by $3.6 trillion over the next decade, primarily by raising business taxes and taxes on households with incomes over $400,000 a year. But tax experts say his plan would not constitute the largest U.S. tax increase ever. Neither Trump nor the ad cited any evidence or sources for the claim. However, the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax policy organization, conducted a detailed analysis of the Biden tax plan and compared it with other historical tax increases. The group evaluated the plans by comparing the federal revenue they generated with the total gross domestic product of the U.S. at the time, an 'apples to apples' comparison, Garrett Watson, a policy analyst and co-author of the report, said in an interview. They found that measured as a share of the economy, Biden's plan would be the fifth largest of the 21 major tax bills passed since 1940. The Revenue Acts of 1941, 1942 and 1951, and the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 were all larger than the would-be Biden plan. This is the same type of analysis we applied to Trump's claim that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was the largest tax cut in American history, which we rated False. According to Watson and his co-author Erica York, measuring tax increases in nominal dollars unadjusted for inflation and economic growth - the only measure by which Biden's proposed tax increase would be the largest ever - would be misleading. As an example, York cited the Revenue Act of 1942, the largest tax increase dating back to 1940. 'According to the Treasury Department, measured in nominal dollars, (the Act) raised $10 billion in its first year. But in today's dollars, that would be approximately $160 billion, so looking at nominal dollars would be highly misleading,' she explained in an email. In its first year, the 1942 law increased federal revenue by 5.04% of GDP. If enacted in 2021, the Biden tax plan would increase revenue by an estimated 1.44% of GDP in its first year. | Our ruling A PAC ad said Biden is proposing a tax increase that's 'the largest in American history.' According to a detailed analysis by the Tax Foundation, Biden's proposed tax increase would be the fifth largest since 1940, when measured as a share of the economy. We rate this claim False. | [
"105861-proof-05-031dee1b93c28a1ab30b3e29d03bf147.jpg"
]
|
Says Elizabeth Warren, asked about the Mollie Tibbetts murder, said 'I know this is hard for her family, but they have to remember that we need to focus on real problems, like illegal immigrants not being able to see their kids. | Contradiction | The 2018 murder of Mollie Tibbetts, a University of Iowa student, and the subsequent arrest of an undocumented immigrant became a flashpoint in the immigration debate. Strong feelings over the tragedy have targeted Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren. One Facebook post highly and misleadingly edited Warren's comments about the Tibbetts murder. The post includes two pictures of Tibbetts and has this text: 'So Elizabeth Warren was asked about Mollie Tibbetts being murdered by an illegal immigrant..... Her reply was: 'I know this is hard for her family, but they have to remember that we need to focus on real problems like illegal immigrants not being able to see their kids' Let that sink in.' Anyone reading that could easily see Warren as dismissive of a murder. But that post chopped up her actual response and changed her meaning. 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.) In a Aug. 22, 2018, interview, CNN anchor John Berman asked Warren this question: 'Mike Pence and the president have suggested the immigration laws need to be stronger so that people like this man who was accused of this murder were not in the country. Your reaction?' Here's what Warren actually said. (The bolded words are the ones used in the Facebook post.) 'I'm so sorry for the family and I know this is hard, not only for the family, but for the people in her community, the people throughout Iowa. 'But one of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are. 'Last month, I went down to the border and I saw where children had been taken away from their mothers, I met with those mothers who had been lied to, who didn't know where their children were, who hadn't had a chance to talk to their children, and there was no plan for how they would be reunified with their children. 'I think we need immigration laws that focus on people who pose a real threat and I don't think mamas and babies are the place we should be spending our resources. Separating a mama from a baby does not make this country safer.' Out of the 157 words Warren said, the post used 16 (17 if you count its shift of 'focuses' to 'focus'). It added words she didn't say, such as 'illegal immigrants not being able to see their kids.' It added small words, such as 'they' to have her purported quote make grammatical sense and match the meaning the people behind the post wanted to create. The Facebook version omits Warren's words about focusing 'on people who pose a real threat.' Warren contrasted enforcement that targets those who have or might commit violence, and enforcement that separates small children from their parents - the 'zero tolerance' policy under the Trump administration in 2018. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | []
|
Says Elizabeth Warren, asked about the Mollie Tibbetts murder, said 'I know this is hard for her family, but they have to remember that we need to focus on real problems, like illegal immigrants not being able to see their kids. | Contradiction | The 2018 murder of Mollie Tibbetts, a University of Iowa student, and the subsequent arrest of an undocumented immigrant became a flashpoint in the immigration debate. Strong feelings over the tragedy have targeted Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren. One Facebook post highly and misleadingly edited Warren's comments about the Tibbetts murder. The post includes two pictures of Tibbetts and has this text: 'So Elizabeth Warren was asked about Mollie Tibbetts being murdered by an illegal immigrant..... Her reply was: 'I know this is hard for her family, but they have to remember that we need to focus on real problems like illegal immigrants not being able to see their kids' Let that sink in.' Anyone reading that could easily see Warren as dismissive of a murder. But that post chopped up her actual response and changed her meaning. 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.) In a Aug. 22, 2018, interview, CNN anchor John Berman asked Warren this question: 'Mike Pence and the president have suggested the immigration laws need to be stronger so that people like this man who was accused of this murder were not in the country. Your reaction?' Here's what Warren actually said. (The bolded words are the ones used in the Facebook post.) 'I'm so sorry for the family and I know this is hard, not only for the family, but for the people in her community, the people throughout Iowa. 'But one of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are. 'Last month, I went down to the border and I saw where children had been taken away from their mothers, I met with those mothers who had been lied to, who didn't know where their children were, who hadn't had a chance to talk to their children, and there was no plan for how they would be reunified with their children. 'I think we need immigration laws that focus on people who pose a real threat and I don't think mamas and babies are the place we should be spending our resources. Separating a mama from a baby does not make this country safer.' Out of the 157 words Warren said, the post used 16 (17 if you count its shift of 'focuses' to 'focus'). It added words she didn't say, such as 'illegal immigrants not being able to see their kids.' It added small words, such as 'they' to have her purported quote make grammatical sense and match the meaning the people behind the post wanted to create. The Facebook version omits Warren's words about focusing 'on people who pose a real threat.' Warren contrasted enforcement that targets those who have or might commit violence, and enforcement that separates small children from their parents - the 'zero tolerance' policy under the Trump administration in 2018. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | We rate this claim Pants on Fire. | []
|
'There's no evidence that white supremacists were responsible for what happened on Jan. 6. That's a lie. | Contradiction | Fox News host Tucker Carlson downplayed the involvement of racially motivated extremist groups in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, falsely suggesting that the mob of pro-Trump rioters who violently stormed the building did not include white supremacists. 'There's no evidence that white supremacists were responsible for what happened on Jan. 6. That's a lie,' Carlson said Feb. 22 on his TV show. 'And contrary to what you've been hearing, there's also no evidence this was a, quote, 'armed insurrection.'' During the segment, Carlson, whose primetime show is among the most-watched cable news programs, interviewed the author of a blog post that argued the riot did not amount to an armed insurrection. PolitiFact previously rated that claim Pants on Fire. For this fact-check, we'll focus on Carlson's claim about white supremacists. Carlson was responding to attorney general nominee Merrick Garland's pledge at his confirmation hearing to supervise the prosecution of 'white supremacists and others' involved in the riot. Experts on extremism have described white supremacists as a top domestic terrorist threat, and so has FBI director Christopher Wray. In 2019, Carlson called white supremacy a hoax. Many participants at the Capitol riot were not known white supremacists, and with investigations ongoing, it's difficult to say how responsible any one person or group was for what happened. But court documents, public records and documentary evidence have shown that several people with known ties to white supremacist groups were involved in the attack, and that many symbols of white supremacy were displayed. 'White supremacists and rebranded alt-right rioters were assuredly there, but there was also a wide variety of other insurrectionists present who share a set of unifying grievances with hardened bigots, who do not necessarily buy into full-blown white supremacy,' said Brian Levin director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. On Feb. 23, in a Senate hearing on the Capitol's security failures, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked the acting D.C. police chief, the former Capitol Police chief and the former House and Senate sergeants-at-arms if the attack 'involved white supremacist and extremist groups.' All the officials replied: 'Yes.' Fox News did not respond to a request for comment. Arrests, court documents show white supremacist involvement Carlson's claim came hours after Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn described being repeatedly called a racial slur while defending the complex. Substantial evidence shows extremist groups, including people who have publicly expressed support for white supremacist ideals, were among those in the crowd. The New York Times reported Feb. 21 that while most of the rioters were supporters of former President Donald Trump, members of right-wing extremist groups played an outsize role in the riot and were charged with some of the most serious crimes, including conspiracy charges, which indicate a level of planning and coordination. Of the more than 230 people charged so far, 31 were known to have ties to a militant extremist group, the Times found. That tracks with what Oren Segal, the vice president of the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, told PolitiFact. 'The emerging snapshot of the insurrectionists shows a range of right-wing extremists united by their fury with the perceived large-scale betrayal by 'unprincipled' legislators,' Segal said. Extremist figures at the Capitol included members of the Proud Boys, a far-right organization that celebrates Western culture and male superiority. The group gained notoriety after Trump said in a debate that the group should 'stand back and stand by.' The group has rejected claims that it promotes white supremacy. But Michael Jensen, a senior researcher with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, said some members have known ties to other white supremacist groups or have publicly expressed white supremacist views. A Wall Street Journal video investigation found that Proud Boys members were 'at the forefront' of many of the key moments during the Jan. 6 seige. Ethan Nordean, with a bullhorn, leads members of the far-right group Proud Boys in marching before the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Nordean, 30, has described himself as a leader of the Seattle chapter of the Proud Boys. (AP) Other figures at the riot had explicit white supremacist ties. Some were associated, for example, with the Groypers, a white supremacist group defined by a loose network of people who support the far-right activist and podcaster Nick Fuentes, or the Nationalist Socialist Club, a neo-Nazi group, Segal said. Others, such as far-right media personality Tim Gionet, or Baked Alaska, have expressed white supremacist views but are unaffiliated with any specific group. The ADL identified 212 of what it believes were about 800 people who breached the Capitol, Segal said. Among those identified, Segal said the ADL has counted 17 Proud Boys, six people associated with an anti-government militant group known as the Oath Keepers, and 10 people with ties to the Groypers or other white supremacist groups. 'They were certainly present at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and several participated in storming the building,' Jensen said, pointing to people like Gionet and Bryan Betancur, a self-professed white supremacist who was seen wearing a Proud Boys shirt and posing with a Confederate flag. Symbols of white supremacy The presence of white supremacists was also marked by prominently displayed symbols, including some that are 'overtly racist' and others that are coded or co-opted but resonate among followers of far-right extremist groups, said Levin. One man, Robert Packer, was seen in a 'Camp Auschwitz' T-shirt, a reference to a complex of concentration camps used during the Holocaust. Others waved Confederate flags, flashed 'white power' symbols, showcased 'Pepe the frog' imagery and more, Levin said. Supporters listen as President Donald Trump speaks during a rally in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, shortly before rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol. (AP) Rioters also erected a hanging gallows, which Levin said is a symbol for white supremacists and other alt-right figures signaling a day when 'government leaders and minorities are hanged.' The Washington Post combed through footage from the riot and identified many such symbols showing support for white supremacy and other far-right causes and groups. | Our ruling Carlson said, 'There's no evidence that white supremacists were responsible for what happened on Jan. 6. That's a lie.' Not all of the rioters at the Capitol were extremists or white supremacists. But several people with known ties to white supremacist groups were involved, including some people now facing conspiracy charges. Symbols of white supremacy were also prominently on display. Law enforcement officials said the the attack involved extremist and white supremacist groups. We rate Carlson's statement False. | [
