claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
'Biden campaign director arrested for electoral fraud. | Contradiction | A recent blog post claims that a campaign official for President-elect Joe Biden was arrested for 'electoral fraud,' but there's no evidence to support that. 'Biden campaign director arrested for electoral fraud,' reads the headline on the website The Point News, a British website run by volunteers. The post goes on to say that Dallas Jones, the 'Democrat director of Texas state political strategy' for Biden's campaign, was arrested after he was 'formally accused of helping to run an illegal ballot harvesting operation in the state of Texas on behalf of the Joe Biden campaign.' 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 claim that Jones was arrested has spread on social media, with some posts wrongly claiming a photo of the actor Cuba Gooding Jr. shows Jones being arrested. Jones did not immediately respond to an email asking about the post. But the Biden campaign told us in a statement that 'these claims are laughably false.' The blog post cites the National File, which on Oct. 18 published a post that said affidavits filed as part of a lawsuit claimed to have 'video evidence, documentation and witnesses to prove that Biden's political director Dallas Jones and his cohorts are currently hoarding mail-in and absentee ballots and ordering operatives to fill the ballots out for people illegally, including for dead people, homeless people, and nursing home residents, in the 2020 election.' The lawsuit, filed in September by conservative activist Steve Hotze among other plaintiffs, sought to limit in-person and absentee voting options for voters in Harris County, where Houston is the county seat. In October, Snopes dug into the lawsuit's allegations that some Texas officials were running an illegal ballot harvesting scheme, finding no evidence to corroborate the claim. We similarly found no evidence that Jones, a Houston political consultant who the Biden campaign tapped to serve as its Texas political director, has been charged with a crime or arrested. We looked at Harris County court records and found nothing to suggest he was charged with electoral fraud. Jones told FactCheck.org, 'This is completely make believe and they're running with it.' With no evidence to back the claim, we rate it False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | With no evidence to back the claim, we rate it False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
'Biden campaign director arrested for electoral fraud. | Contradiction | A recent blog post claims that a campaign official for President-elect Joe Biden was arrested for 'electoral fraud,' but there's no evidence to support that. 'Biden campaign director arrested for electoral fraud,' reads the headline on the website The Point News, a British website run by volunteers. The post goes on to say that Dallas Jones, the 'Democrat director of Texas state political strategy' for Biden's campaign, was arrested after he was 'formally accused of helping to run an illegal ballot harvesting operation in the state of Texas on behalf of the Joe Biden campaign.' 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 claim that Jones was arrested has spread on social media, with some posts wrongly claiming a photo of the actor Cuba Gooding Jr. shows Jones being arrested. Jones did not immediately respond to an email asking about the post. But the Biden campaign told us in a statement that 'these claims are laughably false.' The blog post cites the National File, which on Oct. 18 published a post that said affidavits filed as part of a lawsuit claimed to have 'video evidence, documentation and witnesses to prove that Biden's political director Dallas Jones and his cohorts are currently hoarding mail-in and absentee ballots and ordering operatives to fill the ballots out for people illegally, including for dead people, homeless people, and nursing home residents, in the 2020 election.' The lawsuit, filed in September by conservative activist Steve Hotze among other plaintiffs, sought to limit in-person and absentee voting options for voters in Harris County, where Houston is the county seat. In October, Snopes dug into the lawsuit's allegations that some Texas officials were running an illegal ballot harvesting scheme, finding no evidence to corroborate the claim. We similarly found no evidence that Jones, a Houston political consultant who the Biden campaign tapped to serve as its Texas political director, has been charged with a crime or arrested. We looked at Harris County court records and found nothing to suggest he was charged with electoral fraud. Jones told FactCheck.org, 'This is completely make believe and they're running with it.' With no evidence to back the claim, we rate it False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | With no evidence to back the claim, we rate it False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
'Four kids who took the coronavirus vaccine died immediately. | Contradiction | There's still no proven, publicly available vaccine for the coronavirus, but misinformation about it is already coursing through the internet. One recent Facebook post shares an image containing inflammatory claims about a coronavirus vaccine that might one day be available to the public. 'The covid-19 vaccine will be mandatory in order to go back too school. They will contain RFID Chips,' the image in the post reads. It continues: 'Many kids will die from the covid-19 vaccine. Just to remind you the 4 kids that took the vaccine, died immediately.' 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 claims in the post are speculative and misleading in a number of ways, and have been debunked by another fact-checking organization. COVID-19 has killed more than half a million people worldwide, including nearly 130,000 in the U.S. Companies around the world are scrambling to develop a vaccine, and many potential vaccines are undergoing safety trials in humans. Health officials are struggling to reassure some skeptics that a vaccine can be developed quickly without compromising safety. As of June 30, only one coronavirus vaccine had been approved for limited use. The Chinese government has approved it only for military personnel. Currently there is no coronavirus vaccine that has been approved for the American public. And there is no evidence that children have died because they received one of the COVID-19 vaccines being developed. In April, PolitiFact investigated a claim that seven children in Senegal died after receiving COVID-19 vaccines and discovered the Facebook post's claim was false. In May, Reuters also reported that social media posts were incorrect in claiming that a TV news report from 2019 showed the deadly results of a COVID-19 vaccination trial in Guinea. PolitiFact found no evidence that anyone has died from complications related to a trial COVID-19 vaccination. PolitiFact has also debunked several false claims involving the coronavirus vaccine and microchips. The U.S. isn't developing an 'antivirus' for COVID-19 that will include an RFID chip, for example. There's also no evidence that Democrats are pushing for mandatory vaccinations or microchip implants to fight the coronavirus. And there is no evidence yet of any requirement that students be vaccinated against COVID-19 before returning to school, though some states could require it if a vaccine becomes available. State laws govern immunization requirements for schoolchildren, including those in private schools and daycare centers, but all states allow exemptions for medical reasons, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and some allow exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons. | Our ruling A viral image on Facebook claimed, 'Many kids will die from the covid-19 vaccine. Just to remind you the 4 kids that took the vaccine, died immediately.' There is no evidence that children have died because of the coronavirus vaccines in development, or that a future vaccine will contain microchips. We rate this claim False. | [
"106948-proof-09-fe8ac1bc9e294da19c14ec3d66dea4b5.jpg"
]
|
'Four kids who took the coronavirus vaccine died immediately. | Contradiction | There's still no proven, publicly available vaccine for the coronavirus, but misinformation about it is already coursing through the internet. One recent Facebook post shares an image containing inflammatory claims about a coronavirus vaccine that might one day be available to the public. 'The covid-19 vaccine will be mandatory in order to go back too school. They will contain RFID Chips,' the image in the post reads. It continues: 'Many kids will die from the covid-19 vaccine. Just to remind you the 4 kids that took the vaccine, died immediately.' 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 claims in the post are speculative and misleading in a number of ways, and have been debunked by another fact-checking organization. COVID-19 has killed more than half a million people worldwide, including nearly 130,000 in the U.S. Companies around the world are scrambling to develop a vaccine, and many potential vaccines are undergoing safety trials in humans. Health officials are struggling to reassure some skeptics that a vaccine can be developed quickly without compromising safety. As of June 30, only one coronavirus vaccine had been approved for limited use. The Chinese government has approved it only for military personnel. Currently there is no coronavirus vaccine that has been approved for the American public. And there is no evidence that children have died because they received one of the COVID-19 vaccines being developed. In April, PolitiFact investigated a claim that seven children in Senegal died after receiving COVID-19 vaccines and discovered the Facebook post's claim was false. In May, Reuters also reported that social media posts were incorrect in claiming that a TV news report from 2019 showed the deadly results of a COVID-19 vaccination trial in Guinea. PolitiFact found no evidence that anyone has died from complications related to a trial COVID-19 vaccination. PolitiFact has also debunked several false claims involving the coronavirus vaccine and microchips. The U.S. isn't developing an 'antivirus' for COVID-19 that will include an RFID chip, for example. There's also no evidence that Democrats are pushing for mandatory vaccinations or microchip implants to fight the coronavirus. And there is no evidence yet of any requirement that students be vaccinated against COVID-19 before returning to school, though some states could require it if a vaccine becomes available. State laws govern immunization requirements for schoolchildren, including those in private schools and daycare centers, but all states allow exemptions for medical reasons, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and some allow exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons. | Our ruling A viral image on Facebook claimed, 'Many kids will die from the covid-19 vaccine. Just to remind you the 4 kids that took the vaccine, died immediately.' There is no evidence that children have died because of the coronavirus vaccines in development, or that a future vaccine will contain microchips. We rate this claim False. | [
"106948-proof-09-fe8ac1bc9e294da19c14ec3d66dea4b5.jpg"
]
|
'Four kids who took the coronavirus vaccine died immediately. | Contradiction | There's still no proven, publicly available vaccine for the coronavirus, but misinformation about it is already coursing through the internet. One recent Facebook post shares an image containing inflammatory claims about a coronavirus vaccine that might one day be available to the public. 'The covid-19 vaccine will be mandatory in order to go back too school. They will contain RFID Chips,' the image in the post reads. It continues: 'Many kids will die from the covid-19 vaccine. Just to remind you the 4 kids that took the vaccine, died immediately.' 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 claims in the post are speculative and misleading in a number of ways, and have been debunked by another fact-checking organization. COVID-19 has killed more than half a million people worldwide, including nearly 130,000 in the U.S. Companies around the world are scrambling to develop a vaccine, and many potential vaccines are undergoing safety trials in humans. Health officials are struggling to reassure some skeptics that a vaccine can be developed quickly without compromising safety. As of June 30, only one coronavirus vaccine had been approved for limited use. The Chinese government has approved it only for military personnel. Currently there is no coronavirus vaccine that has been approved for the American public. And there is no evidence that children have died because they received one of the COVID-19 vaccines being developed. In April, PolitiFact investigated a claim that seven children in Senegal died after receiving COVID-19 vaccines and discovered the Facebook post's claim was false. In May, Reuters also reported that social media posts were incorrect in claiming that a TV news report from 2019 showed the deadly results of a COVID-19 vaccination trial in Guinea. PolitiFact found no evidence that anyone has died from complications related to a trial COVID-19 vaccination. PolitiFact has also debunked several false claims involving the coronavirus vaccine and microchips. The U.S. isn't developing an 'antivirus' for COVID-19 that will include an RFID chip, for example. There's also no evidence that Democrats are pushing for mandatory vaccinations or microchip implants to fight the coronavirus. And there is no evidence yet of any requirement that students be vaccinated against COVID-19 before returning to school, though some states could require it if a vaccine becomes available. State laws govern immunization requirements for schoolchildren, including those in private schools and daycare centers, but all states allow exemptions for medical reasons, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and some allow exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons. | Our ruling A viral image on Facebook claimed, 'Many kids will die from the covid-19 vaccine. Just to remind you the 4 kids that took the vaccine, died immediately.' There is no evidence that children have died because of the coronavirus vaccines in development, or that a future vaccine will contain microchips. We rate this claim False. | [
"106948-proof-09-fe8ac1bc9e294da19c14ec3d66dea4b5.jpg"
]
|
Emails show 'Fauci's fellow scientist could tell early on that the (coronavirus) looked manufactured. | Contradiction | The release of thousands of emails to and from U.S. infectious disease chief Dr. Anthony Fauci has fueled claims that the virus behind COVID-19 was man-made. BuzzFeed and the Washington Post received the emails in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, and both published articles on June 1. Fauci's critics quickly responded. 'Dr Fauci exposed for the fraud he is,' said a June 2 Facebook post from the WTF Files. 'Fauci's fellow scientist could tell early on that the (coronavirus) looked manufactured.' The post included an email from Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif. It underlines last few words of this quote from his Jan. 31, 2020, message to Fauci: 'The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all of the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.' A smoking gun? No. In that same email, Andersen said, 'There are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.' And a little over a month later, they did. In a March 17, 2020, article in Nature Medicine, Andersen and his colleagues wrote, 'Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.' After the email release, Andersen tweeted June 1 that 'we seriously considered a lab leak a possibility,' and 'what the email shows, is a clear example of the scientific process.' The WTF Facebook post includes another email to Fauci from a professor of dermatology who voiced his suspicion that the virus could have been released from a lab in Wuhan. The email gives no data to support that suspicion. Plucking emails from the BuzzFeed and Washington Post trove inspired other social media posts suspicious of Fauci. Instagram posts drew attention to an email to Fauci from independent researcher Adam Gaertner. In one June 2 post, the email's subject line, 'Coronavirus bioweapon production method,' and the phrase 'This is how the virus was created' are underlined in red. But despite Gaertner's use of technical terms, including 'adjusted virions' and 'conformational rearrangements,' the email contains no evidence to prove the point. Gaertner has appeared on web programs that link vaccines to the creation of superspreaders, and he promotes the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19. Some studies find ivermectin effective in treating COVID-19; others have found no impact. One Instagram user who shared the image posted an update saying, 'Just to be clear this email appears to have been sent to Fauci through public inquiry, so it doesn't necessarily link Fauci to anything.' | Our ruling A Facebook post says, 'Fauci's fellow scientist could tell early on that the (coronavirus) looked manufactured.' The only email that came close to matching that claim noted that while some evidence suggested the virus might be man-made, more work was needed and that opinion could change. The email presented a possibility - a starting point for more research - not a conclusion. The man who wrote that email concluded that the virus developed naturally in a scientific journal article in March 2020. We rate this claim False. RELATED: Debating the origins of the COVID-19 virus: What we know, and don't know | [
"106959-proof-04-3843c33e2f269414da00a37c66e7e9cc.jpg"
]
|
Emails show 'Fauci's fellow scientist could tell early on that the (coronavirus) looked manufactured. | Contradiction | The release of thousands of emails to and from U.S. infectious disease chief Dr. Anthony Fauci has fueled claims that the virus behind COVID-19 was man-made. BuzzFeed and the Washington Post received the emails in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, and both published articles on June 1. Fauci's critics quickly responded. 'Dr Fauci exposed for the fraud he is,' said a June 2 Facebook post from the WTF Files. 'Fauci's fellow scientist could tell early on that the (coronavirus) looked manufactured.' The post included an email from Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif. It underlines last few words of this quote from his Jan. 31, 2020, message to Fauci: 'The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all of the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.' A smoking gun? No. In that same email, Andersen said, 'There are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.' And a little over a month later, they did. In a March 17, 2020, article in Nature Medicine, Andersen and his colleagues wrote, 'Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.' After the email release, Andersen tweeted June 1 that 'we seriously considered a lab leak a possibility,' and 'what the email shows, is a clear example of the scientific process.' The WTF Facebook post includes another email to Fauci from a professor of dermatology who voiced his suspicion that the virus could have been released from a lab in Wuhan. The email gives no data to support that suspicion. Plucking emails from the BuzzFeed and Washington Post trove inspired other social media posts suspicious of Fauci. Instagram posts drew attention to an email to Fauci from independent researcher Adam Gaertner. In one June 2 post, the email's subject line, 'Coronavirus bioweapon production method,' and the phrase 'This is how the virus was created' are underlined in red. But despite Gaertner's use of technical terms, including 'adjusted virions' and 'conformational rearrangements,' the email contains no evidence to prove the point. Gaertner has appeared on web programs that link vaccines to the creation of superspreaders, and he promotes the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19. Some studies find ivermectin effective in treating COVID-19; others have found no impact. One Instagram user who shared the image posted an update saying, 'Just to be clear this email appears to have been sent to Fauci through public inquiry, so it doesn't necessarily link Fauci to anything.' | Our ruling A Facebook post says, 'Fauci's fellow scientist could tell early on that the (coronavirus) looked manufactured.' The only email that came close to matching that claim noted that while some evidence suggested the virus might be man-made, more work was needed and that opinion could change. The email presented a possibility - a starting point for more research - not a conclusion. The man who wrote that email concluded that the virus developed naturally in a scientific journal article in March 2020. We rate this claim False. RELATED: Debating the origins of the COVID-19 virus: What we know, and don't know | [
"106959-proof-04-3843c33e2f269414da00a37c66e7e9cc.jpg"
]
|
'United States Navy Seal Team ... helicopter was shot down yesterday in Afghanistan and they lost 30 members of the team. | Contradiction | When a national tragedy happens, it's not uncommon for social media users to post requests for thoughts and prayers. It's puzzling, however, when there is no record of the recent tragedy. This seems to be the case with social media claims about a downed U.S. military helicopter. A Facebook post on June 6 asks users to acknowledge the deaths of 30 U.S. service members killed in Afghanistan. 'I am asking everyone to please take a moment of silence for the United States Navy Seal Team and their families,' the post says. 'Their helicopter was shot down yesterday in Afghanistan and they lost 30 members of the team.' This attack was not lost in the news of 2020. It happened in 2011. On Aug. 6, 2011, in what History.com referred to as the 'the costliest day in SEAL Team Six history,' insurgents in Afghanistan shot down a Chinook transport helicopter, killing 30 U.S. service members and eight Afghans. Twenty-two of the service members who died were Navy SEALs (not 30, as the post says). Most were members of SEAL Team 6, the unit that carried out the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. (Officials said none involved in the raid died in the helicopter attack.) So it really happened, but not 'yesterday.' This request for prayers has been circulating for years. Back in September 2017, the fact-checking organization Snopes.com explained that a nearly identical social media post was based on an outdated event. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack. American officials would say only that insurgents shot down the helicopter. | Our ruling A social media post about a helicopter crash in Afghanistan says it happened 'yesterday.' But the attack was in 2011, not 2020. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