"105892-proof-19-AP_21039721090052.jpg",
"105892-proof-22-edb531ae1777b566149ed8cd13800e88.jpg",
"105892-proof-25-AP_21016005248526.jpg"
]
|
'There's no evidence that white supremacists were responsible for what happened on Jan. 6. That's a lie. | Contradiction | Fox News host Tucker Carlson downplayed the involvement of racially motivated extremist groups in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, falsely suggesting that the mob of pro-Trump rioters who violently stormed the building did not include white supremacists. 'There's no evidence that white supremacists were responsible for what happened on Jan. 6. That's a lie,' Carlson said Feb. 22 on his TV show. 'And contrary to what you've been hearing, there's also no evidence this was a, quote, 'armed insurrection.'' During the segment, Carlson, whose primetime show is among the most-watched cable news programs, interviewed the author of a blog post that argued the riot did not amount to an armed insurrection. PolitiFact previously rated that claim Pants on Fire. For this fact-check, we'll focus on Carlson's claim about white supremacists. Carlson was responding to attorney general nominee Merrick Garland's pledge at his confirmation hearing to supervise the prosecution of 'white supremacists and others' involved in the riot. Experts on extremism have described white supremacists as a top domestic terrorist threat, and so has FBI director Christopher Wray. In 2019, Carlson called white supremacy a hoax. Many participants at the Capitol riot were not known white supremacists, and with investigations ongoing, it's difficult to say how responsible any one person or group was for what happened. But court documents, public records and documentary evidence have shown that several people with known ties to white supremacist groups were involved in the attack, and that many symbols of white supremacy were displayed. 'White supremacists and rebranded alt-right rioters were assuredly there, but there was also a wide variety of other insurrectionists present who share a set of unifying grievances with hardened bigots, who do not necessarily buy into full-blown white supremacy,' said Brian Levin director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. On Feb. 23, in a Senate hearing on the Capitol's security failures, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked the acting D.C. police chief, the former Capitol Police chief and the former House and Senate sergeants-at-arms if the attack 'involved white supremacist and extremist groups.' All the officials replied: 'Yes.' Fox News did not respond to a request for comment. Arrests, court documents show white supremacist involvement Carlson's claim came hours after Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn described being repeatedly called a racial slur while defending the complex. Substantial evidence shows extremist groups, including people who have publicly expressed support for white supremacist ideals, were among those in the crowd. The New York Times reported Feb. 21 that while most of the rioters were supporters of former President Donald Trump, members of right-wing extremist groups played an outsize role in the riot and were charged with some of the most serious crimes, including conspiracy charges, which indicate a level of planning and coordination. Of the more than 230 people charged so far, 31 were known to have ties to a militant extremist group, the Times found. That tracks with what Oren Segal, the vice president of the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, told PolitiFact. 'The emerging snapshot of the insurrectionists shows a range of right-wing extremists united by their fury with the perceived large-scale betrayal by 'unprincipled' legislators,' Segal said. Extremist figures at the Capitol included members of the Proud Boys, a far-right organization that celebrates Western culture and male superiority. The group gained notoriety after Trump said in a debate that the group should 'stand back and stand by.' The group has rejected claims that it promotes white supremacy. But Michael Jensen, a senior researcher with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, said some members have known ties to other white supremacist groups or have publicly expressed white supremacist views. A Wall Street Journal video investigation found that Proud Boys members were 'at the forefront' of many of the key moments during the Jan. 6 seige. Ethan Nordean, with a bullhorn, leads members of the far-right group Proud Boys in marching before the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Nordean, 30, has described himself as a leader of the Seattle chapter of the Proud Boys. (AP) Other figures at the riot had explicit white supremacist ties. Some were associated, for example, with the Groypers, a white supremacist group defined by a loose network of people who support the far-right activist and podcaster Nick Fuentes, or the Nationalist Socialist Club, a neo-Nazi group, Segal said. Others, such as far-right media personality Tim Gionet, or Baked Alaska, have expressed white supremacist views but are unaffiliated with any specific group. The ADL identified 212 of what it believes were about 800 people who breached the Capitol, Segal said. Among those identified, Segal said the ADL has counted 17 Proud Boys, six people associated with an anti-government militant group known as the Oath Keepers, and 10 people with ties to the Groypers or other white supremacist groups. 'They were certainly present at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and several participated in storming the building,' Jensen said, pointing to people like Gionet and Bryan Betancur, a self-professed white supremacist who was seen wearing a Proud Boys shirt and posing with a Confederate flag. Symbols of white supremacy The presence of white supremacists was also marked by prominently displayed symbols, including some that are 'overtly racist' and others that are coded or co-opted but resonate among followers of far-right extremist groups, said Levin. One man, Robert Packer, was seen in a 'Camp Auschwitz' T-shirt, a reference to a complex of concentration camps used during the Holocaust. Others waved Confederate flags, flashed 'white power' symbols, showcased 'Pepe the frog' imagery and more, Levin said. Supporters listen as President Donald Trump speaks during a rally in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, shortly before rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol. (AP) Rioters also erected a hanging gallows, which Levin said is a symbol for white supremacists and other alt-right figures signaling a day when 'government leaders and minorities are hanged.' The Washington Post combed through footage from the riot and identified many such symbols showing support for white supremacy and other far-right causes and groups. | Our ruling Carlson said, 'There's no evidence that white supremacists were responsible for what happened on Jan. 6. That's a lie.' Not all of the rioters at the Capitol were extremists or white supremacists. But several people with known ties to white supremacist groups were involved, including some people now facing conspiracy charges. Symbols of white supremacy were also prominently on display. Law enforcement officials said the the attack involved extremist and white supremacist groups. We rate Carlson's statement False. | [
"105892-proof-19-AP_21039721090052.jpg",
"105892-proof-22-edb531ae1777b566149ed8cd13800e88.jpg",
"105892-proof-25-AP_21016005248526.jpg"
]
|
'There's no evidence that white supremacists were responsible for what happened on Jan. 6. That's a lie. | Contradiction | Fox News host Tucker Carlson downplayed the involvement of racially motivated extremist groups in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, falsely suggesting that the mob of pro-Trump rioters who violently stormed the building did not include white supremacists. 'There's no evidence that white supremacists were responsible for what happened on Jan. 6. That's a lie,' Carlson said Feb. 22 on his TV show. 'And contrary to what you've been hearing, there's also no evidence this was a, quote, 'armed insurrection.'' During the segment, Carlson, whose primetime show is among the most-watched cable news programs, interviewed the author of a blog post that argued the riot did not amount to an armed insurrection. PolitiFact previously rated that claim Pants on Fire. For this fact-check, we'll focus on Carlson's claim about white supremacists. Carlson was responding to attorney general nominee Merrick Garland's pledge at his confirmation hearing to supervise the prosecution of 'white supremacists and others' involved in the riot. Experts on extremism have described white supremacists as a top domestic terrorist threat, and so has FBI director Christopher Wray. In 2019, Carlson called white supremacy a hoax. Many participants at the Capitol riot were not known white supremacists, and with investigations ongoing, it's difficult to say how responsible any one person or group was for what happened. But court documents, public records and documentary evidence have shown that several people with known ties to white supremacist groups were involved in the attack, and that many symbols of white supremacy were displayed. 'White supremacists and rebranded alt-right rioters were assuredly there, but there was also a wide variety of other insurrectionists present who share a set of unifying grievances with hardened bigots, who do not necessarily buy into full-blown white supremacy,' said Brian Levin director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. On Feb. 23, in a Senate hearing on the Capitol's security failures, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked the acting D.C. police chief, the former Capitol Police chief and the former House and Senate sergeants-at-arms if the attack 'involved white supremacist and extremist groups.' All the officials replied: 'Yes.' Fox News did not respond to a request for comment. Arrests, court documents show white supremacist involvement Carlson's claim came hours after Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn described being repeatedly called a racial slur while defending the complex. Substantial evidence shows extremist groups, including people who have publicly expressed support for white supremacist ideals, were among those in the crowd. The New York Times reported Feb. 21 that while most of the rioters were supporters of former President Donald Trump, members of right-wing extremist groups played an outsize role in the riot and were charged with some of the most serious crimes, including conspiracy charges, which indicate a level of planning and coordination. Of the more than 230 people charged so far, 31 were known to have ties to a militant extremist group, the Times found. That tracks with what Oren Segal, the vice president of the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, told PolitiFact. 'The emerging snapshot of the insurrectionists shows a range of right-wing extremists united by their fury with the perceived large-scale betrayal by 'unprincipled' legislators,' Segal said. Extremist figures at the Capitol included members of the Proud Boys, a far-right organization that celebrates Western culture and male superiority. The group gained notoriety after Trump said in a debate that the group should 'stand back and stand by.' The group has rejected claims that it promotes white supremacy. But Michael Jensen, a senior researcher with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, said some members have known ties to other white supremacist groups or have publicly expressed white supremacist views. A Wall Street Journal video investigation found that Proud Boys members were 'at the forefront' of many of the key moments during the Jan. 6 seige. Ethan Nordean, with a bullhorn, leads members of the far-right group Proud Boys in marching before the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Nordean, 30, has described himself as a leader of the Seattle chapter of the Proud Boys. (AP) Other figures at the riot had explicit white supremacist ties. Some were associated, for example, with the Groypers, a white supremacist group defined by a loose network of people who support the far-right activist and podcaster Nick Fuentes, or the Nationalist Socialist Club, a neo-Nazi group, Segal said. Others, such as far-right media personality Tim Gionet, or Baked Alaska, have expressed white supremacist views but are unaffiliated with any specific group. The ADL identified 212 of what it believes were about 800 people who breached the Capitol, Segal said. Among those identified, Segal said the ADL has counted 17 Proud Boys, six people associated with an anti-government militant group known as the Oath Keepers, and 10 people with ties to the Groypers or other white supremacist groups. 'They were certainly present at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and several participated in storming the building,' Jensen said, pointing to people like Gionet and Bryan Betancur, a self-professed white supremacist who was seen wearing a Proud Boys shirt and posing with a Confederate flag. Symbols of white supremacy The presence of white supremacists was also marked by prominently displayed symbols, including some that are 'overtly racist' and others that are coded or co-opted but resonate among followers of far-right extremist groups, said Levin. One man, Robert Packer, was seen in a 'Camp Auschwitz' T-shirt, a reference to a complex of concentration camps used during the Holocaust. Others waved Confederate flags, flashed 'white power' symbols, showcased 'Pepe the frog' imagery and more, Levin said. Supporters listen as President Donald Trump speaks during a rally in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, shortly before rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol. (AP) Rioters also erected a hanging gallows, which Levin said is a symbol for white supremacists and other alt-right figures signaling a day when 'government leaders and minorities are hanged.' The Washington Post combed through footage from the riot and identified many such symbols showing support for white supremacy and other far-right causes and groups. | Our ruling Carlson said, 'There's no evidence that white supremacists were responsible for what happened on Jan. 6. That's a lie.' Not all of the rioters at the Capitol were extremists or white supremacists. But several people with known ties to white supremacist groups were involved, including some people now facing conspiracy charges. Symbols of white supremacy were also prominently on display. Law enforcement officials said the the attack involved extremist and white supremacist groups. We rate Carlson's statement False. | [
"105892-proof-19-AP_21039721090052.jpg",
"105892-proof-22-edb531ae1777b566149ed8cd13800e88.jpg",
"105892-proof-25-AP_21016005248526.jpg"
]
|
'Church services can't resume until we're all vaccinated, says Bill Gates. | Contradiction | Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, whose charitable foundation has long focused on public-health initiatives, has emerged as a prominent voice in public discussions about how to combat the new coronavirus. But a recent blog post misrepresents his statements about recovering from the current crisis. The headline of an April 9 blog post on the website Pulpit & Pen says: 'Church services can't resume until we're all vaccinated, says Bill Gates.' 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 blog goes on to say that 'Gates now argues that 'mass gatherings' (churches) will not meet again until a vaccine is found and everyone is vaccinated.' The post links to an April 2 story on MyNorthwest.com about an interview Gates gave to 'CBS This Morning.' In the interview, according to CBS, Gates called for a nationwide social isolation policy to slow the pandemic's spread. 'It'll help everyone get out of this more quickly and reduce the deaths and reduce the economic reduction,' Gates said, 'if we implement these strong isolation measures on a countrywide basis.' We listened to the nearly 30-minute interview and we didn't hear Gates mention churches. Rather, he says that the government needs to prioritize testing, and talks about when a vaccine could be ready for COVID-19 and when communities could open back up. He said that he expects that by the end of April some regions will see the number of COVID-19 cases plateau and then decrease. 'We understand what needs to be done here, it's going to be very painful, but taking the pain early means there's a lot less pain both medically and economically than if we dilly-dally and wait until every town has big numbers before we react,' he said. He then speculated about what opening up would look like. 'Which activities have, like schools, have such benefit and can be done in a way that the risk of transmission is very low? And which activities like mass gatherings may be, in a certain sense, more optional. And so until you're widely vaccinated, those may not come back at all,' he said. When 'CBS This Morning' co-host Anthony Mason asked Gates if life will ever be the same, Gates said, 'not for some time.' What he doesn't say? That church services can't resume until we're all vaccinated. Considering what the world will look like as regions slow the spread of the coronavirus and people start to resume their lives, Gates suggests that some mass gatherings may not come back before enough people have been vaccinated against COVID-19. But Gates doesn't specify that this means 'church' gatherings, nor does he have any power to forbid church services 'until we're all vaccinated,' as the post says. In the interview he mentions talking to pharmaceutical companies and federal agencies about how to collaborate on a vaccine, but he doesn't imply that he has control over what policies the government could adopt with respect to such gatherings. We rate this blog headline False. | We rate this blog headline False. | []
|
'The mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting. | Contradiction | A far-right news broadcast shared widely on Facebook says the 'mainstream media' is misleading people about Wisconsin's mid-pandemic election. The election has remained a hot topic nationally, as it was effectively a study in what can happen when a large number of people go out in public together amid a lockdown order. It's a unique datapoint as politicians and citizens alike argue over how and when to re-open. And one TV outlet says you're being lied to about it. On the One America News Network, host Liz Wheeler described it this way in a May 8, 2020, clip labeled online as 'What the (mainstream media) was afraid to tell you': 'There is no evidence to date that there was a surge of infections due to the April 7, 2020, election in Wisconsin. ... But did the mainstream media report on this? No, no,' she said. 'In fact, the mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting.' 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.) Wheeler is right about there being no evidence of a surge. We've repeatedly debunked claims that there was one. But her generalization about 'mainstream media' claiming otherwise? That's ridiculous. Let's take a closer look at how this topic has been covered by prominent media outlets. State, national reports measured in discussing election impact For starters, let's be clear that there was no election 'surge.' As of May 11, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services identified 71 people who tested positive for COVID-19 after voting or working the polls in the April 7 election, according to spokeswoman Elizabeth Goodsitt. The important caveat here is that it's impossible to say how many were infected at the polls since some reported other possible exposures. The 71 tally runs from April 9 to 21, when the two-week incubation period for the coronavirus would have ended. There were 1,864 positive tests in that span in Wisconsin, so the cases known to intersect with election activity accounted for less than 4% of that total. Now on to the 'mainstream media' reports. Wheeler's report cites no sources for the claim the media said there was a surge in cases, so we cast a wide net looking at news coverage ourselves. CNN - a favorite target for far-right claims of media bias - reported on April 22 about what was then 19 cases in people who voted or worked the polls. The third and fourth paragraphs of the story detail the caveat that those people had other exposures, so it's impossible to say the election was the source. ABC News published a similar report April 21, prominently noting the same caveat in the second paragraph. The Associated Press, reporting on updated data April 29, said 50 people connected to the election had tested positive. It noted the origin caveat in the second paragraph. Like the CNN and ABC reports the week before, it contained no hyperbolic language calling this a surge or anything close to that. In-state sources were even more clear. An April 22 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story was headlined, 'Two weeks after election, COVID-19 cases have not spiked in Wisconsin but experts urge caution about conclusions.' A Wisconsin State Journal report on April 23 worked the 'can't say for certain' caveat into the lead sentence. It did the same for a May 8 story when the tally had grown to 67. And a fact-check published by both PolitiFact Wisconsin and USA TODAY rated False a claim from a little-known news outlet that there had been a 'surge' in COVID-19 cases in Wisconsin after the election. Here's what that fact check said about the sloppily-reported claim from SecondNexus.com: 'The data the article cited failed to factor in a drop in the number of tests administered. It wrongly treated an unusually low number of cases on April 13 as a baseline against which to compare the following days' new cases. The increase cited was in fact connected to an increased number of tests in the following days.' Both the article and the tweet it was based on were removed after that fact-check published. We won't bother to dive deeper into Wheeler's 'pretended' claim. That adds another layer of absurdity since it implies some kind of intentional coverup or falsehood, when there's no proof the coverage was wrong in the first place. | Our ruling The One America News Network claimed in a video posted to Facebook that 'mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting.' We didn't find a single traditional or 'mainstream' news outlet that characterized the election-related cases as a surge or anything close to that - much less anything that would support this kind of sweeping generalization. The reports prominently noted the caveat that officials can't say for certain that the election caused the cases we are aware of, and they had made no exaggerated claims about how large those numbers were. (And, to be clear, the 71 cases certainly don't constitute a surge.) So Wheeler is flat wrong in both her claim about coverage and the related implication from the use of 'pretended' that something was reported wrong intentionally. We rate this Pants on Fire. | [
"105901-proof-00-WheelerPOFGraphic.jpg"
]
|
'The mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting. | Contradiction | A far-right news broadcast shared widely on Facebook says the 'mainstream media' is misleading people about Wisconsin's mid-pandemic election. The election has remained a hot topic nationally, as it was effectively a study in what can happen when a large number of people go out in public together amid a lockdown order. It's a unique datapoint as politicians and citizens alike argue over how and when to re-open. And one TV outlet says you're being lied to about it. On the One America News Network, host Liz Wheeler described it this way in a May 8, 2020, clip labeled online as 'What the (mainstream media) was afraid to tell you': 'There is no evidence to date that there was a surge of infections due to the April 7, 2020, election in Wisconsin. ... But did the mainstream media report on this? No, no,' she said. 'In fact, the mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting.' 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.) Wheeler is right about there being no evidence of a surge. We've repeatedly debunked claims that there was one. But her generalization about 'mainstream media' claiming otherwise? That's ridiculous. Let's take a closer look at how this topic has been covered by prominent media outlets. State, national reports measured in discussing election impact For starters, let's be clear that there was no election 'surge.' As of May 11, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services identified 71 people who tested positive for COVID-19 after voting or working the polls in the April 7 election, according to spokeswoman Elizabeth Goodsitt. The important caveat here is that it's impossible to say how many were infected at the polls since some reported other possible exposures. The 71 tally runs from April 9 to 21, when the two-week incubation period for the coronavirus would have ended. There were 1,864 positive tests in that span in Wisconsin, so the cases known to intersect with election activity accounted for less than 4% of that total. Now on to the 'mainstream media' reports. Wheeler's report cites no sources for the claim the media said there was a surge in cases, so we cast a wide net looking at news coverage ourselves. CNN - a favorite target for far-right claims of media bias - reported on April 22 about what was then 19 cases in people who voted or worked the polls. The third and fourth paragraphs of the story detail the caveat that those people had other exposures, so it's impossible to say the election was the source. ABC News published a similar report April 21, prominently noting the same caveat in the second paragraph. The Associated Press, reporting on updated data April 29, said 50 people connected to the election had tested positive. It noted the origin caveat in the second paragraph. Like the CNN and ABC reports the week before, it contained no hyperbolic language calling this a surge or anything close to that. In-state sources were even more clear. An April 22 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story was headlined, 'Two weeks after election, COVID-19 cases have not spiked in Wisconsin but experts urge caution about conclusions.' A Wisconsin State Journal report on April 23 worked the 'can't say for certain' caveat into the lead sentence. It did the same for a May 8 story when the tally had grown to 67. And a fact-check published by both PolitiFact Wisconsin and USA TODAY rated False a claim from a little-known news outlet that there had been a 'surge' in COVID-19 cases in Wisconsin after the election. Here's what that fact check said about the sloppily-reported claim from SecondNexus.com: 'The data the article cited failed to factor in a drop in the number of tests administered. It wrongly treated an unusually low number of cases on April 13 as a baseline against which to compare the following days' new cases. The increase cited was in fact connected to an increased number of tests in the following days.' Both the article and the tweet it was based on were removed after that fact-check published. We won't bother to dive deeper into Wheeler's 'pretended' claim. That adds another layer of absurdity since it implies some kind of intentional coverup or falsehood, when there's no proof the coverage was wrong in the first place. | Our ruling The One America News Network claimed in a video posted to Facebook that 'mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting.' We didn't find a single traditional or 'mainstream' news outlet that characterized the election-related cases as a surge or anything close to that - much less anything that would support this kind of sweeping generalization. The reports prominently noted the caveat that officials can't say for certain that the election caused the cases we are aware of, and they had made no exaggerated claims about how large those numbers were. (And, to be clear, the 71 cases certainly don't constitute a surge.) So Wheeler is flat wrong in both her claim about coverage and the related implication from the use of 'pretended' that something was reported wrong intentionally. We rate this Pants on Fire. | [