'United States Navy Seal Team ... helicopter was shot down yesterday in Afghanistan and they lost 30 members of the team. | Contradiction | When a national tragedy happens, it's not uncommon for social media users to post requests for thoughts and prayers. It's puzzling, however, when there is no record of the recent tragedy. This seems to be the case with social media claims about a downed U.S. military helicopter. A Facebook post on June 6 asks users to acknowledge the deaths of 30 U.S. service members killed in Afghanistan. 'I am asking everyone to please take a moment of silence for the United States Navy Seal Team and their families,' the post says. 'Their helicopter was shot down yesterday in Afghanistan and they lost 30 members of the team.' This attack was not lost in the news of 2020. It happened in 2011. On Aug. 6, 2011, in what History.com referred to as the 'the costliest day in SEAL Team Six history,' insurgents in Afghanistan shot down a Chinook transport helicopter, killing 30 U.S. service members and eight Afghans. Twenty-two of the service members who died were Navy SEALs (not 30, as the post says). Most were members of SEAL Team 6, the unit that carried out the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. (Officials said none involved in the raid died in the helicopter attack.) So it really happened, but not 'yesterday.' This request for prayers has been circulating for years. Back in September 2017, the fact-checking organization Snopes.com explained that a nearly identical social media post was based on an outdated event. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack. American officials would say only that insurgents shot down the helicopter. | Our ruling A social media post about a helicopter crash in Afghanistan says it happened 'yesterday.' But the attack was in 2011, not 2020. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
'United States Navy Seal Team ... helicopter was shot down yesterday in Afghanistan and they lost 30 members of the team. | Contradiction | When a national tragedy happens, it's not uncommon for social media users to post requests for thoughts and prayers. It's puzzling, however, when there is no record of the recent tragedy. This seems to be the case with social media claims about a downed U.S. military helicopter. A Facebook post on June 6 asks users to acknowledge the deaths of 30 U.S. service members killed in Afghanistan. 'I am asking everyone to please take a moment of silence for the United States Navy Seal Team and their families,' the post says. 'Their helicopter was shot down yesterday in Afghanistan and they lost 30 members of the team.' This attack was not lost in the news of 2020. It happened in 2011. On Aug. 6, 2011, in what History.com referred to as the 'the costliest day in SEAL Team Six history,' insurgents in Afghanistan shot down a Chinook transport helicopter, killing 30 U.S. service members and eight Afghans. Twenty-two of the service members who died were Navy SEALs (not 30, as the post says). Most were members of SEAL Team 6, the unit that carried out the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. (Officials said none involved in the raid died in the helicopter attack.) So it really happened, but not 'yesterday.' This request for prayers has been circulating for years. Back in September 2017, the fact-checking organization Snopes.com explained that a nearly identical social media post was based on an outdated event. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack. American officials would say only that insurgents shot down the helicopter. | Our ruling A social media post about a helicopter crash in Afghanistan says it happened 'yesterday.' But the attack was in 2011, not 2020. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
'BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law' | Contradiction | On Feb. 4, U.S. coronavirus deaths exceeded 450,000. According to some social media users, the official death toll can't be trusted. One blog post shared thousands of times on social media claims official COVID-19 data is being inflated. 'BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law,' reads the headline on a National File post. The claim 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 that follows the National File's headline claims that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has inflated COVID-19 fatality data. 'CDC illegally inflated the COVID fatality number by at least 1,600 percent as the 2020 presidential election played out, according to a study published by the Public Health Initiative of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge,' the blog post reads. This is not the first time coronavirus death statistics have been the focus of online misinformation. PolitiFact and other fact-checking organizations have debunked prior claims that the CDC decreased the number of coronavirus deaths from 153,504 to 9,210. And despite what the blog post claims, there is still no evidence to suggest the CDC is inflating coronavirus mortality data. The study that the blog post points to as its primary evidence was produced by a private group called the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge. PolitiFact has previously fact-checked a false claim by the institute's leader James Lyons-Weiler. A study published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information also debunked Lyons-Weiler's claim that the virus behind the ongoing pandemic was created in a lab. In this case, the study does not definitively say that the CDC inflated COVID-19 deaths. Rather, it calls into question guidelines the CDC issued in March 2020 that were designed to more accurately capture mortality data related to the coronavirus. The study's authors called the guidance 'a capricious alteration to data collection has compromised the accuracy, quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of their published data.' The study's conclusions are carefully worded (with boldface added by PolitiFact for emphasis): 'It is concerning that the CDC may have willfully failed to collect, analyze, and publish accurate data used by elected officials to develop public health policy for a nation in crisis [...] If the data being reported was indeed compromised by the CDC's perplexing decision to abandon proven data collection and reporting practices in favor of untested methods, then all public health policies based upon these inaccurate data must be reexamined.' Ultimately, the study's ten authors - at least one of whom is not a medical expert - conclude that 'further federal investigation is justified.' They do not prove or conclude that the CDC inflated COVID-19 death data or violated federal laws. Additionally, experts who study the data say that it is far more likely that official counts of coronavirus deaths are too low. In April 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, weighed in on the allegation that the coronavirus death toll was being inflated because people were actually dying of other conditions. 'There is absolutely no evidence that that's the case at all,' Fauci said in an NBC News interview. 'I think it falls under the category of something that's very unfortunate - these conspiracy theories that we hear about.' Fauci went on to say he thought it was possible COVID-19 deaths were being undercounted. 'I think there's more of a chance of missing some [deaths] that are really coronavirus deaths,' he said. 'But I don't think that number is significant enough to really substantially modify the trends that we're seeing at all.' Roderick Little, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Michigan, told PolitiFact that 'a more reliable picture' of the coronavirus death toll could be seen by 'looking at excess death rates over historical patterns, as on the same date in previous years.' 'If anything, I'd expect the CDC numbers to be underestimates, not overestimates,' Little said. 'I note that the lack of testing for COVID early in the pandemic would contribute to such an underestimate.' | Our ruling A blog post headline reads, 'BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law.' There is no evidence to suggest that the CDC has inflated the number of U.S. coronavirus deaths. In fact, experts agree it is more likely that coronavirus deaths are being undercounted. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law' | Contradiction | On Feb. 4, U.S. coronavirus deaths exceeded 450,000. According to some social media users, the official death toll can't be trusted. One blog post shared thousands of times on social media claims official COVID-19 data is being inflated. 'BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law,' reads the headline on a National File post. The claim 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 that follows the National File's headline claims that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has inflated COVID-19 fatality data. 'CDC illegally inflated the COVID fatality number by at least 1,600 percent as the 2020 presidential election played out, according to a study published by the Public Health Initiative of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge,' the blog post reads. This is not the first time coronavirus death statistics have been the focus of online misinformation. PolitiFact and other fact-checking organizations have debunked prior claims that the CDC decreased the number of coronavirus deaths from 153,504 to 9,210. And despite what the blog post claims, there is still no evidence to suggest the CDC is inflating coronavirus mortality data. The study that the blog post points to as its primary evidence was produced by a private group called the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge. PolitiFact has previously fact-checked a false claim by the institute's leader James Lyons-Weiler. A study published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information also debunked Lyons-Weiler's claim that the virus behind the ongoing pandemic was created in a lab. In this case, the study does not definitively say that the CDC inflated COVID-19 deaths. Rather, it calls into question guidelines the CDC issued in March 2020 that were designed to more accurately capture mortality data related to the coronavirus. The study's authors called the guidance 'a capricious alteration to data collection has compromised the accuracy, quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of their published data.' The study's conclusions are carefully worded (with boldface added by PolitiFact for emphasis): 'It is concerning that the CDC may have willfully failed to collect, analyze, and publish accurate data used by elected officials to develop public health policy for a nation in crisis [...] If the data being reported was indeed compromised by the CDC's perplexing decision to abandon proven data collection and reporting practices in favor of untested methods, then all public health policies based upon these inaccurate data must be reexamined.' Ultimately, the study's ten authors - at least one of whom is not a medical expert - conclude that 'further federal investigation is justified.' They do not prove or conclude that the CDC inflated COVID-19 death data or violated federal laws. Additionally, experts who study the data say that it is far more likely that official counts of coronavirus deaths are too low. In April 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, weighed in on the allegation that the coronavirus death toll was being inflated because people were actually dying of other conditions. 'There is absolutely no evidence that that's the case at all,' Fauci said in an NBC News interview. 'I think it falls under the category of something that's very unfortunate - these conspiracy theories that we hear about.' Fauci went on to say he thought it was possible COVID-19 deaths were being undercounted. 'I think there's more of a chance of missing some [deaths] that are really coronavirus deaths,' he said. 'But I don't think that number is significant enough to really substantially modify the trends that we're seeing at all.' Roderick Little, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Michigan, told PolitiFact that 'a more reliable picture' of the coronavirus death toll could be seen by 'looking at excess death rates over historical patterns, as on the same date in previous years.' 'If anything, I'd expect the CDC numbers to be underestimates, not overestimates,' Little said. 'I note that the lack of testing for COVID early in the pandemic would contribute to such an underestimate.' | Our ruling A blog post headline reads, 'BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law.' There is no evidence to suggest that the CDC has inflated the number of U.S. coronavirus deaths. In fact, experts agree it is more likely that coronavirus deaths are being undercounted. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Joe Biden's 100-day approval rating 'is the lowest in American history. | Contradiction | As President Joe Biden nears his 100th day in office, claims about what Americans think of the job he's doing so far are gaining traction online. A story on the website for Ken Blackwell, a conservative activist and Ohio's former secretary of state, claimed in its headline that, 'President Joe Biden's 100-Day Approval Rating Is The Lowest In American History.' While Biden's approval rating is lower compared to several previous presidents, it isn't the lowest in history - and the article went on to contradict its own headline. 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 repeats its false claim in the first paragraph: 'As Joe Biden races toward hitting the 100-day mark of his presidency, it seems the Democrat has the lowest approval rating in the history of our nation at this point in his term.' But then it contradicts itself in the rest of the story, citing and linking to another website called Disrn. The Disrn article reported that around 52% of Americans approve of the job Biden is doing so far, the third-lowest for a president at the 100-day mark since Harry Truman. President Gerald Ford came in second-worst with a rating of 48%, the story says. Ford's 100th day followed his unpopular pardon of President Richard Nixon. The distinction of having the lowest approval rating in American history went to President Donald Trump at 42% by his 100th day in 2017. The 52% figure cited in the story appears to have come from a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, which found that Biden got higher marks for his COVID-19 pandemic response and lower marks for his handling of the influx of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. Several polls measuring Biden's approval rating range from 50% to 58% - averaging out to about 54.4%, according to the website FiveThirtyEight. On average, presidential approval ratings at the 100th day are about 66% for all administrations from Truman to Biden. | Our ruling A headline said, 'President Joe Biden's 100-Day Approval Rating Is The Lowest In American History.' That's inaccurate. The lowest in American history at the 100-day mark was Trump's. We rate this False. | []
|
Joe Biden's 100-day approval rating 'is the lowest in American history. | Contradiction | As President Joe Biden nears his 100th day in office, claims about what Americans think of the job he's doing so far are gaining traction online. A story on the website for Ken Blackwell, a conservative activist and Ohio's former secretary of state, claimed in its headline that, 'President Joe Biden's 100-Day Approval Rating Is The Lowest In American History.' While Biden's approval rating is lower compared to several previous presidents, it isn't the lowest in history - and the article went on to contradict its own headline. 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 repeats its false claim in the first paragraph: 'As Joe Biden races toward hitting the 100-day mark of his presidency, it seems the Democrat has the lowest approval rating in the history of our nation at this point in his term.' But then it contradicts itself in the rest of the story, citing and linking to another website called Disrn. The Disrn article reported that around 52% of Americans approve of the job Biden is doing so far, the third-lowest for a president at the 100-day mark since Harry Truman. President Gerald Ford came in second-worst with a rating of 48%, the story says. Ford's 100th day followed his unpopular pardon of President Richard Nixon. The distinction of having the lowest approval rating in American history went to President Donald Trump at 42% by his 100th day in 2017. The 52% figure cited in the story appears to have come from a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, which found that Biden got higher marks for his COVID-19 pandemic response and lower marks for his handling of the influx of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. Several polls measuring Biden's approval rating range from 50% to 58% - averaging out to about 54.4%, according to the website FiveThirtyEight. On average, presidential approval ratings at the 100th day are about 66% for all administrations from Truman to Biden. | Our ruling A headline said, 'President Joe Biden's 100-Day Approval Rating Is The Lowest In American History.' That's inaccurate. The lowest in American history at the 100-day mark was Trump's. We rate this False. | []
|
Says Italy arrested a doctor 'for intentionally killing over 3,000 coronavirus patients. | Contradiction | More than 50,000 people around the world have died from COVID-19, with more than half of all fatalities coming from four European countries, including Italy. In March, Italy surpassed China as the country with the highest death toll. A blog post shared on Facebook claims that thousands of those deaths were intentional. 'Italy arrest (sic) doctor for intentionally killing over 3,000 coronavirus patients,' the post's title says. A photo shows a man in tan scrubs walking in handcuffs and flanked by law enforcement. The story goes on to say that Dr. Sergio Kerr 'administered Benadryl, Ditropan and doxepin which are anticholinergic medications which worsen pneumonia.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because it's not a real news story. The photo of the man in the blog post is from the Anderson, Ind., newspaper, the Herald Bulletin, which reported in 2014 on the arrest of a physician charged with several drug offenses. A doctor accused of murdering more than 3,000 people, not to mention coronavirus patients, would draw wide media attention. And yet searching for information about Dr. Sergio Kerr, we found no such reports. We rate this blog post Pants on Fire. | We rate this blog post Pants on Fire. | []
|
Says Italy arrested a doctor 'for intentionally killing over 3,000 coronavirus patients. | Contradiction | More than 50,000 people around the world have died from COVID-19, with more than half of all fatalities coming from four European countries, including Italy. In March, Italy surpassed China as the country with the highest death toll. A blog post shared on Facebook claims that thousands of those deaths were intentional. 'Italy arrest (sic) doctor for intentionally killing over 3,000 coronavirus patients,' the post's title says. A photo shows a man in tan scrubs walking in handcuffs and flanked by law enforcement. The story goes on to say that Dr. Sergio Kerr 'administered Benadryl, Ditropan and doxepin which are anticholinergic medications which worsen pneumonia.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because it's not a real news story. The photo of the man in the blog post is from the Anderson, Ind., newspaper, the Herald Bulletin, which reported in 2014 on the arrest of a physician charged with several drug offenses. A doctor accused of murdering more than 3,000 people, not to mention coronavirus patients, would draw wide media attention. And yet searching for information about Dr. Sergio Kerr, we found no such reports. We rate this blog post Pants on Fire. | We rate this blog post Pants on Fire. | []
|
Says Joe Biden said a racial slur. | Contradiction | Social media users and some conservative commentators have recently shared posts that claim President Joe Biden used an offensive and derogatory slur. In the title of a Facebook video, a pair of conservative commentators known as the Hodgetwins assert Biden said a racial slur. A YouTube video that draws on the same clip of Biden speaking says the same in its headline. 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.) The video footage of Biden in the posts is authentic, from a Feb. 19 address Biden gave at a virtual meeting of the Munich Security Conference. During the speech, Biden, who has a stutter, stumbled over the words 'I'm eager to hear.' The third time he said eager, it sounded like he put an 'n' at the front of 'eager.' This is what the posts are referring to as a racial slur. You can hear it at the 16:32 mark in this C-SPAN video, when Biden said: 'Look, the range of challenges Europe and the United States must take on together is broad and complex. And I'm eager to hear, I'm eager to hear, I'm eager to hear next, from my good friends and outstanding leaders, Chancellor Merkel, about her thoughts on the way forward.' A transcript of Biden's remarks published by the White House reflects this: 'And I'm eager to hear - I'm eager to hear - I'm eager to hear next from...' About 2 minutes and 55 seconds into their video about the stumble, one of the Hodgetwins acknowledged that Biden was not trying to say a racial slur: 'Hey, Joe, you can at least apologize, man. I mean I know you didn't intentionally say it but how do you get confused with the word eager...?' But for social media users clicking through their feeds and seeing headlines that say the president said a racial slur, that context is missing. Biden, who has a speech disorder, stumbled over the words 'I'm eager.' We rate the claim that he said a racial slur False. | We rate the claim that he said a racial slur False. | []
|
Says Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon and Stephen Colbert are 'still not doing Biden jokes. | Contradiction | It's safe to say that President Joe Biden has been mentioned on television numerous times each day. But some claim that on three late-night comedy shows, there are no jokes about Biden. A photo meme posted to Facebook shows the moment on March 19 that Biden tripped up a flight of stairs while boarding Air Force One. Underneath are three photos of late night hosts Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert with the words, 'Nope: Still not doing Biden jokes.' The implication is that TV's top comedians turned a blind eye to Biden's stumble up the stairs. But the post trips up on telling the truth. 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.) We decided to sit down and watch the three shows to find out if the hosts really gave Biden a pass. We found that Fallon and Colbert are indeed telling jokes about Biden, including about his fall on the stairs. Kimmel's show was on hiatus that week, but he has made other cracks about the new president. Fallon of 'The Tonight Show' mentioned Biden's stumble more than once. 'This next poll asks, 'What is the worst trip you've ever taken? 50% said a family trip, 49% said a work retreat, and President Biden said 'Walking up the stairs of Air Force One,' Fallon said March 23. Fallon also mentioned it during his opening monologue later in the week, though it was more as a dig about what reporters would ask in the March 25 press conference with Biden. 'Biden's dealing with North Korea, a border crisis and a global pandemic. But of course the first question will be, 'Sir, why did you fall three times going up the stairs of Air Force One?'' Fallon said March 24. Colbert made a quip about Biden's fall in his 'Late Show' monologue on March 22. 'Biden promised 100 million shots in 100 days. Well, last week he fulfilled that goal in 58 days. Our new president is on a roll, baby! Nothing can stop him now,' Colbert said. 'Except stairs.' Kimmel's show was on hiatus during the week of Biden's fall. But the 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' host has joked about Biden since he took office, including on Jan. 21, the day after Biden's inauguration. 'It was Inauguration Day here in the U.S.A. Joseph Rapunzel Biden is our 46th president,' Kimmel said. (Biden's middle name is actually Robinette). We rate this Facebook post False. UPDATE, March 31, 10:15 a.m.: After publication of this article, Kimmel's spokesperson emailed us to point out that Kimmel's show was on hiatus during the week that Biden fell while boarding Air Force One. We have updated the article to reflect that. | We rate this Facebook post False. UPDATE, March 31, 10:15 a.m.: After publication of this article, Kimmel's spokesperson emailed us to point out that Kimmel's show was on hiatus during the week that Biden fell while boarding Air Force One. We have updated the article to reflect that. | []
|
The knife was on the ground when police arrived at the scene of Ma'Khia Bryant shooting. | Contradiction | Conflicting narratives continue to circulate about the confrontation outside a Columbus, Ohio, foster home that led to the deadly shooting of 16-year-old Ma'Khia Bryant. Some claim Bryant was attacking another person when she was shot; others say she was acting in self-defense. 'Please DO NOT ignore this!!!' one viral Facebook post starts off saying. 'As the George Floyd verdict was being announced, Columbus Ohio Police killed 15 year old Makhia Bryant. She called the police as she was about to get jumped. She had a knife in her hand for self defense, but when officers arrived it was on the ground away from her. The officer immediately opened fired shooting her 4x's.' Some early reports indicated Bryant was 15 years old, but later corrected her age as 16. There has been no confirmation of whether it was Bryant who first called the police for help, and we don't know the details of what happened before the police arrived. But body camera footage from a responding officer shows that a knife was in Bryant's hand, not on the ground, when the officer first fired his gun. 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.) Police received a 911 call around 4:32 p.m. about a disturbance on the southeastern side of the city. A female caller reported that a group of women were trying to fight with her and stab her and others. Then she hung up. Officers from the Columbus police arrived about 13 minutes later and reported that an officer was involved in a shooting. Police later identified the officer as Nicholas Reardon, who joined the department in December 2019. Reardon's body camera footage, released by the police, shows the officer approaching a chaotic scene in front of a house. As he walks up, the video shows a female being pushed to the ground and Reardon pointing his weapon in the direction of the struggle while a man runs up and appears to kick the female on the ground. Soon after, Bryant is seen running toward another female next to a car parked in the driveway, while waving a knife. Reardon can be heard yelling 'get down' a couple of times before he starts shooting. A still image taken from body camera footage moments before police shot and killed Ma'Khia Bryant on April 20, 2021. (Columbus Division of Police) Other than the body camera video, police haven't shared many more details about the shooting, citing a pending investigation by the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation. The knife can be seen on the ground after the shooting. It's not clear from the video when Bryant dropped it. Reardon shot Bryant four times. In a news conference, interim Police Chief Michael Woods was asked whether officers are trained to use their service weapons over a stun gun in such a situation. 'When officers are faced with someone employing deadly force, deadly force can be the response the officer gives,' Woods said, in an apparent reference to the knife that was seen in Bryant's hand. The contradicting accounts may have originated from interviews given by Bryant's family before the footage was released. Bryant's aunt, Hazel Bryant, told the Columbus Dispatch that her niece dropped the knife before police fired, and other family members and neighbors told local news outlets that it was Bryant who called the police and was acting in self-defense. Meanwhile, activists in Columbus are calling for a federal probe of the shooting and the city's mayor, Democrat Andrew Ginther, told reporters that the investigation 'will determine if the officer involved was wrong and, if he was, we will hold him accountable.' | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that the knife was on the ground when police arrived at the scene of the deadly shooting of Ma'Khia Bryant. We aren't judging the officer's actions, but body camera footage shows that the claim about the knife is inaccurate. A knife can be seen in Bryant's hand when the officer began to fire his gun. We rate this claim False. | []
|
The knife was on the ground when police arrived at the scene of Ma'Khia Bryant shooting. | Contradiction | Conflicting narratives continue to circulate about the confrontation outside a Columbus, Ohio, foster home that led to the deadly shooting of 16-year-old Ma'Khia Bryant. Some claim Bryant was attacking another person when she was shot; others say she was acting in self-defense. 'Please DO NOT ignore this!!!' one viral Facebook post starts off saying. 'As the George Floyd verdict was being announced, Columbus Ohio Police killed 15 year old Makhia Bryant. She called the police as she was about to get jumped. She had a knife in her hand for self defense, but when officers arrived it was on the ground away from her. The officer immediately opened fired shooting her 4x's.' Some early reports indicated Bryant was 15 years old, but later corrected her age as 16. There has been no confirmation of whether it was Bryant who first called the police for help, and we don't know the details of what happened before the police arrived. But body camera footage from a responding officer shows that a knife was in Bryant's hand, not on the ground, when the officer first fired his gun. 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.) Police received a 911 call around 4:32 p.m. about a disturbance on the southeastern side of the city. A female caller reported that a group of women were trying to fight with her and stab her and others. Then she hung up. Officers from the Columbus police arrived about 13 minutes later and reported that an officer was involved in a shooting. Police later identified the officer as Nicholas Reardon, who joined the department in December 2019. Reardon's body camera footage, released by the police, shows the officer approaching a chaotic scene in front of a house. As he walks up, the video shows a female being pushed to the ground and Reardon pointing his weapon in the direction of the struggle while a man runs up and appears to kick the female on the ground. Soon after, Bryant is seen running toward another female next to a car parked in the driveway, while waving a knife. Reardon can be heard yelling 'get down' a couple of times before he starts shooting. A still image taken from body camera footage moments before police shot and killed Ma'Khia Bryant on April 20, 2021. (Columbus Division of Police) Other than the body camera video, police haven't shared many more details about the shooting, citing a pending investigation by the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation. The knife can be seen on the ground after the shooting. It's not clear from the video when Bryant dropped it. Reardon shot Bryant four times. In a news conference, interim Police Chief Michael Woods was asked whether officers are trained to use their service weapons over a stun gun in such a situation. 'When officers are faced with someone employing deadly force, deadly force can be the response the officer gives,' Woods said, in an apparent reference to the knife that was seen in Bryant's hand. The contradicting accounts may have originated from interviews given by Bryant's family before the footage was released. Bryant's aunt, Hazel Bryant, told the Columbus Dispatch that her niece dropped the knife before police fired, and other family members and neighbors told local news outlets that it was Bryant who called the police and was acting in self-defense. Meanwhile, activists in Columbus are calling for a federal probe of the shooting and the city's mayor, Democrat Andrew Ginther, told reporters that the investigation 'will determine if the officer involved was wrong and, if he was, we will hold him accountable.' | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that the knife was on the ground when police arrived at the scene of the deadly shooting of Ma'Khia Bryant. We aren't judging the officer's actions, but body camera footage shows that the claim about the knife is inaccurate. A knife can be seen in Bryant's hand when the officer began to fire his gun. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Says the Pentagon killed a man who invented a water-powered fuel cell for cars. | Contradiction | A decades-old conspiracy theory claiming the Pentagon assassinated an Ohio inventor resurfaced recently thanks to a widely circulating Facebook post. The May 25 post includes a nearly one-minute video showing a man reacting to an old news broadcast from the now-defunct WTVN-TV in Columbus, Ohio. The broadcast is a segment on a local man named Stanley Meyer showing off what he claimed was a water-powered car that he invented. 'Imagine if we all had water powered cars,' the caption on the post says. 'Pentagon killed this man.' 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 alludes to the theory that Meyer's death in 1998 was due not to natural causes but to an assassination by the government to suppress his invention. But there's no evidence of that. In the credulous WTVN broadcast, a reporter said an official from the Pentagon had visited Meyer to check on his invention. That statement has helped fuel suspicions that the government had something to do with his death. In an email to PolitiFact, a Pentagon spokesperson said the agency doesn't have any information on Meyer or his death. Meyer's concept would have defied laws of physics Meyer was an inventor with no formal scientific background who claimed to have developed a 'water fuel cell' that could be used instead of gasoline to power a car. The fuel cell purportedly worked by breaking down the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and using the hydrogen to power the car. Meyer claimed during the broadcast his fuel cell could run on 'rain water, well water, city water, ocean water.' However, it was unclear how his fuel cell would be able to split the water into its component elements, as Meyer also claimed the process required a fraction of the energy it would normally take to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen. Such a technology would have had to to defy the first and second laws of thermodynamics in order to work, according to Nature magazine, which dismissed the idea of water as fuel as a long-running myth. Energy cannot be created or destroyed and, when energy is transformed from one form to another, its final state cannot be greater than its initial state, unless energy is added to the system. (Some newly developed electric vehicles use a hydrogen-powered fuel cell to produce electricity, and emit only water vapor.) Meyer claimed that the U.S. government was interested in his water fuel cell. His twin brother, Stephen, reported that he and Meyer were dining with potential foreign investors at a Cracker Barrel in Ohio on March 20, 1998, when Stanley Meyer suddenly felt a jolt of pain in his neck, according to the Columbus Dispatch. As Stanley Meyer rushed out of the restaurant, he told his brother 'they poisoned me' and, once outside, fell to the ground and died at the age of 57. Long investigation Because of the suddenness of his death and Meyer's dying declaration, the police investigation into the incident took three months, according to the paper. However, no evidence of foul play was ever discovered. The Franklin County coroner's office determined Meyer had high blood pressure and died of a brain aneurysm, the Dispatch reported. The only drugs found in his system were lidocaine and phenytoin - seizure medication. High blood pressure is one of the risk factors associated with a brain aneurysm, according to the Mayo Clinic. Symptoms of an aneurysm include a sudden headache, stiff neck, vomiting and seizures. The coroner's report obtained by the Dispatch initially described Meyer's dining companions as officers from NATO. One of the investors with Meyer at the time of his death, Philippe Vandemoortele, told a Netherlands blog in 2020 that he doesn't know why he was identified as a NATO officer or how rumors that Meyer had been deliberately killed started. 'I have some doubts about whether his death happened by chance, but I know nothing more than anyone else,' he told the blog. 'What is certain is that I didn't kill him, he was my friend and I even paid his bills the week before.' | Our ruling A Facebook post said Stanley Meyer, a man who claimed to have invented a water-powered car, was killed by the Pentagon. Meyer claimed he was poisoned moments before he died in 1998, fueling speculation that his death was suspicious. But a police investigation found no evidence of foul play, and his death was ruled the result of a brain aneurysm brought on in part by high blood pressure. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Breaking news - US Supreme Court has canceled universal vaccination in the United States. | Contradiction | As new federal vaccine requirements go into effect, some social media posts are recirculating the false claim that the U.S. Supreme Court found the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe and 'canceled' universal vaccinations. 'Breaking news,' a Sept. 27 Instagram post reads, 'US Supreme Court has canceled universal vaccination in the United States.' The claim dates back to a May 23, 2021, article published on a website called 'Inspirer Radio.' It was wrong then, and it's still wrong now. The Supreme Court has not issued any ruling related to the COVID-19 vaccines or universal vaccinations, and there is currently no case on its docket involving challenges to vaccine mandates. There is also no 'universal vaccination' rule, although the federal government and many employers and institutions are tightening vaccination requirements. 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 Instagram post that resurfaced the claim shows a video of someone scrolling through a lengthy chain message and reading it aloud. The message appears to be identical to the text of the Inspirer Radio article. It asserts that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group led by lawyer Robert Kennedy Jr., who is a nephew of former President John F. Kennedy and an anti-vaccine advocate, in a lawsuit against Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, federal infectious-disease chief Dr. Anthony Fauci and 'Big Pharma,' because they failed 'to prove that all of their vaccines have been safe for the health of citizens' for the past '32 years.' The message makes several additional false claims about the mRNA vaccines, including that they have the ability to alter DNA. (They don't.) The post also erroneously identifies Kennedy as a U.S. senator and attributes a criticism of the COVID-19 vaccines to him. Kennedy told The Associated Press that the claim is false and the quote is fabricated. He added that while he's been involved in more than 30 vaccine safety lawsuits, the cases are at different stages of the judicial process and none have appeared before the Supreme Court. | Our ruling A post on Instagram claims that the Supreme Court 'canceled' universal vaccinations. No such lawsuit has been heard by the Supreme Court. We rate it False. | []
|
Says Lucy McBath 'is supporting those who attack the police. | Contradiction | In a rematch of a race that helped flip control of the U.S. House to Democrats, Republican Karen Handel accuses Georgia Democratic Rep. Lucy McBath of 'supporting those who attack the police.' Handel makes the accusation in a TV ad. Handel lost the Atlanta-area seat to McBath in 2018. The 6th District rematch is one of 18 pivotal House and Senate contests up for election on Nov. 3 that PolitiFact is tracking. The key scene in the ad shows McBath participating in a demonstration, where one marcher behind McBath holds a sign comparing police to the Ku Klux Klan. But the demonstration is against police misconduct, not against police - and McBath is shown marching alongside the local police chief. A KKK reference in the ad Handel served in the House from June 2017 to January 2019, after winning a special election to fill the remainder of the term of Tom Price, who resigned to serve in the Trump administration. She is the former chairwoman of the Fulton County (Ga.) Commission and the former secretary of state of Georgia. McBath became a gun-control advocate after the shooting death of her teen son in 2012. She defeated Handel in Handel's bid for reelection in November 2018. Handel opens her ad, over video clips of violence, vandalism and fires in the streets, by saying: 'Neighborhoods and businesses trashed. People attacked; police, demonized. It's hit too close to home.' Then she appears on the screen and says: 'Standing up for law enforcement used to be a bipartisan issue. Sadly, today, it's not.' A clip of McBath holding a megaphone and marching with others in a street appears. Then the focus turns to a sign, held by someone behind and near McBath, with a message that compares police to the Ku Klux Klan. 'My opponent? She's supporting those who attack the police, playing partisan politics and making things worse,' Handel claims. 'In our community, police officers have always had our back. In Congress, I'll have theirs.' Handel's evidence The clip showing McBath and the sign is from a demonstration June 13 in Roswell, a suburb of Atlanta. An Atlanta Journal Constitution news story carried this headline: 'Hundreds, including police chief, march in Roswell against misconduct.' The main photo with the story shows the sign in the background with McBath walking and talking alongside Roswell Police Chief James Conroy, who told the demonstrators police agencies must change. Conroy has spoken about the need for accountability, racial tolerance and diversity in police departments. The AJC caption says hundreds of peaceful marchers joined in the march to protest racism and police brutality. Asked to substantiate the claim that McBath is supporting those who attack the police, Handel's campaign sent PolitiFact a statement that begins by saying: 'McBath marched beside signs comparing the police to the KKK. She's endorsed by groups and members of Congress who are vocal supporters of the defund the police movement - which, in our viewpoint, is an attack on police.' But McBath can't be held responsible for the actions of other people in a demonstration. And groups or members of Congress endorsing McBath is not the same as McBath supporting efforts to defund the police. Beyond the ad, Handel's campaign cited to PolitiFact votes cast by McBath, such as a vote favoring a bill that would require the release of certain prisoners deemed not to be a risk for violence and a vote against a bill that would have required a study of antifa. But neither vote amounts to an attack on police. | Our ruling Handel claimed McBath 'is supporting those who attack the police.' Handel's TV ad, which shows McBath participating in a march, attempts to link McBath to a marcher holding a sign that compares police with the KKK. But the march was to protest police misconduct and racism, and the ad itself shows that McBath marched alongside the local police chief. We rate the statement False. | []
|