"105901-proof-00-WheelerPOFGraphic.jpg"
]
|
'The mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting. | Contradiction | A far-right news broadcast shared widely on Facebook says the 'mainstream media' is misleading people about Wisconsin's mid-pandemic election. The election has remained a hot topic nationally, as it was effectively a study in what can happen when a large number of people go out in public together amid a lockdown order. It's a unique datapoint as politicians and citizens alike argue over how and when to re-open. And one TV outlet says you're being lied to about it. On the One America News Network, host Liz Wheeler described it this way in a May 8, 2020, clip labeled online as 'What the (mainstream media) was afraid to tell you': 'There is no evidence to date that there was a surge of infections due to the April 7, 2020, election in Wisconsin. ... But did the mainstream media report on this? No, no,' she said. 'In fact, the mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting.' 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.) Wheeler is right about there being no evidence of a surge. We've repeatedly debunked claims that there was one. But her generalization about 'mainstream media' claiming otherwise? That's ridiculous. Let's take a closer look at how this topic has been covered by prominent media outlets. State, national reports measured in discussing election impact For starters, let's be clear that there was no election 'surge.' As of May 11, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services identified 71 people who tested positive for COVID-19 after voting or working the polls in the April 7 election, according to spokeswoman Elizabeth Goodsitt. The important caveat here is that it's impossible to say how many were infected at the polls since some reported other possible exposures. The 71 tally runs from April 9 to 21, when the two-week incubation period for the coronavirus would have ended. There were 1,864 positive tests in that span in Wisconsin, so the cases known to intersect with election activity accounted for less than 4% of that total. Now on to the 'mainstream media' reports. Wheeler's report cites no sources for the claim the media said there was a surge in cases, so we cast a wide net looking at news coverage ourselves. CNN - a favorite target for far-right claims of media bias - reported on April 22 about what was then 19 cases in people who voted or worked the polls. The third and fourth paragraphs of the story detail the caveat that those people had other exposures, so it's impossible to say the election was the source. ABC News published a similar report April 21, prominently noting the same caveat in the second paragraph. The Associated Press, reporting on updated data April 29, said 50 people connected to the election had tested positive. It noted the origin caveat in the second paragraph. Like the CNN and ABC reports the week before, it contained no hyperbolic language calling this a surge or anything close to that. In-state sources were even more clear. An April 22 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story was headlined, 'Two weeks after election, COVID-19 cases have not spiked in Wisconsin but experts urge caution about conclusions.' A Wisconsin State Journal report on April 23 worked the 'can't say for certain' caveat into the lead sentence. It did the same for a May 8 story when the tally had grown to 67. And a fact-check published by both PolitiFact Wisconsin and USA TODAY rated False a claim from a little-known news outlet that there had been a 'surge' in COVID-19 cases in Wisconsin after the election. Here's what that fact check said about the sloppily-reported claim from SecondNexus.com: 'The data the article cited failed to factor in a drop in the number of tests administered. It wrongly treated an unusually low number of cases on April 13 as a baseline against which to compare the following days' new cases. The increase cited was in fact connected to an increased number of tests in the following days.' Both the article and the tweet it was based on were removed after that fact-check published. We won't bother to dive deeper into Wheeler's 'pretended' claim. That adds another layer of absurdity since it implies some kind of intentional coverup or falsehood, when there's no proof the coverage was wrong in the first place. | Our ruling The One America News Network claimed in a video posted to Facebook that 'mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting.' We didn't find a single traditional or 'mainstream' news outlet that characterized the election-related cases as a surge or anything close to that - much less anything that would support this kind of sweeping generalization. The reports prominently noted the caveat that officials can't say for certain that the election caused the cases we are aware of, and they had made no exaggerated claims about how large those numbers were. (And, to be clear, the 71 cases certainly don't constitute a surge.) So Wheeler is flat wrong in both her claim about coverage and the related implication from the use of 'pretended' that something was reported wrong intentionally. We rate this Pants on Fire. | [
"105901-proof-00-WheelerPOFGraphic.jpg"
]
|
'The mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting. | Contradiction | A far-right news broadcast shared widely on Facebook says the 'mainstream media' is misleading people about Wisconsin's mid-pandemic election. The election has remained a hot topic nationally, as it was effectively a study in what can happen when a large number of people go out in public together amid a lockdown order. It's a unique datapoint as politicians and citizens alike argue over how and when to re-open. And one TV outlet says you're being lied to about it. On the One America News Network, host Liz Wheeler described it this way in a May 8, 2020, clip labeled online as 'What the (mainstream media) was afraid to tell you': 'There is no evidence to date that there was a surge of infections due to the April 7, 2020, election in Wisconsin. ... But did the mainstream media report on this? No, no,' she said. 'In fact, the mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting.' 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.) Wheeler is right about there being no evidence of a surge. We've repeatedly debunked claims that there was one. But her generalization about 'mainstream media' claiming otherwise? That's ridiculous. Let's take a closer look at how this topic has been covered by prominent media outlets. State, national reports measured in discussing election impact For starters, let's be clear that there was no election 'surge.' As of May 11, 2020, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services identified 71 people who tested positive for COVID-19 after voting or working the polls in the April 7 election, according to spokeswoman Elizabeth Goodsitt. The important caveat here is that it's impossible to say how many were infected at the polls since some reported other possible exposures. The 71 tally runs from April 9 to 21, when the two-week incubation period for the coronavirus would have ended. There were 1,864 positive tests in that span in Wisconsin, so the cases known to intersect with election activity accounted for less than 4% of that total. Now on to the 'mainstream media' reports. Wheeler's report cites no sources for the claim the media said there was a surge in cases, so we cast a wide net looking at news coverage ourselves. CNN - a favorite target for far-right claims of media bias - reported on April 22 about what was then 19 cases in people who voted or worked the polls. The third and fourth paragraphs of the story detail the caveat that those people had other exposures, so it's impossible to say the election was the source. ABC News published a similar report April 21, prominently noting the same caveat in the second paragraph. The Associated Press, reporting on updated data April 29, said 50 people connected to the election had tested positive. It noted the origin caveat in the second paragraph. Like the CNN and ABC reports the week before, it contained no hyperbolic language calling this a surge or anything close to that. In-state sources were even more clear. An April 22 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story was headlined, 'Two weeks after election, COVID-19 cases have not spiked in Wisconsin but experts urge caution about conclusions.' A Wisconsin State Journal report on April 23 worked the 'can't say for certain' caveat into the lead sentence. It did the same for a May 8 story when the tally had grown to 67. And a fact-check published by both PolitiFact Wisconsin and USA TODAY rated False a claim from a little-known news outlet that there had been a 'surge' in COVID-19 cases in Wisconsin after the election. Here's what that fact check said about the sloppily-reported claim from SecondNexus.com: 'The data the article cited failed to factor in a drop in the number of tests administered. It wrongly treated an unusually low number of cases on April 13 as a baseline against which to compare the following days' new cases. The increase cited was in fact connected to an increased number of tests in the following days.' Both the article and the tweet it was based on were removed after that fact-check published. We won't bother to dive deeper into Wheeler's 'pretended' claim. That adds another layer of absurdity since it implies some kind of intentional coverup or falsehood, when there's no proof the coverage was wrong in the first place. | Our ruling The One America News Network claimed in a video posted to Facebook that 'mainstream media pretended there was a deadly surge in COVID cases thanks to Wisconsinites voting.' We didn't find a single traditional or 'mainstream' news outlet that characterized the election-related cases as a surge or anything close to that - much less anything that would support this kind of sweeping generalization. The reports prominently noted the caveat that officials can't say for certain that the election caused the cases we are aware of, and they had made no exaggerated claims about how large those numbers were. (And, to be clear, the 71 cases certainly don't constitute a surge.) So Wheeler is flat wrong in both her claim about coverage and the related implication from the use of 'pretended' that something was reported wrong intentionally. We rate this Pants on Fire. | [
"105901-proof-00-WheelerPOFGraphic.jpg"
]
|
The COVID economic relief package 'included $600 million for San Francisco, part of which goes to cover the tab for free alcohol and marijuana for the homeless. | Contradiction | The Democrats and President Joe Biden are making a full court press to tell Americans about the many ways their COVID-19 relief package will put money in their pockets. Republicans are working just as hard to paint the $1.9 trillion law as a colossal waste of government funds. 'Nancy Pelosi's Bay Area Bailout included $600 million for San Francisco, part of which goes to cover the tab for free alcohol and marijuana for the homeless,' House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tweeted March 14. 'I've said it before and I'll say it again: this bailout is too costly, corrupt, and liberal.' Did you know? - Nancy Pelosi's Bay Area Bailout included $600 million for San Francisco, part of which goes to cover the tab for free alcohol and marijuana for the homeless. I've said it before and I'll say it again: this bailout is too costly, corrupt, and liberal. pic.twitter.com/K6vabaCeKu- Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) March 14, 2021 Does the federal relief package really pay for San Francisco to provide free weed and booze for the homeless? Let's sort this out. City officials say the American Rescue Plan Act - which contains $360 billion in aid to state and local governments - will send San Francisco about $600 million over the next two years. The city can decide how to spend the money to help recover from damage wrought by the pandemic. McCarthy mangled the facts in tying the relief package to what's taking place with people - not just homeless people - whom the city puts up in hotels to isolate them when they've been exposed to the coronavirus. Isolating people in the spring After a COVID-19 outbreak at a San Francisco homeless shelter in April 2020, the city moved to isolate more homeless people in hotels. The isolation and quarantine program grew to include people who weren't homeless but who lived in cramped quarters where it was impossible to stay away from others. In May, word spread that staff were providing some of these people with marijuana and alcohol. A local activist went on Twitter to call out the practice, and the city public health department defended itself. 