Says BLM activist Sasha Johnson tweeted, 'The white man will not be our equal but our slave. | Contradiction | A faked August 2020 tweet about enslaving white people - purportedly sent by a prominent British Black Lives Matter activist - is again proliferating across social media platforms. 'The white man will not be our equal but our slave,' the tweet reads in part. The handle claims to be the account of a prominent Oxford, England-based activist and organizer Sasha Johnson, 27. Johnson helped mobilize protesters at demonstrations across the United Kingdom last summer following the murder of George Floyd; she also holds a leadership position within the Black-led Taking the Initiative Party. An archived version of the Twitter account in question shows that it was created in May 2020 and has only three followers. The Twitter handle is not any of the usernames Johnson uses across other social media platforms, and Johnson's organization told news organizations the account is fake. Johnson remains in critical condition after she was shot May 23 at a house party in London, according to CNN. The tweet from the phony account was circulated widely across social media, including on Facebook, around the time it was originally published (Aug. 2, 2020) and has reemerged since the shooting. Some of the posts that either quoted or shared screenshots of the false tweet 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.) In an article published May 25, a representative for Taking the Initiative Party told Insider that the account behind the tweet in question was not Johnson's, adding that the account was 'created to persecute her.' The party also said that tweets from the impostor account 'are not reflective of Sasha nor Taking the Initiative Party's beliefs.' It did not immediately respond to an inquiry from PolitiFact. The original account that tweeted the message has since been suspended for violating Twitter's terms of use. According to Insider, Twitter told the publication that the account was suspended because it violated the social media company's platform-manipulation and spam policy. | Our ruling A Twitter post from an account purporting to be Johnson's said 'The white man will not be our equal but our slave.' Johnson's political party, Taking the Initiative, has told media outlets that the now-suspended account is a fake. The anti-white tweets on the account, the group told Insider, were not sent by Johnson nor do they represent the views of her or the party. We rate this Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says BLM activist Sasha Johnson tweeted, 'The white man will not be our equal but our slave. | Contradiction | A faked August 2020 tweet about enslaving white people - purportedly sent by a prominent British Black Lives Matter activist - is again proliferating across social media platforms. 'The white man will not be our equal but our slave,' the tweet reads in part. The handle claims to be the account of a prominent Oxford, England-based activist and organizer Sasha Johnson, 27. Johnson helped mobilize protesters at demonstrations across the United Kingdom last summer following the murder of George Floyd; she also holds a leadership position within the Black-led Taking the Initiative Party. An archived version of the Twitter account in question shows that it was created in May 2020 and has only three followers. The Twitter handle is not any of the usernames Johnson uses across other social media platforms, and Johnson's organization told news organizations the account is fake. Johnson remains in critical condition after she was shot May 23 at a house party in London, according to CNN. The tweet from the phony account was circulated widely across social media, including on Facebook, around the time it was originally published (Aug. 2, 2020) and has reemerged since the shooting. Some of the posts that either quoted or shared screenshots of the false tweet 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.) In an article published May 25, a representative for Taking the Initiative Party told Insider that the account behind the tweet in question was not Johnson's, adding that the account was 'created to persecute her.' The party also said that tweets from the impostor account 'are not reflective of Sasha nor Taking the Initiative Party's beliefs.' It did not immediately respond to an inquiry from PolitiFact. The original account that tweeted the message has since been suspended for violating Twitter's terms of use. According to Insider, Twitter told the publication that the account was suspended because it violated the social media company's platform-manipulation and spam policy. | Our ruling A Twitter post from an account purporting to be Johnson's said 'The white man will not be our equal but our slave.' Johnson's political party, Taking the Initiative, has told media outlets that the now-suspended account is a fake. The anti-white tweets on the account, the group told Insider, were not sent by Johnson nor do they represent the views of her or the party. We rate this Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says Mike Bloomberg 'opposed modest proposals during Barack Obama's presidency to raise taxes on the wealthy, while advocating for cuts to Medicare and Social Security. | Contradiction | As Bernie Sanders moved on to Nevada after winning the most votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, he aimed some sharp barbs at a rival who isn't competing in Nevada's caucuses - former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg. 'We will not defeat Donald Trump with a candidate who opposed modest proposals during Barack Obama's presidency to raise taxes on the wealthy, while advocating for cuts to Medicare and Social Security,' Sanders said at a large rally in Las Vegas Feb. 15. Did Bloomberg oppose tax hikes on the wealthy while supporting cuts to Medicare and Social Security? It's not quite the way Sanders presented it. Here's what the record shows. The Sanders campaign pointed to two moments in 2012 when Bloomberg opposed a tax hike on wealthy New Yorkers and supported cuts in Medicare and Social Security. While mayor in October 2012, Bloomberg, no longer a mayoral candidate himself, dismissed plans from the leading New York City mayoral contenders to raise taxes on the most well-off. 'If you want to drive out the 1% of the people that pay roughly 50% of the taxes, or the 10% of the people that pay 70-odd percent of the taxes, that's as good a strategy as I know,' Bloomberg told reporters. 'Our revenue would go away, and we wouldn't be able to have cops to keep us safe, firefighters to rescue us, teachers to educate our kids.' This was no one-off position. Bloomberg had opposed higher taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers since at least 2009. But Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said that overlooks what Bloomberg did when he first became mayor in 2002. 'Mike's response comes in the context of having drastically raised taxes on wealthy New Yorkers, both personal income tax and property taxes,' Loeser said. New York City has an income tax and rates on the wealthiest varied but ended up higher during Bloomberg's stint as mayor from 2002 to 2013. A report from the city's Office of Management and Budget shows that people making over $500,000 a year saw their tax rate go from 3.648% in 2002, to 4.45% in 2003 through 2005. That was temporary. (Households making over $100,000 also saw a temporary increase.) In 2006, the rate returned to 3.648%. Then in 2010 - for all of New York State - it rose again to 3.846%. 'Bloomberg was not anti-tax across the board,' said Maria Doulis, vice president of the nonpartisan Citizens Budget Commission. 'He recognized the combined state and local taxes were very high in New York City and put the city at a competitive disadvantage. He would argue that if you needed to raise revenues, do it another way.' Doulis also said that tax policy at the city level is quite different from tax policy at the national level. Bloomberg on Medicare and Social Security In a December 2012 op-ed, Bloomberg argued for a grand deal to begin to dial down the nation's deficits. Unlike his stand on taxes in New York City, this concerned the entire country, and as part of a package deal, Bloomberg voiced support for higher taxes on well-to-do Americans. 'There have been signs that Congress and the White House are beginning to move toward an agreement that would include modest tax increases and spending cuts, as well as a commitment to enact broader-based tax and entitlement reforms in 2013,' Bloomberg wrote. 'While the tax revenue and entitlement cuts being discussed are both less than what I and many others believe are necessary to maximize long-term growth, the specifics of the deal are to some extent less important than the act of getting one.' The context here was deficit negotiations between President Barack Obama and Republican House Speaker John Boehner. The exact terms were never fully hammered out, but basically, Obama agreed that if Republicans backed tax hikes, he would go along with trims to future Medicare and Social Security spending. 'Every version of the negotiated 'grand bargain' included tax increases on the rich,' said Marc Goldwein with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group that advocates deficit reductions. 'Rich' was understood to include people making over $250,000 a year. Goldwein said that Bloomberg's words show he supported higher taxes on the wealthy as part of a package that cut Medicare and Social Security spending. Bloomberg's current policy is to expand Medicare and increase Social Security's minimum benefits. His tax plan would increase taxes on the well-to-do. | Our ruling Sanders said Bloomberg opposed modest increases in taxes on the wealthy while advocating cuts in Medicare and Social Security. While Bloomberg did speak against tax hikes inside New York City and encouraged cuts in Medicare and Social Security, several factors make it misleading to put the statements side by side. When Bloomberg talked about trimming Medicare and Social Security, he also favored tax increases on wealthier Americans. That undermines Sanders' claim. There were times when Bloomberg spoke out against tax increases on wealthier New Yorkers, but at other times he was prepared to raise taxes on them. We rate this claim Mostly False. UPDATE, Feb. 20: After we published, the Sanders campaign sent us additional examples of Bloomberg rejecting tax hikes at the national level and advocating for cuts in entitlements. For example, in 2011, asked point blank if he would raise taxes on the wealthy, Bloomberg said, 'No, because I just think this economy nationwide is at a point where it really could go either way.' But in the same interview, Bloomberg also said that both sides in the deficit reduction debate were right to propose raising taxes on those making over $250,000, and spending cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Bloomberg said the majority of the money 'is going to come from the wealthy.' And then he added, 'you have to do it with meaningful cuts done in a time frame that is believable.' The constant theme is that when Bloomberg talked about cutting Medicare and Social Security it was in the context of deficit reduction. And his plan for the deficit included tax hikes. To be sure, if he had his way, those increases would fall on both middle class and wealthy families, but he wouldn't exempt the wealthy. Our ruling remains Mostly False. | []
|
Says Mike Bloomberg 'opposed modest proposals during Barack Obama's presidency to raise taxes on the wealthy, while advocating for cuts to Medicare and Social Security. | Contradiction | As Bernie Sanders moved on to Nevada after winning the most votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, he aimed some sharp barbs at a rival who isn't competing in Nevada's caucuses - former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg. 'We will not defeat Donald Trump with a candidate who opposed modest proposals during Barack Obama's presidency to raise taxes on the wealthy, while advocating for cuts to Medicare and Social Security,' Sanders said at a large rally in Las Vegas Feb. 15. Did Bloomberg oppose tax hikes on the wealthy while supporting cuts to Medicare and Social Security? It's not quite the way Sanders presented it. Here's what the record shows. The Sanders campaign pointed to two moments in 2012 when Bloomberg opposed a tax hike on wealthy New Yorkers and supported cuts in Medicare and Social Security. While mayor in October 2012, Bloomberg, no longer a mayoral candidate himself, dismissed plans from the leading New York City mayoral contenders to raise taxes on the most well-off. 'If you want to drive out the 1% of the people that pay roughly 50% of the taxes, or the 10% of the people that pay 70-odd percent of the taxes, that's as good a strategy as I know,' Bloomberg told reporters. 'Our revenue would go away, and we wouldn't be able to have cops to keep us safe, firefighters to rescue us, teachers to educate our kids.' This was no one-off position. Bloomberg had opposed higher taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers since at least 2009. But Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said that overlooks what Bloomberg did when he first became mayor in 2002. 'Mike's response comes in the context of having drastically raised taxes on wealthy New Yorkers, both personal income tax and property taxes,' Loeser said. New York City has an income tax and rates on the wealthiest varied but ended up higher during Bloomberg's stint as mayor from 2002 to 2013. A report from the city's Office of Management and Budget shows that people making over $500,000 a year saw their tax rate go from 3.648% in 2002, to 4.45% in 2003 through 2005. That was temporary. (Households making over $100,000 also saw a temporary increase.) In 2006, the rate returned to 3.648%. Then in 2010 - for all of New York State - it rose again to 3.846%. 'Bloomberg was not anti-tax across the board,' said Maria Doulis, vice president of the nonpartisan Citizens Budget Commission. 'He recognized the combined state and local taxes were very high in New York City and put the city at a competitive disadvantage. He would argue that if you needed to raise revenues, do it another way.' Doulis also said that tax policy at the city level is quite different from tax policy at the national level. Bloomberg on Medicare and Social Security In a December 2012 op-ed, Bloomberg argued for a grand deal to begin to dial down the nation's deficits. Unlike his stand on taxes in New York City, this concerned the entire country, and as part of a package deal, Bloomberg voiced support for higher taxes on well-to-do Americans. 'There have been signs that Congress and the White House are beginning to move toward an agreement that would include modest tax increases and spending cuts, as well as a commitment to enact broader-based tax and entitlement reforms in 2013,' Bloomberg wrote. 'While the tax revenue and entitlement cuts being discussed are both less than what I and many others believe are necessary to maximize long-term growth, the specifics of the deal are to some extent less important than the act of getting one.' The context here was deficit negotiations between President Barack Obama and Republican House Speaker John Boehner. The exact terms were never fully hammered out, but basically, Obama agreed that if Republicans backed tax hikes, he would go along with trims to future Medicare and Social Security spending. 'Every version of the negotiated 'grand bargain' included tax increases on the rich,' said Marc Goldwein with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a group that advocates deficit reductions. 'Rich' was understood to include people making over $250,000 a year. Goldwein said that Bloomberg's words show he supported higher taxes on the wealthy as part of a package that cut Medicare and Social Security spending. Bloomberg's current policy is to expand Medicare and increase Social Security's minimum benefits. His tax plan would increase taxes on the well-to-do. | Our ruling Sanders said Bloomberg opposed modest increases in taxes on the wealthy while advocating cuts in Medicare and Social Security. While Bloomberg did speak against tax hikes inside New York City and encouraged cuts in Medicare and Social Security, several factors make it misleading to put the statements side by side. When Bloomberg talked about trimming Medicare and Social Security, he also favored tax increases on wealthier Americans. That undermines Sanders' claim. There were times when Bloomberg spoke out against tax increases on wealthier New Yorkers, but at other times he was prepared to raise taxes on them. We rate this claim Mostly False. UPDATE, Feb. 20: After we published, the Sanders campaign sent us additional examples of Bloomberg rejecting tax hikes at the national level and advocating for cuts in entitlements. For example, in 2011, asked point blank if he would raise taxes on the wealthy, Bloomberg said, 'No, because I just think this economy nationwide is at a point where it really could go either way.' But in the same interview, Bloomberg also said that both sides in the deficit reduction debate were right to propose raising taxes on those making over $250,000, and spending cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Bloomberg said the majority of the money 'is going to come from the wealthy.' And then he added, 'you have to do it with meaningful cuts done in a time frame that is believable.' The constant theme is that when Bloomberg talked about cutting Medicare and Social Security it was in the context of deficit reduction. And his plan for the deficit included tax hikes. To be sure, if he had his way, those increases would fall on both middle class and wealthy families, but he wouldn't exempt the wealthy. Our ruling remains Mostly False. | []
|
Japan's prime minister met with Vice President Kamala Harris holding a Trump 2024 sign and wearing a red baseball cap. | Contradiction | A video on social media appears to show the prime minister of Japan holding a Trump 2024 campaign sign while standing alongside Vice President Kamala Harris. 'Greatest thing I've seen in a long time,' wrote a Facebook user who shared the video. 'Leader of Japan meeting in The White House with Kamala Harris holding a Trump sign.' It's not real. The original, unaltered clip shows Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga with nothing in his hands and no hat in sight. 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.) Suga and Harris delivered televised remarks on April 16, 2021, before attending a bilateral meeting with President Joe Biden. Suga is the first world leader to visit Washington since Biden and Harris took office. The White House released a clip of their remarks and Suga is not holding a Trump 2024 campaign sign, nor is he wearing a red baseball cap. We rate this Pants on Fire! | We rate this Pants on Fire! | [
"107074-proof-05-altered-vid-harris_meeting.jpg"
]
|
Japan's prime minister met with Vice President Kamala Harris holding a Trump 2024 sign and wearing a red baseball cap. | Contradiction | A video on social media appears to show the prime minister of Japan holding a Trump 2024 campaign sign while standing alongside Vice President Kamala Harris. 'Greatest thing I've seen in a long time,' wrote a Facebook user who shared the video. 'Leader of Japan meeting in The White House with Kamala Harris holding a Trump sign.' It's not real. The original, unaltered clip shows Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga with nothing in his hands and no hat in sight. 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.) Suga and Harris delivered televised remarks on April 16, 2021, before attending a bilateral meeting with President Joe Biden. Suga is the first world leader to visit Washington since Biden and Harris took office. The White House released a clip of their remarks and Suga is not holding a Trump 2024 campaign sign, nor is he wearing a red baseball cap. We rate this Pants on Fire! | We rate this Pants on Fire! | [
"107074-proof-05-altered-vid-harris_meeting.jpg"
]
|
Photos reveal Greta Thunberg is a trained actress who comes from a long line of actors. | Contradiction | It wouldn't be Earth Day without coming across social media posts that criticize climate change activist Greta Thunberg. 'Greta has been an actress most of her life,' a post on Instagram claims. 'She is from a long line of actors and has spent most of her childhood preparing for roles.' The post features a collage of images, with the central one showing a young girl - who is supposedly Thunberg - speaking into a microphone with an Islamic State member beside her and an ISIS flag in the background. The same girl is pictured again, this time crying with the man's arm around her and text overlaid that says: 'look up the 7yo marriage hoax.' The last image in the collage appears to show Thunberg's IMDb filmography page. | A few things: The young girl seen in the images with ISIS is not Thunberg. And while there are actors in Thunberg's family, that is not evidence that she is as well. Thunberg's filmography page lists the influential activist's appearances in climate change documentaries and news segments. 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 photos showing the young girl with an ISIS member is not Thunberg, as we've noted in a previous fact-check. A reverse image search revealed that the photos were taken from a video of a 2013 Quran recitation competition organized by the Islamic State in Aleppo, Syria. A 2014 report by The Morocco World News explained that the girl was 7 years old at the time and began to cry during the event after she made mistakes during her recitation. While the child looks similar to Thunberg - who would have been 10 at the time - it's not her. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on November 7, 2021 in a Facebook post The Astroworld concert was a 'test run on the vaxxed' because people who are injected with graphene oxide can be controlled through magnetic frequencies, including music. By Samantha Putterman • November 8, 2021 RELATED: No, this photo does not show a young girl being sold to Muslims as a child bride Meanwhile, Thunberg's IMDb page doesn't prove that she is a trained actress. In fact, it helps disprove it. The website lists the projects Thunberg is known for. Those include, 'I am Greta,' a 2020 documentary film about her; 'Balkowitsch,' a 2020 documentary about photographer Shane Balkowitsch that features a portrait session he did with Thunberg at an Indian reservation; and 'Countdown to Year Zero,' a 2019 documentary about climate change. In all, she does not appear as an actress but as herself. Thunberg also has a cameo in 'Retrograde,' a 2020 Pearl Jam music video about the effects of climate change. She does come from a family of actors, at least on one side. Her mother, Malena Ernman is an opera singer, but her father, Svante Thunberg, is a small time actor whose parents were also actors. He appeared in plays early in his career, a television series in the late 1990s, and in a 2002 film made for Swedish television, in which he portrayed the composer Joseph Martin Kraus. He is also an author who acts as a manager for his wife. Our ruling An Instagram post claims that Thunberg is a trained actress who comes from a long line of actors. It also points to photos that supposedly show her acting, as well as her film career. Thunberg's father is an actor, but there is no evidence that she is. The photos featured in the post are not of her, and her IMDb filmography page primarily depicts her appearances as herself in recent climate change documentaries. We rate this False. | []
|
Photos reveal Greta Thunberg is a trained actress who comes from a long line of actors. | Contradiction | It wouldn't be Earth Day without coming across social media posts that criticize climate change activist Greta Thunberg. 'Greta has been an actress most of her life,' a post on Instagram claims. 'She is from a long line of actors and has spent most of her childhood preparing for roles.' The post features a collage of images, with the central one showing a young girl - who is supposedly Thunberg - speaking into a microphone with an Islamic State member beside her and an ISIS flag in the background. The same girl is pictured again, this time crying with the man's arm around her and text overlaid that says: 'look up the 7yo marriage hoax.' The last image in the collage appears to show Thunberg's IMDb filmography page. | A few things: The young girl seen in the images with ISIS is not Thunberg. And while there are actors in Thunberg's family, that is not evidence that she is as well. Thunberg's filmography page lists the influential activist's appearances in climate change documentaries and news segments. 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 photos showing the young girl with an ISIS member is not Thunberg, as we've noted in a previous fact-check. A reverse image search revealed that the photos were taken from a video of a 2013 Quran recitation competition organized by the Islamic State in Aleppo, Syria. A 2014 report by The Morocco World News explained that the girl was 7 years old at the time and began to cry during the event after she made mistakes during her recitation. While the child looks similar to Thunberg - who would have been 10 at the time - it's not her. Featured Fact-check Facebook posts stated on November 7, 2021 in a Facebook post The Astroworld concert was a 'test run on the vaxxed' because people who are injected with graphene oxide can be controlled through magnetic frequencies, including music. By Samantha Putterman • November 8, 2021 RELATED: No, this photo does not show a young girl being sold to Muslims as a child bride Meanwhile, Thunberg's IMDb page doesn't prove that she is a trained actress. In fact, it helps disprove it. The website lists the projects Thunberg is known for. Those include, 'I am Greta,' a 2020 documentary film about her; 'Balkowitsch,' a 2020 documentary about photographer Shane Balkowitsch that features a portrait session he did with Thunberg at an Indian reservation; and 'Countdown to Year Zero,' a 2019 documentary about climate change. In all, she does not appear as an actress but as herself. Thunberg also has a cameo in 'Retrograde,' a 2020 Pearl Jam music video about the effects of climate change. She does come from a family of actors, at least on one side. Her mother, Malena Ernman is an opera singer, but her father, Svante Thunberg, is a small time actor whose parents were also actors. He appeared in plays early in his career, a television series in the late 1990s, and in a 2002 film made for Swedish television, in which he portrayed the composer Joseph Martin Kraus. He is also an author who acts as a manager for his wife. Our ruling An Instagram post claims that Thunberg is a trained actress who comes from a long line of actors. It also points to photos that supposedly show her acting, as well as her film career. Thunberg's father is an actor, but there is no evidence that she is. The photos featured in the post are not of her, and her IMDb filmography page primarily depicts her appearances as herself in recent climate change documentaries. We rate this False. | []
|
Says his impeachment is a 'coup. | Contradiction | Amid the pressure of a House impeachment inquiry, President Donald Trump has continued to stoke the idea that he's the victim of a coup - shorthand for 'coup d'etat,' a French term that means the overthrow of the government. 'As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the........People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!', Trump tweeted on Oct. 1. The following day, Trump's campaign unveiled a new ad that said, 'It's nothing short of a coup, and it must be stopped.' On several subsequent occasions he's shared his allies' uses of the word on Twitter. He retweeted 'coup' comments by Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, on Oct. 3; former House speaker Newt Gingrich on Oct. 10; conservative broadcaster Mark Levin on Oct. 14; Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch on Oct. 19; and Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., on Oct. 24. Earlier in the year, Trump referred to the special counsel report headed by Robert Mueller as a coup. However, his use of the word 'coup' to describe impeachment, a constitutionally defined process, is not accurate, even as a figure of speech. What is a coup? Let's start with a more literal definition. The key element of a coup is that it is carried out beyond the bounds of legality. 'We define a coup d'état as the sudden and irregular (i.e., illegal or extra-legal) removal, or displacement, of the executive authority of an independent government,' wrote the Coup D'etat Project at the University of Illinois' Cline Center for Democracy in 2013. Violence is part of many coups, but being violent is not a necessary condition. Of the 12 types of coups recognized by the Cline Center, nine do not seem to have anything to do with what Trump is talking about, including military coups, rebel coups, popular revolts, dissident actions, palace coups, foreign coups, internationally mediated transitions, forced resignations, and self-coups, in which the leader strong-arms other branches of government to entrench power. Two other types are defined by how far they got - attempted coups (which try and fail) and coup conspiracies (which never get to the stage of being carried out). Any supposed coup against Trump would have been a coup attempt, since he's still in office. But that doesn't mean there actually was a coup attempt. Is impeachment equivalent to a coup? Impeachment is explicitly described in the Constitution as the way to remove a president who has committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' Michael Klarman, a Harvard Law School professor, told us that you can't get much more within the bounds of legality than an explicit power outlined in the Constitution. 'It's obviously not a coup for the House to launch impeachment proceedings,' Klarman told us in early October. The lead author of the Cline Center report, University of Illinois political scientist Peter F. Nardulli, called Trump's usage 'ill-informed.' 'What is going on today in the United States is a constitutionally sanctioned process that is an integral part of the checks and balances that have been vital to the longevity and success of the U.S. Constitution and the Republic it created,' he told PolitiFact. He added that 'there is nothing sudden or decisive about what is going on in the House of Representatives. It is conducting a deliberative, constitutionally sanctioned process. If an impeachment resolution is adopted, it will simply be forwarded to the Senate to conduct a trial.' Also, if Trump is removed from office, his duly elected vice president, Mike Pence, would take over -- not the opposition party. The Trump camp's defense The Trump campaign defended the president's comments by saying that dictionary definitions allow usages that are more informal than the ones used by academics such as the Cline Center. Merriam-Webster, for instance, says the word can mean 'a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics.' The Trump campaign pointed to widespread examples of Democratic lawmakers using 'coup' to describe the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, and to media reports using the word to characterize a 2009 change in leadership in the New York state legislature. Experts largely acknowledged that the word has more informal uses, and they retroactively admonished Democrats for using such language during Clinton's impeachment. However, they said Trump is wrong - and ill-advised - to regularly encourage the use of the word 'coup' to describe impeachment. While hyperbolic rhetoric is common in politics, said Steven Smith, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, 'what is unusual with Trump's use of the term 'coup' is that it is the president who is using the term.' 'President Trump is taking the lead in intensifying the rhetorical battle, which is bound to make the divide between his supporters and other Americans even deeper than it would be if legislators and pundits were using the term,' Smith said. Such an approach 'will justify more radical strategies in the future.' Nardulli of the University of Illinois added that 'there are good reasons that, like facts, people are not entitled to choose their own definitions of important things such as coups, especially when those definitions are self-serving.' In fact, Trump's use of a word with such shock value is not an isolated incident, said Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College. It needs to be understood as part of a larger strategy, he said. Trump has quoted pastor Robert Jeffress 'as saying impeachment would lead to 'civil war,' he has asked whether Adam Schiff should be arrested for treason, and he has suggested that the whistleblower was engaged in espionage against the U.S. government,' Pitney said. 'This is all serious stuff for someone who gives orders to the military and the attorney general.' (We previously rated Trump's use of 'treason' Pants on Fire.) In addition to weakening constitutional directives at home, the use of 'coup' sends a signal to anti-democratic forces overseas, said Anthony Clark Arend, a professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University. 'At a time when the rule of law is under threat in both the United States and throughout the world, I think it is important to differentiate the legitimate impeachment process from illegal attempts to overthrow a government,' Arend said. 'People may differ on whether they believe there is sufficient evidence to merit impeachment or removal from office, but the use of the impeachment process as established in the Constitution does not constitute a 'coup.'' | Our ruling Trump has used the term 'coup' to describe the impeachment process, and has approvingly retweeted allies who have used it. Trump's campaign said the word can be applied more informally than as an extra-legal ouster of a government. However, Trump's repeated use of the term alongside such other inflammatory charges such as 'treason' suggests that he is using it intentionally to call into question the legitimacy of a constitutionally prescribed process. His statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire. | []
|
Says his impeachment is a 'coup. | Contradiction | Amid the pressure of a House impeachment inquiry, President Donald Trump has continued to stoke the idea that he's the victim of a coup - shorthand for 'coup d'etat,' a French term that means the overthrow of the government. 'As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the........People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!', Trump tweeted on Oct. 1. The following day, Trump's campaign unveiled a new ad that said, 'It's nothing short of a coup, and it must be stopped.' On several subsequent occasions he's shared his allies' uses of the word on Twitter. He retweeted 'coup' comments by Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, on Oct. 3; former House speaker Newt Gingrich on Oct. 10; conservative broadcaster Mark Levin on Oct. 14; Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch on Oct. 19; and Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., on Oct. 24. Earlier in the year, Trump referred to the special counsel report headed by Robert Mueller as a coup. However, his use of the word 'coup' to describe impeachment, a constitutionally defined process, is not accurate, even as a figure of speech. What is a coup? Let's start with a more literal definition. The key element of a coup is that it is carried out beyond the bounds of legality. 'We define a coup d'état as the sudden and irregular (i.e., illegal or extra-legal) removal, or displacement, of the executive authority of an independent government,' wrote the Coup D'etat Project at the University of Illinois' Cline Center for Democracy in 2013. Violence is part of many coups, but being violent is not a necessary condition. Of the 12 types of coups recognized by the Cline Center, nine do not seem to have anything to do with what Trump is talking about, including military coups, rebel coups, popular revolts, dissident actions, palace coups, foreign coups, internationally mediated transitions, forced resignations, and self-coups, in which the leader strong-arms other branches of government to entrench power. Two other types are defined by how far they got - attempted coups (which try and fail) and coup conspiracies (which never get to the stage of being carried out). Any supposed coup against Trump would have been a coup attempt, since he's still in office. But that doesn't mean there actually was a coup attempt. Is impeachment equivalent to a coup? Impeachment is explicitly described in the Constitution as the way to remove a president who has committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' Michael Klarman, a Harvard Law School professor, told us that you can't get much more within the bounds of legality than an explicit power outlined in the Constitution. 'It's obviously not a coup for the House to launch impeachment proceedings,' Klarman told us in early October. The lead author of the Cline Center report, University of Illinois political scientist Peter F. Nardulli, called Trump's usage 'ill-informed.' 'What is going on today in the United States is a constitutionally sanctioned process that is an integral part of the checks and balances that have been vital to the longevity and success of the U.S. Constitution and the Republic it created,' he told PolitiFact. He added that 'there is nothing sudden or decisive about what is going on in the House of Representatives. It is conducting a deliberative, constitutionally sanctioned process. If an impeachment resolution is adopted, it will simply be forwarded to the Senate to conduct a trial.' Also, if Trump is removed from office, his duly elected vice president, Mike Pence, would take over -- not the opposition party. The Trump camp's defense The Trump campaign defended the president's comments by saying that dictionary definitions allow usages that are more informal than the ones used by academics such as the Cline Center. Merriam-Webster, for instance, says the word can mean 'a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics.' The Trump campaign pointed to widespread examples of Democratic lawmakers using 'coup' to describe the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, and to media reports using the word to characterize a 2009 change in leadership in the New York state legislature. Experts largely acknowledged that the word has more informal uses, and they retroactively admonished Democrats for using such language during Clinton's impeachment. However, they said Trump is wrong - and ill-advised - to regularly encourage the use of the word 'coup' to describe impeachment. While hyperbolic rhetoric is common in politics, said Steven Smith, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, 'what is unusual with Trump's use of the term 'coup' is that it is the president who is using the term.' 'President Trump is taking the lead in intensifying the rhetorical battle, which is bound to make the divide between his supporters and other Americans even deeper than it would be if legislators and pundits were using the term,' Smith said. Such an approach 'will justify more radical strategies in the future.' Nardulli of the University of Illinois added that 'there are good reasons that, like facts, people are not entitled to choose their own definitions of important things such as coups, especially when those definitions are self-serving.' In fact, Trump's use of a word with such shock value is not an isolated incident, said Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College. It needs to be understood as part of a larger strategy, he said. Trump has quoted pastor Robert Jeffress 'as saying impeachment would lead to 'civil war,' he has asked whether Adam Schiff should be arrested for treason, and he has suggested that the whistleblower was engaged in espionage against the U.S. government,' Pitney said. 'This is all serious stuff for someone who gives orders to the military and the attorney general.' (We previously rated Trump's use of 'treason' Pants on Fire.) In addition to weakening constitutional directives at home, the use of 'coup' sends a signal to anti-democratic forces overseas, said Anthony Clark Arend, a professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University. 'At a time when the rule of law is under threat in both the United States and throughout the world, I think it is important to differentiate the legitimate impeachment process from illegal attempts to overthrow a government,' Arend said. 'People may differ on whether they believe there is sufficient evidence to merit impeachment or removal from office, but the use of the impeachment process as established in the Constitution does not constitute a 'coup.'' | Our ruling Trump has used the term 'coup' to describe the impeachment process, and has approvingly retweeted allies who have used it. Trump's campaign said the word can be applied more informally than as an extra-legal ouster of a government. However, Trump's repeated use of the term alongside such other inflammatory charges such as 'treason' suggests that he is using it intentionally to call into question the legitimacy of a constitutionally prescribed process. His statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire. | []
|
Says his impeachment is a 'coup. | Contradiction | Amid the pressure of a House impeachment inquiry, President Donald Trump has continued to stoke the idea that he's the victim of a coup - shorthand for 'coup d'etat,' a French term that means the overthrow of the government. 'As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the........People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!', Trump tweeted on Oct. 1. The following day, Trump's campaign unveiled a new ad that said, 'It's nothing short of a coup, and it must be stopped.' On several subsequent occasions he's shared his allies' uses of the word on Twitter. He retweeted 'coup' comments by Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, on Oct. 3; former House speaker Newt Gingrich on Oct. 10; conservative broadcaster Mark Levin on Oct. 14; Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch on Oct. 19; and Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., on Oct. 24. Earlier in the year, Trump referred to the special counsel report headed by Robert Mueller as a coup. However, his use of the word 'coup' to describe impeachment, a constitutionally defined process, is not accurate, even as a figure of speech. What is a coup? Let's start with a more literal definition. The key element of a coup is that it is carried out beyond the bounds of legality. 'We define a coup d'état as the sudden and irregular (i.e., illegal or extra-legal) removal, or displacement, of the executive authority of an independent government,' wrote the Coup D'etat Project at the University of Illinois' Cline Center for Democracy in 2013. Violence is part of many coups, but being violent is not a necessary condition. Of the 12 types of coups recognized by the Cline Center, nine do not seem to have anything to do with what Trump is talking about, including military coups, rebel coups, popular revolts, dissident actions, palace coups, foreign coups, internationally mediated transitions, forced resignations, and self-coups, in which the leader strong-arms other branches of government to entrench power. Two other types are defined by how far they got - attempted coups (which try and fail) and coup conspiracies (which never get to the stage of being carried out). Any supposed coup against Trump would have been a coup attempt, since he's still in office. But that doesn't mean there actually was a coup attempt. Is impeachment equivalent to a coup? Impeachment is explicitly described in the Constitution as the way to remove a president who has committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' Michael Klarman, a Harvard Law School professor, told us that you can't get much more within the bounds of legality than an explicit power outlined in the Constitution. 'It's obviously not a coup for the House to launch impeachment proceedings,' Klarman told us in early October. The lead author of the Cline Center report, University of Illinois political scientist Peter F. Nardulli, called Trump's usage 'ill-informed.' 'What is going on today in the United States is a constitutionally sanctioned process that is an integral part of the checks and balances that have been vital to the longevity and success of the U.S. Constitution and the Republic it created,' he told PolitiFact. He added that 'there is nothing sudden or decisive about what is going on in the House of Representatives. It is conducting a deliberative, constitutionally sanctioned process. If an impeachment resolution is adopted, it will simply be forwarded to the Senate to conduct a trial.' Also, if Trump is removed from office, his duly elected vice president, Mike Pence, would take over -- not the opposition party. The Trump camp's defense The Trump campaign defended the president's comments by saying that dictionary definitions allow usages that are more informal than the ones used by academics such as the Cline Center. Merriam-Webster, for instance, says the word can mean 'a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics.' The Trump campaign pointed to widespread examples of Democratic lawmakers using 'coup' to describe the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, and to media reports using the word to characterize a 2009 change in leadership in the New York state legislature. Experts largely acknowledged that the word has more informal uses, and they retroactively admonished Democrats for using such language during Clinton's impeachment. However, they said Trump is wrong - and ill-advised - to regularly encourage the use of the word 'coup' to describe impeachment. While hyperbolic rhetoric is common in politics, said Steven Smith, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, 'what is unusual with Trump's use of the term 'coup' is that it is the president who is using the term.' 'President Trump is taking the lead in intensifying the rhetorical battle, which is bound to make the divide between his supporters and other Americans even deeper than it would be if legislators and pundits were using the term,' Smith said. Such an approach 'will justify more radical strategies in the future.' Nardulli of the University of Illinois added that 'there are good reasons that, like facts, people are not entitled to choose their own definitions of important things such as coups, especially when those definitions are self-serving.' In fact, Trump's use of a word with such shock value is not an isolated incident, said Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College. It needs to be understood as part of a larger strategy, he said. Trump has quoted pastor Robert Jeffress 'as saying impeachment would lead to 'civil war,' he has asked whether Adam Schiff should be arrested for treason, and he has suggested that the whistleblower was engaged in espionage against the U.S. government,' Pitney said. 'This is all serious stuff for someone who gives orders to the military and the attorney general.' (We previously rated Trump's use of 'treason' Pants on Fire.) In addition to weakening constitutional directives at home, the use of 'coup' sends a signal to anti-democratic forces overseas, said Anthony Clark Arend, a professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University. 'At a time when the rule of law is under threat in both the United States and throughout the world, I think it is important to differentiate the legitimate impeachment process from illegal attempts to overthrow a government,' Arend said. 'People may differ on whether they believe there is sufficient evidence to merit impeachment or removal from office, but the use of the impeachment process as established in the Constitution does not constitute a 'coup.'' | Our ruling Trump has used the term 'coup' to describe the impeachment process, and has approvingly retweeted allies who have used it. Trump's campaign said the word can be applied more informally than as an extra-legal ouster of a government. However, Trump's repeated use of the term alongside such other inflammatory charges such as 'treason' suggests that he is using it intentionally to call into question the legitimacy of a constitutionally prescribed process. His statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire. | []