'These harm-reduction based practices, which are not unique to San Francisco, and are not paid for with taxpayer money, help guests successfully complete isolation and quarantine and have significant individual and public health benefits in the COVID-19 pandemic,' the department tweeted May 5, 2020. A flawed news report miscast a statement from the health department as indicating that it provided marijuana. Part of the confusion was that the city's practices involving alcohol were separate from those involving marijuana. Let's look at the alcohol policy first. Jenna Lane, a spokeswoman for the city health department, told us that the key to isolating people during a pandemic is to keep them in their rooms. For homeless people with severe alcoholism, going cold turkey was a health risk. 'Medical providers prescribed limited amounts of alcohol to be served with a meal to just those guests who would otherwise go into alcohol withdrawal,' Lane said. 'Alcohol withdrawal can be fatal.' Some alcoholics got vodka, some got beer. Lane said these people represented a small fraction of the homeless whom the city took care of in its isolation and quarantine program. City staff supported everyone who was in recovery and helped them stay substance-free. As of the time of this fact-check, there were 23 people in isolation and quarantine. San Francisco provides alcohol only in the isolation and quarantine program. Until May 4, 2020, the city relied on private donations to pay for the vodka and beer for residents. In the ensuing 10 months, the city spent $14,940 in public funds to provide alcohol, or about $1,500 each month. Lane said the city never paid for marijuana. Some people in the city's isolation program used marijuana while quarantining in a city-provided hotel room. California allows personal use of marijuana. These residents paid for the drug themselves. 'If someone had a prescription for medical cannabis, staff might receive prescription deliveries at the front entrance of the hotel,' Lane said. 'They would accept it on behalf of a guest. But no staff facilitated recreational purchases.' In November, the city announced measures to relocate about 2,300 people who were then staying in hotels. The goal was to end the hotel program by the end of June 2021. Drew Hammill, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told us, 'There are no federal funds being used for these purposes.' We reached out to McCarthy's office and did not hear back. | Our ruling McCarthy said the federal relief package has '$600 million for San Francisco, part of which goes to cover the tab for free alcohol and marijuana for the homeless.' Since May 2020, San Francisco has spent about $1,500 of public money each month to provide medically prescribed alcohol to people with severe alcoholism in COVID-19 isolation and quarantine sites for homeless people. No federal money has been allotted to this program, which is due to end in June. The city does not provide marijuana to people at quarantine sites. McCarthy's claim misrepresented what's in the federal relief package. We rate this claim False. CORRECTION, March 16, 10:21 p.m.: An earlier version of this article gave an incorrect amount for San Francisco's monthly spending on alcohol. The rating is not changed. | [
"105929-proof-42-48365b9eaa0ba7a3095ec78243f5b901.jpg"
]
|
The COVID economic relief package 'included $600 million for San Francisco, part of which goes to cover the tab for free alcohol and marijuana for the homeless. | Contradiction | The Democrats and President Joe Biden are making a full court press to tell Americans about the many ways their COVID-19 relief package will put money in their pockets. Republicans are working just as hard to paint the $1.9 trillion law as a colossal waste of government funds. 'Nancy Pelosi's Bay Area Bailout included $600 million for San Francisco, part of which goes to cover the tab for free alcohol and marijuana for the homeless,' House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tweeted March 14. 'I've said it before and I'll say it again: this bailout is too costly, corrupt, and liberal.' Did you know? - Nancy Pelosi's Bay Area Bailout included $600 million for San Francisco, part of which goes to cover the tab for free alcohol and marijuana for the homeless. I've said it before and I'll say it again: this bailout is too costly, corrupt, and liberal. pic.twitter.com/K6vabaCeKu- Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) March 14, 2021 Does the federal relief package really pay for San Francisco to provide free weed and booze for the homeless? Let's sort this out. City officials say the American Rescue Plan Act - which contains $360 billion in aid to state and local governments - will send San Francisco about $600 million over the next two years. The city can decide how to spend the money to help recover from damage wrought by the pandemic. McCarthy mangled the facts in tying the relief package to what's taking place with people - not just homeless people - whom the city puts up in hotels to isolate them when they've been exposed to the coronavirus. Isolating people in the spring After a COVID-19 outbreak at a San Francisco homeless shelter in April 2020, the city moved to isolate more homeless people in hotels. The isolation and quarantine program grew to include people who weren't homeless but who lived in cramped quarters where it was impossible to stay away from others. In May, word spread that staff were providing some of these people with marijuana and alcohol. A local activist went on Twitter to call out the practice, and the city public health department defended itself. 'These harm-reduction based practices, which are not unique to San Francisco, and are not paid for with taxpayer money, help guests successfully complete isolation and quarantine and have significant individual and public health benefits in the COVID-19 pandemic,' the department tweeted May 5, 2020. A flawed news report miscast a statement from the health department as indicating that it provided marijuana. Part of the confusion was that the city's practices involving alcohol were separate from those involving marijuana. Let's look at the alcohol policy first. Jenna Lane, a spokeswoman for the city health department, told us that the key to isolating people during a pandemic is to keep them in their rooms. For homeless people with severe alcoholism, going cold turkey was a health risk. 'Medical providers prescribed limited amounts of alcohol to be served with a meal to just those guests who would otherwise go into alcohol withdrawal,' Lane said. 'Alcohol withdrawal can be fatal.' Some alcoholics got vodka, some got beer. Lane said these people represented a small fraction of the homeless whom the city took care of in its isolation and quarantine program. City staff supported everyone who was in recovery and helped them stay substance-free. As of the time of this fact-check, there were 23 people in isolation and quarantine. San Francisco provides alcohol only in the isolation and quarantine program. Until May 4, 2020, the city relied on private donations to pay for the vodka and beer for residents. In the ensuing 10 months, the city spent $14,940 in public funds to provide alcohol, or about $1,500 each month. Lane said the city never paid for marijuana. Some people in the city's isolation program used marijuana while quarantining in a city-provided hotel room. California allows personal use of marijuana. These residents paid for the drug themselves. 'If someone had a prescription for medical cannabis, staff might receive prescription deliveries at the front entrance of the hotel,' Lane said. 'They would accept it on behalf of a guest. But no staff facilitated recreational purchases.' In November, the city announced measures to relocate about 2,300 people who were then staying in hotels. The goal was to end the hotel program by the end of June 2021. Drew Hammill, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told us, 'There are no federal funds being used for these purposes.' We reached out to McCarthy's office and did not hear back. | Our ruling McCarthy said the federal relief package has '$600 million for San Francisco, part of which goes to cover the tab for free alcohol and marijuana for the homeless.' Since May 2020, San Francisco has spent about $1,500 of public money each month to provide medically prescribed alcohol to people with severe alcoholism in COVID-19 isolation and quarantine sites for homeless people. No federal money has been allotted to this program, which is due to end in June. The city does not provide marijuana to people at quarantine sites. McCarthy's claim misrepresented what's in the federal relief package. We rate this claim False. CORRECTION, March 16, 10:21 p.m.: An earlier version of this article gave an incorrect amount for San Francisco's monthly spending on alcohol. The rating is not changed. | [
"105929-proof-42-48365b9eaa0ba7a3095ec78243f5b901.jpg"
]
|
The COVID economic relief package 'included $600 million for San Francisco, part of which goes to cover the tab for free alcohol and marijuana for the homeless. | Contradiction | The Democrats and President Joe Biden are making a full court press to tell Americans about the many ways their COVID-19 relief package will put money in their pockets. Republicans are working just as hard to paint the $1.9 trillion law as a colossal waste of government funds. 'Nancy Pelosi's Bay Area Bailout included $600 million for San Francisco, part of which goes to cover the tab for free alcohol and marijuana for the homeless,' House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tweeted March 14. 'I've said it before and I'll say it again: this bailout is too costly, corrupt, and liberal.' Did you know? - Nancy Pelosi's Bay Area Bailout included $600 million for San Francisco, part of which goes to cover the tab for free alcohol and marijuana for the homeless. I've said it before and I'll say it again: this bailout is too costly, corrupt, and liberal. pic.twitter.com/K6vabaCeKu- Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) March 14, 2021 Does the federal relief package really pay for San Francisco to provide free weed and booze for the homeless? Let's sort this out. City officials say the American Rescue Plan Act - which contains $360 billion in aid to state and local governments - will send San Francisco about $600 million over the next two years. The city can decide how to spend the money to help recover from damage wrought by the pandemic. McCarthy mangled the facts in tying the relief package to what's taking place with people - not just homeless people - whom the city puts up in hotels to isolate them when they've been exposed to the coronavirus. Isolating people in the spring After a COVID-19 outbreak at a San Francisco homeless shelter in April 2020, the city moved to isolate more homeless people in hotels. The isolation and quarantine program grew to include people who weren't homeless but who lived in cramped quarters where it was impossible to stay away from others. In May, word spread that staff were providing some of these people with marijuana and alcohol. A local activist went on Twitter to call out the practice, and the city public health department defended itself. 'These harm-reduction based practices, which are not unique to San Francisco, and are not paid for with taxpayer money, help guests successfully complete isolation and quarantine and have significant individual and public health benefits in the COVID-19 pandemic,' the department tweeted May 5, 2020. A flawed news report miscast a statement from the health department as indicating that it provided marijuana. Part of the confusion was that the city's practices involving alcohol were separate from those involving marijuana. Let's look at the alcohol policy first. Jenna Lane, a spokeswoman for the city health department, told us that the key to isolating people during a pandemic is to keep them in their rooms. For homeless people with severe alcoholism, going cold turkey was a health risk. 'Medical providers prescribed limited amounts of alcohol to be served with a meal to just those guests who would otherwise go into alcohol withdrawal,' Lane said. 'Alcohol withdrawal can be fatal.' Some alcoholics got vodka, some got beer. Lane said these people represented a small fraction of the homeless whom the city took care of in its isolation and quarantine program. City staff supported everyone who was in recovery and helped them stay substance-free. As of the time of this fact-check, there were 23 people in isolation and quarantine. San Francisco provides alcohol only in the isolation and quarantine program. Until May 4, 2020, the city relied on private donations to pay for the vodka and beer for residents. In the ensuing 10 months, the city spent $14,940 in public funds to provide alcohol, or about $1,500 each month. Lane said the city never paid for marijuana. Some people in the city's isolation program used marijuana while quarantining in a city-provided hotel room. California allows personal use of marijuana. These residents paid for the drug themselves. 'If someone had a prescription for medical cannabis, staff might receive prescription deliveries at the front entrance of the hotel,' Lane said. 'They would accept it on behalf of a guest. But no staff facilitated recreational purchases.' In November, the city announced measures to relocate about 2,300 people who were then staying in hotels. The goal was to end the hotel program by the end of June 2021. Drew Hammill, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, told us, 'There are no federal funds being used for these purposes.' We reached out to McCarthy's office and did not hear back. | Our ruling McCarthy said the federal relief package has '$600 million for San Francisco, part of which goes to cover the tab for free alcohol and marijuana for the homeless.' Since May 2020, San Francisco has spent about $1,500 of public money each month to provide medically prescribed alcohol to people with severe alcoholism in COVID-19 isolation and quarantine sites for homeless people. No federal money has been allotted to this program, which is due to end in June. The city does not provide marijuana to people at quarantine sites. McCarthy's claim misrepresented what's in the federal relief package. We rate this claim False. CORRECTION, March 16, 10:21 p.m.: An earlier version of this article gave an incorrect amount for San Francisco's monthly spending on alcohol. The rating is not changed. | [
"105929-proof-42-48365b9eaa0ba7a3095ec78243f5b901.jpg"
]
|
A video shows the 'Taliban hanging someone from a helicopter. | Contradiction | Conservative blog sites, pundits and politicians such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, claimed that the Taliban hanged someone from a helicopter flying over Afghanistan. The viral rumor was based on a short, blurry video that shows a helicopter flying over the country with a person dangling from a rope beneath it. It's not clear who filmed the footage and when, but the clip appears to be real. However, that doesn't mean it shows an execution by hanging. Various other images and videos reviewed by PolitiFact show that the person dangling from the chopper was alive, moving and waving his arms. The person was suspended by a harness that wrapped under his arms, not a noose around the neck. A viral tweet claimed without evidence that video showed the Taliban hanging someone from a helicopter. Pentagon spokesperson Eric Pahon said the Defense Department would not comment on the video, given that it came from social media and was presented 'without context, background, a time frame for when the video was shot, or even a clear visual of what is occurring.' Reporters for the BBC, Snopes, the Washington Post, Vice and other outlets reached the same conclusion about the harness, determining that the video did not depict an execution. For its report, the BBC cited unnamed Afghanistan experts with sources in the country. The BBC reported that the flight took place Aug. 30, and that it was an attempt to fix a flag over a public building. The aircraft was likely seized from the Afghanistan Air Force, the BBC said. Other news organizations around the world relayed the same information. An Afghan news agency similarly told Alt News, an outlet from India, that the person was trying to fix a flag on a building - specifically, the governor's office in Kandahar, Afghanistan's second largest city. Bilal Sarwary, a freelance Afghan journalist, tweeted that the pilot flying the helicopter was a person he knew, who was trained in the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates. Sarwary also said the person in the harness was a Taliban fighter trying to install a flag. Still, a flurry of social media posts claiming the video showed a public hanging spread widely anyway, racking up hundreds of thousands of total interactions across Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. A few viral tweets claimed, again without evidence, that the person hanging was an American interpreter. 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.) Snopes and Vice reported that the 12-second clip was first shared in an Aug. 30 tweet from a page called the Taliban Times, which was later suspended by Twitter. The Taliban Times tweet did not claim that the video was of an execution. That claim appeared to take off after a version of the same clip was shared by another account, according to Hoaxy, a social media analysis tool that maps the spread of information on Twitter. The account, which says in its Twitter bio that it belongs to a comedian, wrote in a caption, 'Taliban hanging someone from a helicopter in Kandahar.' That account's tweet was boosted by several prominent Republican politicians, including Cruz and U.S. Reps. Lauren Boebert and Dan Crenshaw. 'This horrifying image encapsulates Joe Biden's Afghanistan catastrophe: The Taliban hanging a man from an American Blackhawk helicopter,' Cruz said in his tweet, which helped the video amass over 2.5 million views in less than 24 hours. 'Tragic. Unimaginable.' Elsewhere, blog sites such as RedState and the Western Journal ran headlines that repeated the same claims. We rate these claims False. | We rate these claims False. | [
"105949-proof-17-08a84670920dd1978ef382fe11a08772.jpg"
]
|
A video shows the 'Taliban hanging someone from a helicopter. | Contradiction | Conservative blog sites, pundits and politicians such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, claimed that the Taliban hanged someone from a helicopter flying over Afghanistan. The viral rumor was based on a short, blurry video that shows a helicopter flying over the country with a person dangling from a rope beneath it. It's not clear who filmed the footage and when, but the clip appears to be real. However, that doesn't mean it shows an execution by hanging. Various other images and videos reviewed by PolitiFact show that the person dangling from the chopper was alive, moving and waving his arms. The person was suspended by a harness that wrapped under his arms, not a noose around the neck. A viral tweet claimed without evidence that video showed the Taliban hanging someone from a helicopter. Pentagon spokesperson Eric Pahon said the Defense Department would not comment on the video, given that it came from social media and was presented 'without context, background, a time frame for when the video was shot, or even a clear visual of what is occurring.' Reporters for the BBC, Snopes, the Washington Post, Vice and other outlets reached the same conclusion about the harness, determining that the video did not depict an execution. For its report, the BBC cited unnamed Afghanistan experts with sources in the country. The BBC reported that the flight took place Aug. 30, and that it was an attempt to fix a flag over a public building. The aircraft was likely seized from the Afghanistan Air Force, the BBC said. Other news organizations around the world relayed the same information. An Afghan news agency similarly told Alt News, an outlet from India, that the person was trying to fix a flag on a building - specifically, the governor's office in Kandahar, Afghanistan's second largest city. Bilal Sarwary, a freelance Afghan journalist, tweeted that the pilot flying the helicopter was a person he knew, who was trained in the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates. Sarwary also said the person in the harness was a Taliban fighter trying to install a flag. Still, a flurry of social media posts claiming the video showed a public hanging spread widely anyway, racking up hundreds of thousands of total interactions across Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. A few viral tweets claimed, again without evidence, that the person hanging was an American interpreter. 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.) Snopes and Vice reported that the 12-second clip was first shared in an Aug. 30 tweet from a page called the Taliban Times, which was later suspended by Twitter. The Taliban Times tweet did not claim that the video was of an execution. That claim appeared to take off after a version of the same clip was shared by another account, according to Hoaxy, a social media analysis tool that maps the spread of information on Twitter. The account, which says in its Twitter bio that it belongs to a comedian, wrote in a caption, 'Taliban hanging someone from a helicopter in Kandahar.' That account's tweet was boosted by several prominent Republican politicians, including Cruz and U.S. Reps. Lauren Boebert and Dan Crenshaw. 'This horrifying image encapsulates Joe Biden's Afghanistan catastrophe: The Taliban hanging a man from an American Blackhawk helicopter,' Cruz said in his tweet, which helped the video amass over 2.5 million views in less than 24 hours. 'Tragic. Unimaginable.' Elsewhere, blog sites such as RedState and the Western Journal ran headlines that repeated the same claims. We rate these claims False. | We rate these claims False. | [
"105949-proof-17-08a84670920dd1978ef382fe11a08772.jpg"
]
|
Video shows Joe Biden faked an interview in front of a green screen. | Contradiction | On March 16, President Joe Biden was walking to an awaiting helicopter on the White House grounds when he stopped briefly to talk to a group of reporters, some holding boom mics. 'Do you have any plans to travel to the southern border?' a reporter asked. 'Not at the moment,' Biden said. He answers another question about COVID-19 vaccines and then walks on. The moment is unremarkable, unless you've been misled to believe the whole thing is a fraud - that the interview was fake and the president was acting in front of a green screen. A YouTube video that has been viewed more than half a million times is among the many social media posts to spread this false claim. Titled 'Biden fakes interview, green screen fails,' the post alleges that 'the reporters were not there' because of how Biden's hands appear in relation to the microphones. 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 YouTube video uses two clips of Biden talking to reporters. One clip is from The Hill and the other is from the Washington Post. Around the 9-second mark in The Hill's video, Biden's hands appear to move in front of the microphones as if they weren't there. There's no denying that it looks strange. But it doesn't prove he's talking in front of a green screen. Steve Herman, a Voice of America reporter who was holding one of the microphones, tweeted about the rumors on March 17. 'I was the one holding the lighter-colored fuzzy microphone and thus literally in front of @POTUS on the South Lawn,' Herman wrote. 'It's all real.' Herman also shared a video created by Mick West, who writes about conspiracy theories. In the video, West explains that because the microphones were on long booms, which enable reporters to maintain physical distance from the president amid the coronavirus pandemic, they give the illusion that something is amiss. He recreated a similar scenario in his own yard and filmed it from different angles. The effect is the same. 'It does look weird, but once you understand what's going on, it's pretty obvious,' he says in the video. Herman noted in an email to PolitiFact that, even when there's not a pandemic, the booms are regularly used during outdoor helicopter talks due to challenging acoustics. Other images from that day show the president, microphones and reporters from other angles. In this Reuters image, taken by photographer Tom Brenner, Biden can be seen from the side talking to reporters who are standing several feet away with their microphones extended forward. This Getty Images shot, by photographer Drew Angerer, shows Biden standing behind the microphones from below. This Washington Post video shows the interview from a different angle than the Hill video. And this clip, shared by FiveThirtyEight reporter Kaleigh Rogers, shows the different videos side by side. While the clip that's being shared on social media may look odd, it's not a hoax. It's an optical illusion. We rate the claim that Biden faked this interview with reporters in front of a green screen Pants on Fire! UPDATE, March 19, 2021: This story has been updated to include additional information from journalist Steve Herman about the function of booms. | We rate the claim that Biden faked this interview with reporters in front of a green screen Pants on Fire! UPDATE, March 19, 2021: This story has been updated to include additional information from journalist Steve Herman about the function of booms. | []
|
'Amy, I looked online at your (health care) plan. It's two paragraphs. | Contradiction | Sen. Elizabeth Warren loves to tout her plans for any and all policy questions, including climate change, child care and especially health care. This became a point of contention during the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas on Feb. 19, where she criticized her rivals over a lack of specificity in their health plans. Warren said a proposal from Pete Buttigieg is 'not a plan. It's a PowerPoint.' Then she turned to Senate colleague Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. 'And Amy's plan is even less,' Warren said. 'It's like a Post-It note, 'Insert Plan Here.'' After some additional digs and discussion, Warren and Klobuchar had this exchange: Warren: 'So I actually took a look at the plans that are posted. ... Amy, I looked online at your plan. It's two paragraphs. Families are suffering, and they need ...' Klobuchar: 'OK, that's it.' Warren: 'You can't simply stand here and trash an idea to give health care coverage to everyone without having a realistic plan of your own. And if you're not going to own up to the fact either that you don't have a plan or that your plan is going to leave people without health care coverage, full coverage, then you need to say so.' Warren's campaign told PolitiFact that she was referring specifically to Klobuchar's plan for 'universal health care.' Her campaign pointed to the two paragraphs at the end of a Klobuchar campaign web page that specifically follow the heading 'Propose legislation to get us to universal health care.' However, this is a selective reading of the health care policy pages that Klobuchar posted on her website. The two candidates' plans Klobuchar supports building on the Affordable Care Act and adding a public option that expands Medicare and Medicaid. By contrast, Warren initially joined rival candidate Bernie Sanders in supporting a wholesale switch to a single-player plan - a more aggressive approach than Klobuchar's - then later eased off. Warren currently backs two bills, one for a public option and another for a single-payer plan. The problem with Warren's attack is that it focuses on two paragraphs, which ignores most of her rival's health care plan. There is quite a bit of detail in Klobuchar's plan. Klobuchar's website has no fewer than four different web pages that address the topic - a main health care policy page, a more detailed sub-page, a sub-page on prescription drugs and a sub-page on mental health. Some of Klobuchar's bullet-pointed priorities include: • 'Immediately suspend the Trump Administration's efforts to eliminate the Affordable Care Act's protections for people with pre-existing conditions.' • 'Develop best models of care to address disparities in maternal and infant mortality and address the shortage of maternity care health professionals in underserved rural and urban areas.' • 'Expand Medicaid reimbursement for people receiving mental health or substance use treatment.' • 'Expand the open enrollment period for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act so more people can get insurance coverage.' • 'Stop Trump sabotage of the ACA by ending workarounds that allow states to raise premiums for sicker people and shift ACA premium subsidies away from lower-income enrollees.' All told, the four Klobuchar web pages by our count have 64 paragraphs, not counting overlap - far more than two. | Our ruling Warren said, 'Amy, I looked online at your (health care) plan. It's two paragraphs.' Warren's campaign said she was referring to just the paragraphs that specifically addressed universal health care. That wasn't clear on stage, where she dismissed Klobuchar's health policy ideas as small enough to fit on a Post-It. Klobuchar's two paragraphs on universal health care are just one part of a four-webpage policy statement that collectively runs 64 paragraphs long. We rate the statement False. | [