|
Black cats in Vietnam are being killed and consumed as a COVID-19 cure. | Contradiction | Cats and dogs have long been a controversial part of the cuisine for some in Vietnam. But a new claim circulating online says that people there are eating black cats as a treatment for COVID-19. Tabloid news sites including the Toronto Sun, the New York Post, the U.S. Sun and Vietnam Insider published stories saying black cats are being 'collected, killed and their bodies ground up as a supposed coronavirus treatment.' Each of the stories in some way attributed its information to the South West News Service, which describes itself as a 'UK- and US-based news and media content agency with a proud 40-year history.' These stories and other posts with the same claim 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.) With fewer than 300 reported cases and zero deaths, Vietnam has been highlighted for its response to COVID-19, which included strict quarantining and intensive testing. Much of the country has reopened, with children returning to school May 4. While Vietnam has grappled with real issues related to animal welfare, experts we spoke to say they haven't found widespread evidence that black cats are being killed and turned into a paste to treat COVID-19. The news service that generated the story said it has removed the article from circulation amid concerns about its credibility. Here's what we know. On April 17, The Sun, a tabloid in the United Kingdom and Ireland, published a story that reported on an investigation by an animal rights group called Four Paws. According to the story, the group said it examined dining app data and found that dog and cat meat sales were surging through dining app delivery services in Cambodia and Vietnam. The story surmised that 'doctors in the region are encouraging many to eat dog and cat meat, claiming its properties help fight off viruses.' A week later, on April 23 and 24, stories credited to the South West News Service were published elsewhere that had a similar storyline, but took the claim further to suggest black cats are being singled out, turned into paste and consumed as medicine. Pictures credited to South West News Service accompanied some versions of the online stories. But the captions were vague and the images hard to verify. They included, for example, a photo of a baby drinking from a bottle that appears to contain a black substance. 'This distressing image shows a baby reportedly being fed the black cat concoction,' the caption said. The stories' only source appeared to be the head of another charity, No to Dog Meat, based in London. We reached out to that group for evidence. They sent us to their YouTube account which includes four videos uploaded in April and May that claim in captions or titles to show cat mistreatment in Vietnam but which included no verifiable information about exactly where or when they were taken. Asked about the black cat claim, Cat Besch, founder and director of Hanoi-based Vietnam Animal Aid & Rescue, told PolitiFact she has seen 'zero evidence in Vietnam so far that this is true.' Nam Nguyen, an editor in Vietnam with the government-run Vietnam News Agency, told PolitiFact 'the rumor has been around these weeks and originated from one post in Thailand social media, but as far as I know, Vietnamese are not so superstitious like other nations in southeast Asia to practice those ancient rites.' He said the post has been deleted. Phuong Tham, director of Human Society International in Vietnam, told PolitiFact that black cats are being killed there 'by people with lack of knowledge, believing that black cats' bones can treat asthma in children, while others kill them for superstitious beliefs,' but 'we have seen no evidence that black cats in Vietnam are being killed for COVID-19 treatment.' Tham and Dr. Todd Pollack, Harvard University medical professor and country director in Hanoi of the Partnership for Health Advancement in Vietnam, said it is significant that they had not seen the claim reported by news organizations in Vietnam. VN Express, a newspaper in Vietnam, reported that on May 6, police in Nghe An province seized 630 kilograms of dog, cat carcasses and entrails of other animals from a passenger bus. The driver said the meat was being taken to Hanoi for consumption, according to the report. But the report contains no suggestion the meat was being used for treatment of coronavirus. When we reached out to South West News Service about the source of the information, the agency told PolitiFact that 'shortly after publication, we identified a number of issues with this story and pulled it from our service. We received new information which led us to doubt the widespread nature of the claims the charity had made on this issue.' We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
Black cats in Vietnam are being killed and consumed as a COVID-19 cure. | Contradiction | Cats and dogs have long been a controversial part of the cuisine for some in Vietnam. But a new claim circulating online says that people there are eating black cats as a treatment for COVID-19. Tabloid news sites including the Toronto Sun, the New York Post, the U.S. Sun and Vietnam Insider published stories saying black cats are being 'collected, killed and their bodies ground up as a supposed coronavirus treatment.' Each of the stories in some way attributed its information to the South West News Service, which describes itself as a 'UK- and US-based news and media content agency with a proud 40-year history.' These stories and other posts with the same claim 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.) With fewer than 300 reported cases and zero deaths, Vietnam has been highlighted for its response to COVID-19, which included strict quarantining and intensive testing. Much of the country has reopened, with children returning to school May 4. While Vietnam has grappled with real issues related to animal welfare, experts we spoke to say they haven't found widespread evidence that black cats are being killed and turned into a paste to treat COVID-19. The news service that generated the story said it has removed the article from circulation amid concerns about its credibility. Here's what we know. On April 17, The Sun, a tabloid in the United Kingdom and Ireland, published a story that reported on an investigation by an animal rights group called Four Paws. According to the story, the group said it examined dining app data and found that dog and cat meat sales were surging through dining app delivery services in Cambodia and Vietnam. The story surmised that 'doctors in the region are encouraging many to eat dog and cat meat, claiming its properties help fight off viruses.' A week later, on April 23 and 24, stories credited to the South West News Service were published elsewhere that had a similar storyline, but took the claim further to suggest black cats are being singled out, turned into paste and consumed as medicine. Pictures credited to South West News Service accompanied some versions of the online stories. But the captions were vague and the images hard to verify. They included, for example, a photo of a baby drinking from a bottle that appears to contain a black substance. 'This distressing image shows a baby reportedly being fed the black cat concoction,' the caption said. The stories' only source appeared to be the head of another charity, No to Dog Meat, based in London. We reached out to that group for evidence. They sent us to their YouTube account which includes four videos uploaded in April and May that claim in captions or titles to show cat mistreatment in Vietnam but which included no verifiable information about exactly where or when they were taken. Asked about the black cat claim, Cat Besch, founder and director of Hanoi-based Vietnam Animal Aid & Rescue, told PolitiFact she has seen 'zero evidence in Vietnam so far that this is true.' Nam Nguyen, an editor in Vietnam with the government-run Vietnam News Agency, told PolitiFact 'the rumor has been around these weeks and originated from one post in Thailand social media, but as far as I know, Vietnamese are not so superstitious like other nations in southeast Asia to practice those ancient rites.' He said the post has been deleted. Phuong Tham, director of Human Society International in Vietnam, told PolitiFact that black cats are being killed there 'by people with lack of knowledge, believing that black cats' bones can treat asthma in children, while others kill them for superstitious beliefs,' but 'we have seen no evidence that black cats in Vietnam are being killed for COVID-19 treatment.' Tham and Dr. Todd Pollack, Harvard University medical professor and country director in Hanoi of the Partnership for Health Advancement in Vietnam, said it is significant that they had not seen the claim reported by news organizations in Vietnam. VN Express, a newspaper in Vietnam, reported that on May 6, police in Nghe An province seized 630 kilograms of dog, cat carcasses and entrails of other animals from a passenger bus. The driver said the meat was being taken to Hanoi for consumption, according to the report. But the report contains no suggestion the meat was being used for treatment of coronavirus. When we reached out to South West News Service about the source of the information, the agency told PolitiFact that 'shortly after publication, we identified a number of issues with this story and pulled it from our service. We received new information which led us to doubt the widespread nature of the claims the charity had made on this issue.' We rate this claim False. | We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time. Never in American history will so many taxes be raised and so much borrowing be needed to pay for this reckless spending. | Contradiction | During his marathon floor speech before House passage of the Build Back Better bill, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., criticized the Democratic-backed measure as profligate and harmful to the economy. Starting on Nov. 18, McCarthy spoke for more than eight hours prior to the final vote on the bill. The version that passed the House, which may be changed in the Senate, would spend $1.75 trillion over 10 years on clean energy initiatives, child care subsidies, extended child tax credits, paid family leave and hearing aids for Medicare beneficiaries. It would be partially paid for through additional taxes primarily aimed at wealthy taxpayers and by letting the government negotiate certain drug prices. At one point in his speech, McCarthy said, 'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time. Never in American history will so many taxes be raised and so much borrowing be needed to pay for this reckless spending.' It seemed unlikely that a bill that raises historic levels of taxes to pay for its spending would also require historic levels of borrowing. So we decided to take a closer look at McCarthy's assessment. It turns out McCarthy was wrong on all three elements. (His office did not provide support for his remarks to PolitiFact.) 'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time' Two recent measures signed into law spent more at one time, one signed by then-President Donald Trump and the other signed by President Joe Biden. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (or CARES) Act was passed with bipartisan support and signed by Trump in March 2020, as the scope of the coronavirus pandemic was becoming clear. The measure provided a $1,200-per-adult and $500-per-child direct cash payment, expanded unemployment benefits, a government-funded business lending plan, and expenditures to support hospitals, schools, and state and local governments. In all, the expenditures in the CARES Act totaled $2.3 trillion, which is well above the price tag of the Build Back Better bill, and the money in the CARES Act was designed to be infused into the economy more quickly. Another bill signed by Biden in March 2021 also exceeded the cost of the Build Back Better Act. This measure, the American Rescue Plan, was supported only by Democrats in both chambers. The $1.9 trillion measure provided means-tested $1,400 direct cash payments, an increase in the child tax credit, an extension of enhanced unemployment payments, rental assistance, and funding for state and local governments, as well as schools, transit, restaurants, child care, and the airline industry. 'Never in American history will so many taxes be raised' The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan arm of Congress that examines the spending and tax impacts of legislation, found that the Build Back Better bill would raise taxes by roughly $1.27 trillion over 10 years. The CBO has previously estimated the size of the nation's gross domestic product over the next decade at just under $288 trillion. So over the 10-year period, the tax increases from the Build Back Better bill would represent about 0.44% of cumulative GDP. That's not trivial, but it's also not close to a record. Just since 1968, at least five tax bills enacted tax increases larger than 0.44% of GDP: • Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09% • Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: 0.8% • Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980: 0.5% • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: 0.5% • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990: 0.49% In addition, 10 other bills before and during World War II also increased taxes by a larger percentage of GDP, according to the Treasury Department. 'Never in American history will ... so much borrowing be needed.' This may be the most off-base assertion of the three. The CBO analysis of the Build Back Better bill found that the deficit would increase over 10 years by between $160 billion and $367 billion. (The lower figure reflects increased tax collections from additional IRS audit capacity, which the CBO's rules don't officially consider.) Those increases are a small fraction of the other two coronavirus relief bills mentioned earlier. According to the CBO, the CARES Act would raise deficits by $1.7 trillion, and the American Rescue Plan would raise deficits by about $1.8 trillion. 'It seems like there's a bit of short-term memory loss' with McCarthy's statement, said Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. He added that 'it's just bad math to think that so much spending and so much revenue in Build Back Better wouldn't largely cancel each other out (even if not entirely), so as not to add that much to the deficit.' | Our ruling McCarthy said, 'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time. Never in American history will so many taxes be raised and so much borrowing be needed to pay for this reckless spending.' He's wrong on all three counts. Two bills, including the bipartisan CARES Act, spent more money at one time. As a share of gross domestic product, the tax increases in the Build Back Better bill only rank sixth since 1968 and 16th since World War II. And the CARES Act was one of two bills that added far more to the debt than the Build Better Back bill would. We rate the statement False. | [
"107102-proof-03-bd44f7620d95e73732b054924fe7f536.jpg"
]
|
'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time. Never in American history will so many taxes be raised and so much borrowing be needed to pay for this reckless spending. | Contradiction | During his marathon floor speech before House passage of the Build Back Better bill, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., criticized the Democratic-backed measure as profligate and harmful to the economy. Starting on Nov. 18, McCarthy spoke for more than eight hours prior to the final vote on the bill. The version that passed the House, which may be changed in the Senate, would spend $1.75 trillion over 10 years on clean energy initiatives, child care subsidies, extended child tax credits, paid family leave and hearing aids for Medicare beneficiaries. It would be partially paid for through additional taxes primarily aimed at wealthy taxpayers and by letting the government negotiate certain drug prices. At one point in his speech, McCarthy said, 'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time. Never in American history will so many taxes be raised and so much borrowing be needed to pay for this reckless spending.' It seemed unlikely that a bill that raises historic levels of taxes to pay for its spending would also require historic levels of borrowing. So we decided to take a closer look at McCarthy's assessment. It turns out McCarthy was wrong on all three elements. (His office did not provide support for his remarks to PolitiFact.) 'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time' Two recent measures signed into law spent more at one time, one signed by then-President Donald Trump and the other signed by President Joe Biden. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (or CARES) Act was passed with bipartisan support and signed by Trump in March 2020, as the scope of the coronavirus pandemic was becoming clear. The measure provided a $1,200-per-adult and $500-per-child direct cash payment, expanded unemployment benefits, a government-funded business lending plan, and expenditures to support hospitals, schools, and state and local governments. In all, the expenditures in the CARES Act totaled $2.3 trillion, which is well above the price tag of the Build Back Better bill, and the money in the CARES Act was designed to be infused into the economy more quickly. Another bill signed by Biden in March 2021 also exceeded the cost of the Build Back Better Act. This measure, the American Rescue Plan, was supported only by Democrats in both chambers. The $1.9 trillion measure provided means-tested $1,400 direct cash payments, an increase in the child tax credit, an extension of enhanced unemployment payments, rental assistance, and funding for state and local governments, as well as schools, transit, restaurants, child care, and the airline industry. 'Never in American history will so many taxes be raised' The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan arm of Congress that examines the spending and tax impacts of legislation, found that the Build Back Better bill would raise taxes by roughly $1.27 trillion over 10 years. The CBO has previously estimated the size of the nation's gross domestic product over the next decade at just under $288 trillion. So over the 10-year period, the tax increases from the Build Back Better bill would represent about 0.44% of cumulative GDP. That's not trivial, but it's also not close to a record. Just since 1968, at least five tax bills enacted tax increases larger than 0.44% of GDP: • Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09% • Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: 0.8% • Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980: 0.5% • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: 0.5% • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990: 0.49% In addition, 10 other bills before and during World War II also increased taxes by a larger percentage of GDP, according to the Treasury Department. 'Never in American history will ... so much borrowing be needed.' This may be the most off-base assertion of the three. The CBO analysis of the Build Back Better bill found that the deficit would increase over 10 years by between $160 billion and $367 billion. (The lower figure reflects increased tax collections from additional IRS audit capacity, which the CBO's rules don't officially consider.) Those increases are a small fraction of the other two coronavirus relief bills mentioned earlier. According to the CBO, the CARES Act would raise deficits by $1.7 trillion, and the American Rescue Plan would raise deficits by about $1.8 trillion. 'It seems like there's a bit of short-term memory loss' with McCarthy's statement, said Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. He added that 'it's just bad math to think that so much spending and so much revenue in Build Back Better wouldn't largely cancel each other out (even if not entirely), so as not to add that much to the deficit.' | Our ruling McCarthy said, 'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time. Never in American history will so many taxes be raised and so much borrowing be needed to pay for this reckless spending.' He's wrong on all three counts. Two bills, including the bipartisan CARES Act, spent more money at one time. As a share of gross domestic product, the tax increases in the Build Back Better bill only rank sixth since 1968 and 16th since World War II. And the CARES Act was one of two bills that added far more to the debt than the Build Better Back bill would. We rate the statement False. | [
"107102-proof-03-bd44f7620d95e73732b054924fe7f536.jpg"
]
|
'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time. Never in American history will so many taxes be raised and so much borrowing be needed to pay for this reckless spending. | Contradiction | During his marathon floor speech before House passage of the Build Back Better bill, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., criticized the Democratic-backed measure as profligate and harmful to the economy. Starting on Nov. 18, McCarthy spoke for more than eight hours prior to the final vote on the bill. The version that passed the House, which may be changed in the Senate, would spend $1.75 trillion over 10 years on clean energy initiatives, child care subsidies, extended child tax credits, paid family leave and hearing aids for Medicare beneficiaries. It would be partially paid for through additional taxes primarily aimed at wealthy taxpayers and by letting the government negotiate certain drug prices. At one point in his speech, McCarthy said, 'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time. Never in American history will so many taxes be raised and so much borrowing be needed to pay for this reckless spending.' It seemed unlikely that a bill that raises historic levels of taxes to pay for its spending would also require historic levels of borrowing. So we decided to take a closer look at McCarthy's assessment. It turns out McCarthy was wrong on all three elements. (His office did not provide support for his remarks to PolitiFact.) 'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time' Two recent measures signed into law spent more at one time, one signed by then-President Donald Trump and the other signed by President Joe Biden. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (or CARES) Act was passed with bipartisan support and signed by Trump in March 2020, as the scope of the coronavirus pandemic was becoming clear. The measure provided a $1,200-per-adult and $500-per-child direct cash payment, expanded unemployment benefits, a government-funded business lending plan, and expenditures to support hospitals, schools, and state and local governments. In all, the expenditures in the CARES Act totaled $2.3 trillion, which is well above the price tag of the Build Back Better bill, and the money in the CARES Act was designed to be infused into the economy more quickly. Another bill signed by Biden in March 2021 also exceeded the cost of the Build Back Better Act. This measure, the American Rescue Plan, was supported only by Democrats in both chambers. The $1.9 trillion measure provided means-tested $1,400 direct cash payments, an increase in the child tax credit, an extension of enhanced unemployment payments, rental assistance, and funding for state and local governments, as well as schools, transit, restaurants, child care, and the airline industry. 'Never in American history will so many taxes be raised' The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan arm of Congress that examines the spending and tax impacts of legislation, found that the Build Back Better bill would raise taxes by roughly $1.27 trillion over 10 years. The CBO has previously estimated the size of the nation's gross domestic product over the next decade at just under $288 trillion. So over the 10-year period, the tax increases from the Build Back Better bill would represent about 0.44% of cumulative GDP. That's not trivial, but it's also not close to a record. Just since 1968, at least five tax bills enacted tax increases larger than 0.44% of GDP: • Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09% • Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: 0.8% • Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980: 0.5% • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: 0.5% • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990: 0.49% In addition, 10 other bills before and during World War II also increased taxes by a larger percentage of GDP, according to the Treasury Department. 'Never in American history will ... so much borrowing be needed.' This may be the most off-base assertion of the three. The CBO analysis of the Build Back Better bill found that the deficit would increase over 10 years by between $160 billion and $367 billion. (The lower figure reflects increased tax collections from additional IRS audit capacity, which the CBO's rules don't officially consider.) Those increases are a small fraction of the other two coronavirus relief bills mentioned earlier. According to the CBO, the CARES Act would raise deficits by $1.7 trillion, and the American Rescue Plan would raise deficits by about $1.8 trillion. 'It seems like there's a bit of short-term memory loss' with McCarthy's statement, said Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. He added that 'it's just bad math to think that so much spending and so much revenue in Build Back Better wouldn't largely cancel each other out (even if not entirely), so as not to add that much to the deficit.' | Our ruling McCarthy said, 'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time. Never in American history will so many taxes be raised and so much borrowing be needed to pay for this reckless spending.' He's wrong on all three counts. Two bills, including the bipartisan CARES Act, spent more money at one time. As a share of gross domestic product, the tax increases in the Build Back Better bill only rank sixth since 1968 and 16th since World War II. And the CARES Act was one of two bills that added far more to the debt than the Build Better Back bill would. We rate the statement False. | [
"107102-proof-03-bd44f7620d95e73732b054924fe7f536.jpg"
]
|
'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time. Never in American history will so many taxes be raised and so much borrowing be needed to pay for this reckless spending. | Contradiction | During his marathon floor speech before House passage of the Build Back Better bill, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., criticized the Democratic-backed measure as profligate and harmful to the economy. Starting on Nov. 18, McCarthy spoke for more than eight hours prior to the final vote on the bill. The version that passed the House, which may be changed in the Senate, would spend $1.75 trillion over 10 years on clean energy initiatives, child care subsidies, extended child tax credits, paid family leave and hearing aids for Medicare beneficiaries. It would be partially paid for through additional taxes primarily aimed at wealthy taxpayers and by letting the government negotiate certain drug prices. At one point in his speech, McCarthy said, 'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time. Never in American history will so many taxes be raised and so much borrowing be needed to pay for this reckless spending.' It seemed unlikely that a bill that raises historic levels of taxes to pay for its spending would also require historic levels of borrowing. So we decided to take a closer look at McCarthy's assessment. It turns out McCarthy was wrong on all three elements. (His office did not provide support for his remarks to PolitiFact.) 'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time' Two recent measures signed into law spent more at one time, one signed by then-President Donald Trump and the other signed by President Joe Biden. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (or CARES) Act was passed with bipartisan support and signed by Trump in March 2020, as the scope of the coronavirus pandemic was becoming clear. The measure provided a $1,200-per-adult and $500-per-child direct cash payment, expanded unemployment benefits, a government-funded business lending plan, and expenditures to support hospitals, schools, and state and local governments. In all, the expenditures in the CARES Act totaled $2.3 trillion, which is well above the price tag of the Build Back Better bill, and the money in the CARES Act was designed to be infused into the economy more quickly. Another bill signed by Biden in March 2021 also exceeded the cost of the Build Back Better Act. This measure, the American Rescue Plan, was supported only by Democrats in both chambers. The $1.9 trillion measure provided means-tested $1,400 direct cash payments, an increase in the child tax credit, an extension of enhanced unemployment payments, rental assistance, and funding for state and local governments, as well as schools, transit, restaurants, child care, and the airline industry. 'Never in American history will so many taxes be raised' The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan arm of Congress that examines the spending and tax impacts of legislation, found that the Build Back Better bill would raise taxes by roughly $1.27 trillion over 10 years. The CBO has previously estimated the size of the nation's gross domestic product over the next decade at just under $288 trillion. So over the 10-year period, the tax increases from the Build Back Better bill would represent about 0.44% of cumulative GDP. That's not trivial, but it's also not close to a record. Just since 1968, at least five tax bills enacted tax increases larger than 0.44% of GDP: • Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09% • Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: 0.8% • Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980: 0.5% • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: 0.5% • Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990: 0.49% In addition, 10 other bills before and during World War II also increased taxes by a larger percentage of GDP, according to the Treasury Department. 'Never in American history will ... so much borrowing be needed.' This may be the most off-base assertion of the three. The CBO analysis of the Build Back Better bill found that the deficit would increase over 10 years by between $160 billion and $367 billion. (The lower figure reflects increased tax collections from additional IRS audit capacity, which the CBO's rules don't officially consider.) Those increases are a small fraction of the other two coronavirus relief bills mentioned earlier. According to the CBO, the CARES Act would raise deficits by $1.7 trillion, and the American Rescue Plan would raise deficits by about $1.8 trillion. 'It seems like there's a bit of short-term memory loss' with McCarthy's statement, said Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. He added that 'it's just bad math to think that so much spending and so much revenue in Build Back Better wouldn't largely cancel each other out (even if not entirely), so as not to add that much to the deficit.' | Our ruling McCarthy said, 'Never in American history has so much been spent at one time. Never in American history will so many taxes be raised and so much borrowing be needed to pay for this reckless spending.' He's wrong on all three counts. Two bills, including the bipartisan CARES Act, spent more money at one time. As a share of gross domestic product, the tax increases in the Build Back Better bill only rank sixth since 1968 and 16th since World War II. And the CARES Act was one of two bills that added far more to the debt than the Build Better Back bill would. We rate the statement False. | [
"107102-proof-03-bd44f7620d95e73732b054924fe7f536.jpg"
]
|
'Starbucks CEO Has Admitted She Doesnt Like White People' | Contradiction | Don't fall for social posts with the headline 'NEW Starbucks CEO Has Admitted She Doesnt Like White People.' They are not true. For one thing, the executive mentioned in one post, Rosalind Brewer, is the chief operating officer and group president of Starbucks, not the CEO. But the bigger flaw is in its mischaracterization of something Brewer said in 2015, when she worked for another company. In a CNN interview, she expressed a desire for diversity in the workplace and corporate leadership; she never said anything to suggest she has a problem with white people. 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.) At the time of the CNN interview, Brewer was CEO of Sam's Club. The interview was primarily about how Sam's Club employees were affected by various state and city decisions to raise the minimum wage. Near the end of the interview CNN's Poppy Harlow shifted the conversation. She pointed out that Brewer, as a black woman, was in a unique position as a minority in a corporate executive role. Harlow then asked Brewer whose responsibility it is to make the decisions that increase representation for women like Brewer in corporate leadership positions. 'It starts with the top of many companies. It has to start with top leadership,' Brewer said. 'I can tell you that even with myself, I have to live it also. My executive team is very diverse, and I make that a priority. I demand it of my team and within the structure.' Brewer acknowledged that sometimes she considers it her responsibility to use her platform to encourage her partners to think about diversity in hiring. She said she also demands diversity considerations in the hiring process and talks to her suppliers about diversity as well. Then, she brought up one incident in particular. 'Just today, we met with a supplier, and the entire other side of the table was all Caucasian males,' Brewer said in the interview. 'I decided not to talk about it directly with his folks in the room, because there were actually no females, like, levels down. So I'm going to have to place a call to him.' Brewer did not say she disliked white people in general, or anyone at all. Neither did she identify the supplier in question, other than mentioning which day the meeting occurred. The post also erroneously says Brewer succeeded Howard Schultz as CEO in 2017. In September 2017, Starbucks named Brewer its group president and chief operating officer. Kevin Johnson is Starbucks president and CEO, and he has been since April 2017. | Our ruling The Facebook post claims that Starbucks' CEO has 'admitted' to disliking white people, basing its claim on a CNN interview with Brewer. In the interview cited, Brewer talks about how she encourages hiring women and minorities for executive roles. She does not say anything about disliking white people. And in reality, she is the chief operating officer, not CEO. We rate this post False. | []
|
'Starbucks CEO Has Admitted She Doesnt Like White People' | Contradiction | Don't fall for social posts with the headline 'NEW Starbucks CEO Has Admitted She Doesnt Like White People.' They are not true. For one thing, the executive mentioned in one post, Rosalind Brewer, is the chief operating officer and group president of Starbucks, not the CEO. But the bigger flaw is in its mischaracterization of something Brewer said in 2015, when she worked for another company. In a CNN interview, she expressed a desire for diversity in the workplace and corporate leadership; she never said anything to suggest she has a problem with white people. 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.) At the time of the CNN interview, Brewer was CEO of Sam's Club. The interview was primarily about how Sam's Club employees were affected by various state and city decisions to raise the minimum wage. Near the end of the interview CNN's Poppy Harlow shifted the conversation. She pointed out that Brewer, as a black woman, was in a unique position as a minority in a corporate executive role. Harlow then asked Brewer whose responsibility it is to make the decisions that increase representation for women like Brewer in corporate leadership positions. 'It starts with the top of many companies. It has to start with top leadership,' Brewer said. 'I can tell you that even with myself, I have to live it also. My executive team is very diverse, and I make that a priority. I demand it of my team and within the structure.' Brewer acknowledged that sometimes she considers it her responsibility to use her platform to encourage her partners to think about diversity in hiring. She said she also demands diversity considerations in the hiring process and talks to her suppliers about diversity as well. Then, she brought up one incident in particular. 'Just today, we met with a supplier, and the entire other side of the table was all Caucasian males,' Brewer said in the interview. 'I decided not to talk about it directly with his folks in the room, because there were actually no females, like, levels down. So I'm going to have to place a call to him.' Brewer did not say she disliked white people in general, or anyone at all. Neither did she identify the supplier in question, other than mentioning which day the meeting occurred. The post also erroneously says Brewer succeeded Howard Schultz as CEO in 2017. In September 2017, Starbucks named Brewer its group president and chief operating officer. Kevin Johnson is Starbucks president and CEO, and he has been since April 2017. | Our ruling The Facebook post claims that Starbucks' CEO has 'admitted' to disliking white people, basing its claim on a CNN interview with Brewer. In the interview cited, Brewer talks about how she encourages hiring women and minorities for executive roles. She does not say anything about disliking white people. And in reality, she is the chief operating officer, not CEO. We rate this post False. | []
|
Goodyear Tires 'announced a BAN ON MAGA HATS...This is what the Radical Left Democrats do. | Contradiction | The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company's dress code has drawn presidential condemnation. On Aug. 19, President Donald Trump tweeted, 'Don't buy GOODYEAR TIRES - They announced a BAN ON MAGA HATS. Get better tires for far less! (This is what the Radical Left Democrats do. Two can play the same game, and we have to start playing it now!).' In the hours that followed, Goodyear's stock prices dipped, and one Republican mayor announced that his town would no longer use Goodyear tires for police, fire, and emergency vehicles. But how accurate is it to describe Goodyear company policy as 'a ban' on hats that promote Trump's 'Make America Great Again' campaign slogan? Trump's tweet came a day after a Topeka, Kan., news station shared a photo of a slide leaked by a Goodyear employee who claimed that it had come from Goodyear's corporate office in Akron, Ohio, and was shared by an area manager during a diversity training presentation. The slide header reads 'Zero Tolerance,' and appears to provide a definition of what is and is not acceptable to wear under the Goodyear policy. Under a column labeled 'Acceptable' are two bullets that read: 'Black Lives Matter,' 'Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender pride.' In a column labeled 'Unacceptable: 'Blue Lives Matter,' 'All Lives Matter,' 'MAGA attire,' and 'politically-affiliated slogans or material.' It's not clear who made the slide or if it is authentic; Goodyear later said only it 'was not created or distributed by Goodyear corporate, nor was it part of a diversity training class.' After CNN affiliate WIBW published the photo, it spread on social media, leading Trump and others to slam the company's dress code as biased against Trump supporters and police. Goodyear released a public statement clarifying its policies. The company did not reply to our inquiry. According to the statement, the company asks its associates to 'refrain from workplace expressions in support of political campaigning for any candidate or political party, as well as similar forms of advocacy that fall outside the scope of racial justice and equity issues.' This means that the ban also applies to hats and T-shirts supporting Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Goodyear said that the policy was not meant to delineate acceptable political viewpoints from unacceptable ones but to foster 'an inclusive and respectful workplace.' | Our ruling Trump said Goodyear 'announced a ban on MAGA hats' and said that 'this is what the Radical Left Democrats do.' This distorts Goodyear's dress code and makes it sound as though the company singled out Trump campaign messaging. Goodyear has not announced a ban only on hats that display the Trump campaign's MAGA slogan. Rather, the company requires employees to refrain from any political expression that falls 'outside the scope of racial justice and equity issues.' Campaign paraphernalia supporting Trump challenger former Vice President Joe Biden is also off-limits by this measure. We rate this statement Mostly False. | []
|