"105958-proof-26-c1d69662852e2fd582669ca146c1067f.jpg"
]
|
'Amy, I looked online at your (health care) plan. It's two paragraphs. | Contradiction | Sen. Elizabeth Warren loves to tout her plans for any and all policy questions, including climate change, child care and especially health care. This became a point of contention during the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas on Feb. 19, where she criticized her rivals over a lack of specificity in their health plans. Warren said a proposal from Pete Buttigieg is 'not a plan. It's a PowerPoint.' Then she turned to Senate colleague Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. 'And Amy's plan is even less,' Warren said. 'It's like a Post-It note, 'Insert Plan Here.'' After some additional digs and discussion, Warren and Klobuchar had this exchange: Warren: 'So I actually took a look at the plans that are posted. ... Amy, I looked online at your plan. It's two paragraphs. Families are suffering, and they need ...' Klobuchar: 'OK, that's it.' Warren: 'You can't simply stand here and trash an idea to give health care coverage to everyone without having a realistic plan of your own. And if you're not going to own up to the fact either that you don't have a plan or that your plan is going to leave people without health care coverage, full coverage, then you need to say so.' Warren's campaign told PolitiFact that she was referring specifically to Klobuchar's plan for 'universal health care.' Her campaign pointed to the two paragraphs at the end of a Klobuchar campaign web page that specifically follow the heading 'Propose legislation to get us to universal health care.' However, this is a selective reading of the health care policy pages that Klobuchar posted on her website. The two candidates' plans Klobuchar supports building on the Affordable Care Act and adding a public option that expands Medicare and Medicaid. By contrast, Warren initially joined rival candidate Bernie Sanders in supporting a wholesale switch to a single-player plan - a more aggressive approach than Klobuchar's - then later eased off. Warren currently backs two bills, one for a public option and another for a single-payer plan. The problem with Warren's attack is that it focuses on two paragraphs, which ignores most of her rival's health care plan. There is quite a bit of detail in Klobuchar's plan. Klobuchar's website has no fewer than four different web pages that address the topic - a main health care policy page, a more detailed sub-page, a sub-page on prescription drugs and a sub-page on mental health. Some of Klobuchar's bullet-pointed priorities include: • 'Immediately suspend the Trump Administration's efforts to eliminate the Affordable Care Act's protections for people with pre-existing conditions.' • 'Develop best models of care to address disparities in maternal and infant mortality and address the shortage of maternity care health professionals in underserved rural and urban areas.' • 'Expand Medicaid reimbursement for people receiving mental health or substance use treatment.' • 'Expand the open enrollment period for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act so more people can get insurance coverage.' • 'Stop Trump sabotage of the ACA by ending workarounds that allow states to raise premiums for sicker people and shift ACA premium subsidies away from lower-income enrollees.' All told, the four Klobuchar web pages by our count have 64 paragraphs, not counting overlap - far more than two. | Our ruling Warren said, 'Amy, I looked online at your (health care) plan. It's two paragraphs.' Warren's campaign said she was referring to just the paragraphs that specifically addressed universal health care. That wasn't clear on stage, where she dismissed Klobuchar's health policy ideas as small enough to fit on a Post-It. Klobuchar's two paragraphs on universal health care are just one part of a four-webpage policy statement that collectively runs 64 paragraphs long. We rate the statement False. | [
"105958-proof-26-c1d69662852e2fd582669ca146c1067f.jpg"
]
|
Says the state 'health secretary says don't go to hospitals or clinics, now the tourism secretary says don't recreate. | Contradiction | This item was updated to include a comment from Tiffany's staff. The information did not change the rating. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, a Republican who won an open seat in Congress in a May 11, 2020 special election, is off to Washington -- but still has his sights set on state government and how it is handling the coronavirus crisis. Tiffany, who spent nearly seven years as a state Senator before winning the seat, tweeted this on May 26, 2020: 'First the health secretary says don't go to hospitals or clinics, now the tourism secretary says don't recreate. What next, the education governor saying no school this fall?' The tweet linked to an online article from a Madison-based TV station. It came on the day Democrat Gov. Tony Evers' stay-at-home order originally was going to expire. (The order was lifted May 13, 2020 under a state Supreme Court ruling.) We can't look into the future, of course, so we'll have to set aside the bit about what school may look like this fall. But we can look back and see what Department of Health Services secretary Andrea Palm and the Department of Tourism secretary Sara Meaney said in regard to the COVID-19 outbreak. Did Palm say 'don't go to hospitals or clinics?' And did Meaney say 'don't recreate'? No. And: Not exactly. Department of Tourism When we asked Tiffany for backup for the claim, his staff pointed to a May 24, 2020 story from WMTV, a Madison-based NBC news affiliate, as it related to tourism and Meaney. This is the article that was linked in his tweet. With a headline of 'Wisconsin tourism officials encourage people to not travel to seasonal homes,' the article noted Memorial Day weekend is the unofficial start of summer and went on to say: Travel Wisconsin urged people to stay at their permanent residences when the 'safer at home' order was first announced in March and a month later the department's stance hasn't changed. 'Straight up answer, as the Wisconsin Department of Tourism we are not advising that people travel outside their home communities to recreate,' Sara Meaney, Secretary of Wisconsin Department of Tourism, said. The rationale: As people travel to cabins and summer homes, it could help spread the coronavirus and potentially overwhelm small healthcare systems in northern communities. In the article, Meaney acknowledged the state can't stop people from traveling, and suggested those who do travel within the state take personal precautions, such as using face masks, and call ahead to see if any restrictions are in place where they are going. When asked about the statement, Department of Tourism spokesman Craig Trost pointed us to an online toolkit focused on ways to stay safe while enjoying the outdoors. The toolkit, created with help from the Department of Health Services, includes guides to safely enjoying parks and trails, going boating, fishing, cycling, camping and walking, using ATVs and UTVs, as well as a guide to going to the beach. The toolkit includes this line: 'We encourage all land managers, communities, and businesses that support outdoor recreation to use these tools to help create a consistent statewide message inviting Wisconsinites to get outside, stay safe, and be well.' So, while Meaney discouraged state residents from traveling Up North, the department does not say to avoid any kind of recreation. What's more, state parks are still open for hiking, along with many boat launches, trails and other recreational sites. Department of Health When it comes to hospitals and clinics, a Tiffany staffer said the congressman was 'referring to the cancellation of elective surgeries, DHS encouraging patients to use virtual doctor visits instead of in-person, and DHS recommending that dentists postpone all elective treatments.' But those examples have problems as well. The April 2, 2020 news release from the Department of Health Services, cited by Tiffany, called on residents to use telehealth options during the COVD-19 public health emergency. Department spokeswoman Jennifer Miller said the agency has never advised against going to see a doctor, but has supported using telehealth -- that is, video visits and the like -- in some cases to get care. 'We want people to stay connected to their medical providers now more than ever, and to call their doctor especially if they are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19,' she said in an email. Indeed, health facilities -- including dentist offices -- were declared essential during Evers' stay-at-home order. That said, some hospitals limited elective surgeries and some doctors cut back on in-person visits due to concerns over the transmission of the coronavirus. Likewise, any dentist offices delayed routine things, such as teeth cleanings. Those decisions were made by the health care providers and institutions, though, not mandated by the state. And those institutions have started to take in-person appointments and schedule surgeries again. | Our ruling Tiffany claimed top state officials called on residents not to travel and not to see doctors. While the tourism secretary discouraged folks from traveling to cabins and tourist areas in parts of the state with fewer hospital beds, the department website is focused on safe travel -- not no travel. And when it comes to seeing doctors, the health secretary advocated using virtual visits where possible, but did not suggest residents avoid treatment. We rate the claim Mostly False. | [
"105959-proof-38-08c523ee419b398ba5bfe1effec77128.JPG.jpg"
]
|
Says the state 'health secretary says don't go to hospitals or clinics, now the tourism secretary says don't recreate. | Contradiction | This item was updated to include a comment from Tiffany's staff. The information did not change the rating. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, a Republican who won an open seat in Congress in a May 11, 2020 special election, is off to Washington -- but still has his sights set on state government and how it is handling the coronavirus crisis. Tiffany, who spent nearly seven years as a state Senator before winning the seat, tweeted this on May 26, 2020: 'First the health secretary says don't go to hospitals or clinics, now the tourism secretary says don't recreate. What next, the education governor saying no school this fall?' The tweet linked to an online article from a Madison-based TV station. It came on the day Democrat Gov. Tony Evers' stay-at-home order originally was going to expire. (The order was lifted May 13, 2020 under a state Supreme Court ruling.) We can't look into the future, of course, so we'll have to set aside the bit about what school may look like this fall. But we can look back and see what Department of Health Services secretary Andrea Palm and the Department of Tourism secretary Sara Meaney said in regard to the COVID-19 outbreak. Did Palm say 'don't go to hospitals or clinics?' And did Meaney say 'don't recreate'? No. And: Not exactly. Department of Tourism When we asked Tiffany for backup for the claim, his staff pointed to a May 24, 2020 story from WMTV, a Madison-based NBC news affiliate, as it related to tourism and Meaney. This is the article that was linked in his tweet. With a headline of 'Wisconsin tourism officials encourage people to not travel to seasonal homes,' the article noted Memorial Day weekend is the unofficial start of summer and went on to say: Travel Wisconsin urged people to stay at their permanent residences when the 'safer at home' order was first announced in March and a month later the department's stance hasn't changed. 'Straight up answer, as the Wisconsin Department of Tourism we are not advising that people travel outside their home communities to recreate,' Sara Meaney, Secretary of Wisconsin Department of Tourism, said. The rationale: As people travel to cabins and summer homes, it could help spread the coronavirus and potentially overwhelm small healthcare systems in northern communities. In the article, Meaney acknowledged the state can't stop people from traveling, and suggested those who do travel within the state take personal precautions, such as using face masks, and call ahead to see if any restrictions are in place where they are going. When asked about the statement, Department of Tourism spokesman Craig Trost pointed us to an online toolkit focused on ways to stay safe while enjoying the outdoors. The toolkit, created with help from the Department of Health Services, includes guides to safely enjoying parks and trails, going boating, fishing, cycling, camping and walking, using ATVs and UTVs, as well as a guide to going to the beach. The toolkit includes this line: 'We encourage all land managers, communities, and businesses that support outdoor recreation to use these tools to help create a consistent statewide message inviting Wisconsinites to get outside, stay safe, and be well.' So, while Meaney discouraged state residents from traveling Up North, the department does not say to avoid any kind of recreation. What's more, state parks are still open for hiking, along with many boat launches, trails and other recreational sites. Department of Health When it comes to hospitals and clinics, a Tiffany staffer said the congressman was 'referring to the cancellation of elective surgeries, DHS encouraging patients to use virtual doctor visits instead of in-person, and DHS recommending that dentists postpone all elective treatments.' But those examples have problems as well. The April 2, 2020 news release from the Department of Health Services, cited by Tiffany, called on residents to use telehealth options during the COVD-19 public health emergency. Department spokeswoman Jennifer Miller said the agency has never advised against going to see a doctor, but has supported using telehealth -- that is, video visits and the like -- in some cases to get care. 'We want people to stay connected to their medical providers now more than ever, and to call their doctor especially if they are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19,' she said in an email. Indeed, health facilities -- including dentist offices -- were declared essential during Evers' stay-at-home order. That said, some hospitals limited elective surgeries and some doctors cut back on in-person visits due to concerns over the transmission of the coronavirus. Likewise, any dentist offices delayed routine things, such as teeth cleanings. Those decisions were made by the health care providers and institutions, though, not mandated by the state. And those institutions have started to take in-person appointments and schedule surgeries again. | Our ruling Tiffany claimed top state officials called on residents not to travel and not to see doctors. While the tourism secretary discouraged folks from traveling to cabins and tourist areas in parts of the state with fewer hospital beds, the department website is focused on safe travel -- not no travel. And when it comes to seeing doctors, the health secretary advocated using virtual visits where possible, but did not suggest residents avoid treatment. We rate the claim Mostly False. | [
"105959-proof-38-08c523ee419b398ba5bfe1effec77128.JPG.jpg"
]
|
Says the state 'health secretary says don't go to hospitals or clinics, now the tourism secretary says don't recreate. | Contradiction | This item was updated to include a comment from Tiffany's staff. The information did not change the rating. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, a Republican who won an open seat in Congress in a May 11, 2020 special election, is off to Washington -- but still has his sights set on state government and how it is handling the coronavirus crisis. Tiffany, who spent nearly seven years as a state Senator before winning the seat, tweeted this on May 26, 2020: 'First the health secretary says don't go to hospitals or clinics, now the tourism secretary says don't recreate. What next, the education governor saying no school this fall?' The tweet linked to an online article from a Madison-based TV station. It came on the day Democrat Gov. Tony Evers' stay-at-home order originally was going to expire. (The order was lifted May 13, 2020 under a state Supreme Court ruling.) We can't look into the future, of course, so we'll have to set aside the bit about what school may look like this fall. But we can look back and see what Department of Health Services secretary Andrea Palm and the Department of Tourism secretary Sara Meaney said in regard to the COVID-19 outbreak. Did Palm say 'don't go to hospitals or clinics?' And did Meaney say 'don't recreate'? No. And: Not exactly. Department of Tourism When we asked Tiffany for backup for the claim, his staff pointed to a May 24, 2020 story from WMTV, a Madison-based NBC news affiliate, as it related to tourism and Meaney. This is the article that was linked in his tweet. With a headline of 'Wisconsin tourism officials encourage people to not travel to seasonal homes,' the article noted Memorial Day weekend is the unofficial start of summer and went on to say: Travel Wisconsin urged people to stay at their permanent residences when the 'safer at home' order was first announced in March and a month later the department's stance hasn't changed. 'Straight up answer, as the Wisconsin Department of Tourism we are not advising that people travel outside their home communities to recreate,' Sara Meaney, Secretary of Wisconsin Department of Tourism, said. The rationale: As people travel to cabins and summer homes, it could help spread the coronavirus and potentially overwhelm small healthcare systems in northern communities. In the article, Meaney acknowledged the state can't stop people from traveling, and suggested those who do travel within the state take personal precautions, such as using face masks, and call ahead to see if any restrictions are in place where they are going. When asked about the statement, Department of Tourism spokesman Craig Trost pointed us to an online toolkit focused on ways to stay safe while enjoying the outdoors. The toolkit, created with help from the Department of Health Services, includes guides to safely enjoying parks and trails, going boating, fishing, cycling, camping and walking, using ATVs and UTVs, as well as a guide to going to the beach. The toolkit includes this line: 'We encourage all land managers, communities, and businesses that support outdoor recreation to use these tools to help create a consistent statewide message inviting Wisconsinites to get outside, stay safe, and be well.' So, while Meaney discouraged state residents from traveling Up North, the department does not say to avoid any kind of recreation. What's more, state parks are still open for hiking, along with many boat launches, trails and other recreational sites. Department of Health When it comes to hospitals and clinics, a Tiffany staffer said the congressman was 'referring to the cancellation of elective surgeries, DHS encouraging patients to use virtual doctor visits instead of in-person, and DHS recommending that dentists postpone all elective treatments.' But those examples have problems as well. The April 2, 2020 news release from the Department of Health Services, cited by Tiffany, called on residents to use telehealth options during the COVD-19 public health emergency. Department spokeswoman Jennifer Miller said the agency has never advised against going to see a doctor, but has supported using telehealth -- that is, video visits and the like -- in some cases to get care. 'We want people to stay connected to their medical providers now more than ever, and to call their doctor especially if they are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19,' she said in an email. Indeed, health facilities -- including dentist offices -- were declared essential during Evers' stay-at-home order. That said, some hospitals limited elective surgeries and some doctors cut back on in-person visits due to concerns over the transmission of the coronavirus. Likewise, any dentist offices delayed routine things, such as teeth cleanings. Those decisions were made by the health care providers and institutions, though, not mandated by the state. And those institutions have started to take in-person appointments and schedule surgeries again. | Our ruling Tiffany claimed top state officials called on residents not to travel and not to see doctors. While the tourism secretary discouraged folks from traveling to cabins and tourist areas in parts of the state with fewer hospital beds, the department website is focused on safe travel -- not no travel. And when it comes to seeing doctors, the health secretary advocated using virtual visits where possible, but did not suggest residents avoid treatment. We rate the claim Mostly False. | [
"105959-proof-38-08c523ee419b398ba5bfe1effec77128.JPG.jpg"
]
|
The southern U.S. border 'is now open to anyone from anywhere in the world who wishes to enter our country. | Contradiction | Fox News host Jeanine Pirro accused President Joe Biden of having 'surrendered our southern border,' falsely claiming the new administration is allowing anyone to cross freely into the U.S. 'It is now open to anyone from anywhere in the world who wishes to enter our country, leaving one to wonder whether America is a sovereign nation anymore or a simple globalist landing spot,' Pirro said in a March 20 TV segment, which circulated widely on Facebook. The clip 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 number of migrants at the U.S. border with Mexico has swelled in recent months. But the border is not open for anyone to cross, immigration experts said, despite Pirro's claim, which suggested that there is no legitimate enforcement at the border. 'That claim is patently absurd,' said Nicole Hallett, an associate clinical professor of law and the director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago. 'The border has never been 'open to anyone from anywhere in the world who now wishes to enter our country.'' U.S. Customs and Border Protection data shows that most migrants they encounter arriving at the southern border are still being immediately expelled under a section of federal law former President Donald Trump invoked in March 2020 to curb the spread of COVID-19. In February, about 72% of the encounters CBP recorded at the border resulted in such expulsions. 'The border is not open, and the vast majority of people are being returned under Title 42,' CBP said in a statement, referencing the name of that section of law. The Department of Homeland Security said Pirro's claim was false. 'There are few exceptions to this closure,' including unaccompanied minors, added Erin Barbato, director of the Immigrant Justice Clinic at the University of Wisconsin Law School. 'Jeanine Pirro's claim that the border is open to anyone is absurd and reckless.' Asked for evidence, a Fox News spokesperson pointed to Pirro's own comments March 22 on the program 'The Five,' when she said she had spoken to sheriffs from locations near the border. 'I'm telling you for a fact, the border is open,' Pirro said. 'I stood there with a sheriff who showed me where they stopped the wall.' Pirro did not provide evidence for her original claim on that show either. She instead argued that due to Biden, 'there is no border, there is no wall.' However, Biden's move to stop construction of Trump's border wall did not include dismantling what was already built. The border is not open to anyone from anywhere A U.S. Customs and Border Protection vehicle is seen next to migrants after they were detained and taken into custody, Sunday, March 21, 2021, in Abram-Perezville, Texas. (AP/Cortez) The Biden administration is expelling most families and single adults encountered at the border using the same public health rule that Trump invoked during the pandemic, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a March 16 statement. Roughly 90% of single adult encounters that the Border Patrol recorded between ports of entry resulted in such expulsions, for example, according to CBP data. However, the administration is not expelling unaccompanied children, who were previously being expelled under the Trump administration until a federal judge halted the practice in November. An appeals court in January said that the government could resume the practice, but the Biden administration has not. Their arrivals have contributed to the current influx at the border. Unaccompanied minors are allowed to request asylum under U.S. law, Barbato noted. In cases where Mexico cannot receive migrant families sent immediately back from the U.S., border officials are sending those families into immigration proceedings, putting a strain on some regions of the U.S., Mayorkas said in his March 16 statement. But Mayorkas has repeatedly said - including during a March 17 congressional hearing and a March 21 interview with ABC News - that the border is not open. Before the pandemic, many migrants who arrived without a visa were swiftly deported in what are known as expedited removal proceedings, Hallett said. Only those who credibly claimed fear of persecution were cleared to stay in the U.S. while they pursued their asylum claims. 'Now, even fewer people are being allowed to enter the U.S. because Border Patrol is using a CDC regulation to expel almost everyone, even people who claim fear,' Hallett said of the use of the public health-related authority. 'Pirro's statement has no basis in fact.' The Biden administration has started gradually letting in asylum seekers who were waiting out their cases from Mexico under Trump's Remain in Mexico program, but the Border Patrol has continued apprehending some migrants caught trying to enter the U.S. unlawfully between ports of entry. CBP recorded 26,791 apprehensions in February. Migrants apprehended at the border are screened for health and security issues, PolitiFact has reported. Mayorkas told Congress March 17 that known and suspected terrorists, for example, are denied entry based on intelligence and vetting procedures. 'Individuals who pose a public safety threat will not remain in the United States,' he added. There were also 1,537 cases in February in which migrants sought to enter the U.S. through legal ports of entry but were deemed inadmissible, according to CBP data. There are many reasons why people seeking legal entry may be declared inadmissible, Hallett said. They could, for example, have criminal histories or suspected ties to terrorism, certain infectious diseases, or a previous deportation on record. 'These grounds of inadmissibility were in effect before the pandemic,' Hallet said. 'Now, it is even more difficult to gain admission to the U.S. because of the public health-related restrictions. The idea that the U.S. is letting in criminals and terrorists at the border is just false.' | Our ruling Pirro said the southern U.S. border 'is now open to anyone from anywhere in the world who wishes to enter our country.' That's wrong. Large numbers of migrants are attempting to cross the border, but it is not open to anyone who wants to enter the U.S., regardless of their background. Most of the encounters that CBP recorded at the border in February resulted in quick expulsions under the same public health-related authority that was invoked under the Trump administration. We rate this statement False. | [
"105962-proof-01-AP_21081182128716.jpg",
"105962-proof-28-06a1e9a44c2877361bdc5dbcdf1a0c58.jpg"
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.