Goodyear Tires 'announced a BAN ON MAGA HATS...This is what the Radical Left Democrats do. | Contradiction | The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company's dress code has drawn presidential condemnation. On Aug. 19, President Donald Trump tweeted, 'Don't buy GOODYEAR TIRES - They announced a BAN ON MAGA HATS. Get better tires for far less! (This is what the Radical Left Democrats do. Two can play the same game, and we have to start playing it now!).' In the hours that followed, Goodyear's stock prices dipped, and one Republican mayor announced that his town would no longer use Goodyear tires for police, fire, and emergency vehicles. But how accurate is it to describe Goodyear company policy as 'a ban' on hats that promote Trump's 'Make America Great Again' campaign slogan? Trump's tweet came a day after a Topeka, Kan., news station shared a photo of a slide leaked by a Goodyear employee who claimed that it had come from Goodyear's corporate office in Akron, Ohio, and was shared by an area manager during a diversity training presentation. The slide header reads 'Zero Tolerance,' and appears to provide a definition of what is and is not acceptable to wear under the Goodyear policy. Under a column labeled 'Acceptable' are two bullets that read: 'Black Lives Matter,' 'Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender pride.' In a column labeled 'Unacceptable: 'Blue Lives Matter,' 'All Lives Matter,' 'MAGA attire,' and 'politically-affiliated slogans or material.' It's not clear who made the slide or if it is authentic; Goodyear later said only it 'was not created or distributed by Goodyear corporate, nor was it part of a diversity training class.' After CNN affiliate WIBW published the photo, it spread on social media, leading Trump and others to slam the company's dress code as biased against Trump supporters and police. Goodyear released a public statement clarifying its policies. The company did not reply to our inquiry. According to the statement, the company asks its associates to 'refrain from workplace expressions in support of political campaigning for any candidate or political party, as well as similar forms of advocacy that fall outside the scope of racial justice and equity issues.' This means that the ban also applies to hats and T-shirts supporting Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Goodyear said that the policy was not meant to delineate acceptable political viewpoints from unacceptable ones but to foster 'an inclusive and respectful workplace.' | Our ruling Trump said Goodyear 'announced a ban on MAGA hats' and said that 'this is what the Radical Left Democrats do.' This distorts Goodyear's dress code and makes it sound as though the company singled out Trump campaign messaging. Goodyear has not announced a ban only on hats that display the Trump campaign's MAGA slogan. Rather, the company requires employees to refrain from any political expression that falls 'outside the scope of racial justice and equity issues.' Campaign paraphernalia supporting Trump challenger former Vice President Joe Biden is also off-limits by this measure. We rate this statement Mostly False. | []
|
Says a photo shows accused shooter Kyle Rittenhouse's mother, armed with a long gun, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on the night two protesters were killed and one injured. | Contradiction | Nearly a week after 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse arrived in Kenosha from Antioch, Illinois, and - according to criminal charges - shot and killed two people during a night of protests and chaos in the city, a photo is circulating on social media purporting to describe how he got there. Rittenhouse was recorded on video that night carrying a rifle and saying it was his job to protect life and property. It was the third night of unrest after a Kenosha police officer shot Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black man, seven times in the back at close range. Rittenhouse has been charged with homicide and remains in Illinois awaiting further legal proceedings. On Aug. 28, 2020, Facebook user Doug McLean shared a photo and connected it to the night of the deadly shooting. It has since drawn more than 800 shares and, in its various iterations, scores of comments. In the picture, a white woman is shown wearing fatigues with a long gun strapped to her chest. 'How did Kyle Rittenhouse cross state lines to Wisconsin? His mom, pictured below drove him. #KyleRittenhouse's mom Wendy, photographed on same night her son killed two people and shot another,' McLean wrote. 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.) A release from Rittenhouse's attorneys on Aug. 28, 2020 disputes this. That release says Rittenhouse had stayed in Kenosha for the night after finishing work as a community lifeguard. But there's a bigger problem with the photo that was shared: It's not even from the same day. Or the same city. Let's dig in. Photo is from a related protest in Madison a few days earlier The woman with the long gun actually appears in a photo in a separate city, on a different day. The image was cropped in the Facebook post in question to focus on her. Facebook user Miki Pope shared the original photo, in which the woman stands with a group of other similarly armed people outside the Wisconsin state Capitol in Madison, where protests also occurred after Blake was shot by police. 'Last night (Aug 24) in Madison, these counter-protesters showed up with long guns,' Pope wrote in the early morning hours of Aug. 26, 2020. Pope's post references the violence Rittenhouse is charged with in Kenosha, but does not in any way tie him to the people in the photo aside from decrying the actions of such militia members that have been showing up at various protests. 'I'm afraid this won't be the last shooting, as armed white supremacists are becoming more and more public about their hatred for Black lives and the Black Lives Matter protests,' Pope wrote. It's unknown whether Rittenhouse's mother had any involvement in bringing her son to Kenosha that day - but the photo does not depict anyone who was there. And, as noted, Rittenhouse's attorney says the teen was in Kenosha already and stayed there into the night hours. | Our ruling A Facebook user claimed that a photo of a white woman with a gun was the mother of Kyle Rittenhouse. But the photo is not from that protest. It's cropped from a larger image of a handful of people with guns standing outside the state capitol in Madison two days earlier. We rate the claim False. | [
"107129-proof-04-0fca92bdb891dc2871096522fc9ac15c.jpg"
]
|
Says a photo shows accused shooter Kyle Rittenhouse's mother, armed with a long gun, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on the night two protesters were killed and one injured. | Contradiction | Nearly a week after 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse arrived in Kenosha from Antioch, Illinois, and - according to criminal charges - shot and killed two people during a night of protests and chaos in the city, a photo is circulating on social media purporting to describe how he got there. Rittenhouse was recorded on video that night carrying a rifle and saying it was his job to protect life and property. It was the third night of unrest after a Kenosha police officer shot Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black man, seven times in the back at close range. Rittenhouse has been charged with homicide and remains in Illinois awaiting further legal proceedings. On Aug. 28, 2020, Facebook user Doug McLean shared a photo and connected it to the night of the deadly shooting. It has since drawn more than 800 shares and, in its various iterations, scores of comments. In the picture, a white woman is shown wearing fatigues with a long gun strapped to her chest. 'How did Kyle Rittenhouse cross state lines to Wisconsin? His mom, pictured below drove him. #KyleRittenhouse's mom Wendy, photographed on same night her son killed two people and shot another,' McLean wrote. 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.) A release from Rittenhouse's attorneys on Aug. 28, 2020 disputes this. That release says Rittenhouse had stayed in Kenosha for the night after finishing work as a community lifeguard. But there's a bigger problem with the photo that was shared: It's not even from the same day. Or the same city. Let's dig in. Photo is from a related protest in Madison a few days earlier The woman with the long gun actually appears in a photo in a separate city, on a different day. The image was cropped in the Facebook post in question to focus on her. Facebook user Miki Pope shared the original photo, in which the woman stands with a group of other similarly armed people outside the Wisconsin state Capitol in Madison, where protests also occurred after Blake was shot by police. 'Last night (Aug 24) in Madison, these counter-protesters showed up with long guns,' Pope wrote in the early morning hours of Aug. 26, 2020. Pope's post references the violence Rittenhouse is charged with in Kenosha, but does not in any way tie him to the people in the photo aside from decrying the actions of such militia members that have been showing up at various protests. 'I'm afraid this won't be the last shooting, as armed white supremacists are becoming more and more public about their hatred for Black lives and the Black Lives Matter protests,' Pope wrote. It's unknown whether Rittenhouse's mother had any involvement in bringing her son to Kenosha that day - but the photo does not depict anyone who was there. And, as noted, Rittenhouse's attorney says the teen was in Kenosha already and stayed there into the night hours. | Our ruling A Facebook user claimed that a photo of a white woman with a gun was the mother of Kyle Rittenhouse. But the photo is not from that protest. It's cropped from a larger image of a handful of people with guns standing outside the state capitol in Madison two days earlier. We rate the claim False. | [
"107129-proof-04-0fca92bdb891dc2871096522fc9ac15c.jpg"
]
|
Says a photo shows accused shooter Kyle Rittenhouse's mother, armed with a long gun, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on the night two protesters were killed and one injured. | Contradiction | Nearly a week after 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse arrived in Kenosha from Antioch, Illinois, and - according to criminal charges - shot and killed two people during a night of protests and chaos in the city, a photo is circulating on social media purporting to describe how he got there. Rittenhouse was recorded on video that night carrying a rifle and saying it was his job to protect life and property. It was the third night of unrest after a Kenosha police officer shot Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black man, seven times in the back at close range. Rittenhouse has been charged with homicide and remains in Illinois awaiting further legal proceedings. On Aug. 28, 2020, Facebook user Doug McLean shared a photo and connected it to the night of the deadly shooting. It has since drawn more than 800 shares and, in its various iterations, scores of comments. In the picture, a white woman is shown wearing fatigues with a long gun strapped to her chest. 'How did Kyle Rittenhouse cross state lines to Wisconsin? His mom, pictured below drove him. #KyleRittenhouse's mom Wendy, photographed on same night her son killed two people and shot another,' McLean wrote. 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.) A release from Rittenhouse's attorneys on Aug. 28, 2020 disputes this. That release says Rittenhouse had stayed in Kenosha for the night after finishing work as a community lifeguard. But there's a bigger problem with the photo that was shared: It's not even from the same day. Or the same city. Let's dig in. Photo is from a related protest in Madison a few days earlier The woman with the long gun actually appears in a photo in a separate city, on a different day. The image was cropped in the Facebook post in question to focus on her. Facebook user Miki Pope shared the original photo, in which the woman stands with a group of other similarly armed people outside the Wisconsin state Capitol in Madison, where protests also occurred after Blake was shot by police. 'Last night (Aug 24) in Madison, these counter-protesters showed up with long guns,' Pope wrote in the early morning hours of Aug. 26, 2020. Pope's post references the violence Rittenhouse is charged with in Kenosha, but does not in any way tie him to the people in the photo aside from decrying the actions of such militia members that have been showing up at various protests. 'I'm afraid this won't be the last shooting, as armed white supremacists are becoming more and more public about their hatred for Black lives and the Black Lives Matter protests,' Pope wrote. It's unknown whether Rittenhouse's mother had any involvement in bringing her son to Kenosha that day - but the photo does not depict anyone who was there. And, as noted, Rittenhouse's attorney says the teen was in Kenosha already and stayed there into the night hours. | Our ruling A Facebook user claimed that a photo of a white woman with a gun was the mother of Kyle Rittenhouse. But the photo is not from that protest. It's cropped from a larger image of a handful of people with guns standing outside the state capitol in Madison two days earlier. We rate the claim False. | [
"107129-proof-04-0fca92bdb891dc2871096522fc9ac15c.jpg"
]
|
Desmond Tutu died on Oct. 20, 2021. | Contradiction | A hoax Twitter account created under the name of an Anglican archbishop from Johannesburg falsely claimed that anti-apartheid leader Archbishop Desmond Tutu died at the age of 90. 'ATTENTION. The Anglican Diocese of Johannesburg receives now the sad news of the death of our dearest Archbishop Desmond Tutu,' the fake account, which purported to belong to the Archbishop Stephen Moreo of Johannesburg, tweeted Oct. 20. The rumor spread quickly online, fueled by a flurry of blog sites that shared it and a number of verified Twitter users who reported it as truth. But in reality, Tutu is still alive. The word of his passing was completely fabricated. The claim that he died originated on a fake Twitter account that was made by an Italian man known for creating hoax accounts. The account was set up in August and had posted only a few tweets before Oct. 20. After the rumor took off, the account was deleted. A hoax Twitter account falsely claimed Desmond Tutu died Oct. 20. In a statement on its website, the Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation said the account claiming to be Moreo's was 'fake' and denounced the viral rumor that the account started. 'The Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation outrightly condemns the false, irresponsible, mischievous news that has been circulated today about our Founder Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu,' the foundation wrote. 'Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu is firmly with us, the Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation has announced categorically.' The organization posted the same statement on Facebook and Twitter, and it also responded directly to the since-deleted tweet from the account claiming to belong to Moreo. In a statement of his own, Moreo also decried the social media reports that quoted him as having said that Tutu had died, calling them 'false and malicious.' Some social media users and journalists captured screenshots of another tweet from the fake Twitter account after it started the Tutu rumor. The tweet, posted before the page was deleted, said, 'This account is a hoax created by Italian journalist Tommaso Debenedetti.' Debenedetti has created several fake accounts over the years, sparking similar false rumors about the deaths of other famous people, such as the writer Cormac McCarthy. The Washington Post reported in 2017 that he typically tweets the same line owning up to the hoaxes he creates after they go viral online. He told the Guardian about his methods in 2012. Reached for comment, Debenedetti confirmed in an email to PolitiFact that he created the fake account in Moreo's name and posted the hoax about Tutu's death. 'I did that to show how (it) is easy to spread fake news using social media,' Debenedetti said. Debenedetti said the fake Moreo account was the same account, with the name and handle changed, that he used to impersonate Tanzanian author Abdulrazak Gurnah and falsely claim that Nigerian author Wole Soyinka had died. When we asked Debenedetti to verify that, he sent us a personalized tweet from what he said was a new handle on the same account. A similar internet hoax falsely claimed that Tutu died in 2018. PolitiFact rated that Pants on Fire. | Our ruling A hoax Twitter account claimed that Desmond Tutu died on Oct. 20 at the age of 90. The Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation said the rumor was false, and that Tutu was alive. The Johannesburg archbishop impersonated by the hoax Twitter account said the same. The rumor originated on a fake Twitter account, since-deleted, that was set up by a man known for creating hoax accounts to start false death rumors. We rate this tweet Pants on Fire! | [
"107133-proof-14-64b7224bdbce5e987219b28b9c583989.jpg",
"107133-proof-23-Desmond_Tutu_Hoax.001.jpeg"
]
|
'South Korea sprays rioters with dye so they can be identified & arrested later. | Contradiction | A Facebook post shared over 3,000 times falsely claims that South Korean police spray rioters with dye to mark them for later arrest. 'South Korea sprays rioters with dye so they can be identified & arrested later. Should America do the same?' the post reads. Korea used dye to mark protesters in the past during a pro-unification rally in 1998, a protest against U.S. President George W. Bush in 2008, and anti-police-brutality rallies. However, it stopped the practice in 2015. In June, a spokesperson for the Korean National Police Agency told AFP, 'No such dye has been used in protest control.' Such dyes were used in Hong Kong as recently as last year against demonstrators protesting a law that would have allowed extraditions to mainland China. Similar posts falsely attributing the use of dye to Japanese police feature photographs taken in Hong Kong during police crackdowns. The use of dye against protesters has also been recorded in Uganda, India, Hungary and apartheid-era South Africa. Human-rights groups have criticized the practice, calling it an invasive surveillance tool and comparing it to public shaming. | Our ruling A Facebook post reads, 'South Korea sprays rioters with dye so they can be identified & arrested later.' South Korea used dye to mark protesters in the past, but stopped using dye cannons in 2015. We rate this post Mostly False. | [
"107134-proof-13-24dc7d7ff8dcdd23b16c0fe5122358d5.jpg"
]
|
'South Korea sprays rioters with dye so they can be identified & arrested later. | Contradiction | A Facebook post shared over 3,000 times falsely claims that South Korean police spray rioters with dye to mark them for later arrest. 'South Korea sprays rioters with dye so they can be identified & arrested later. Should America do the same?' the post reads. Korea used dye to mark protesters in the past during a pro-unification rally in 1998, a protest against U.S. President George W. Bush in 2008, and anti-police-brutality rallies. However, it stopped the practice in 2015. In June, a spokesperson for the Korean National Police Agency told AFP, 'No such dye has been used in protest control.' Such dyes were used in Hong Kong as recently as last year against demonstrators protesting a law that would have allowed extraditions to mainland China. Similar posts falsely attributing the use of dye to Japanese police feature photographs taken in Hong Kong during police crackdowns. The use of dye against protesters has also been recorded in Uganda, India, Hungary and apartheid-era South Africa. Human-rights groups have criticized the practice, calling it an invasive surveillance tool and comparing it to public shaming. | Our ruling A Facebook post reads, 'South Korea sprays rioters with dye so they can be identified & arrested later.' South Korea used dye to mark protesters in the past, but stopped using dye cannons in 2015. We rate this post Mostly False. | [
"107134-proof-13-24dc7d7ff8dcdd23b16c0fe5122358d5.jpg"
]
|
'South Korea sprays rioters with dye so they can be identified & arrested later. | Contradiction | A Facebook post shared over 3,000 times falsely claims that South Korean police spray rioters with dye to mark them for later arrest. 'South Korea sprays rioters with dye so they can be identified & arrested later. Should America do the same?' the post reads. Korea used dye to mark protesters in the past during a pro-unification rally in 1998, a protest against U.S. President George W. Bush in 2008, and anti-police-brutality rallies. However, it stopped the practice in 2015. In June, a spokesperson for the Korean National Police Agency told AFP, 'No such dye has been used in protest control.' Such dyes were used in Hong Kong as recently as last year against demonstrators protesting a law that would have allowed extraditions to mainland China. Similar posts falsely attributing the use of dye to Japanese police feature photographs taken in Hong Kong during police crackdowns. The use of dye against protesters has also been recorded in Uganda, India, Hungary and apartheid-era South Africa. Human-rights groups have criticized the practice, calling it an invasive surveillance tool and comparing it to public shaming. | Our ruling A Facebook post reads, 'South Korea sprays rioters with dye so they can be identified & arrested later.' South Korea used dye to mark protesters in the past, but stopped using dye cannons in 2015. We rate this post Mostly False. | [
"107134-proof-13-24dc7d7ff8dcdd23b16c0fe5122358d5.jpg"
]
|
'Not one word' from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris honoring service members for Memorial Day. | Contradiction | Memorial Day weekend is widely celebrated across America as the unofficial start of summer. But the Monday federal holiday is a more solemn occasion: a day to honor and mourn military personnel who died in the service of their country. A post circulating on Facebook suggests that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris completely disregarded the true meaning of the holiday. 'Not one word about vets. Not one word about our fallen heroes. Not one word about the troops. Not one word about the USA. Not one word about Memorial Day and what it means. Joe and Kamala - you are embarrassing,' the May 30 post reads. It features screenshots of two tweets posted by President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on May 29. 'Enjoy the long weekend,' Harris wrote in her post. 'Stay cool this weekend, folks,' Biden posted, along with a photo of him holding an ice cream cone. 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.) Other social media users also seized on the two tweets to argue that Biden and Harris ignored the holiday's meaning, and those claims were circulating throughout the weekend and into the next day. A May 31 Instagram post shows photos of Biden and Harris with the text of their tweets and placed them alongside images of people mourning at military gravesites. A Facebook post shared by Students for Trump on the same day features a photo illustration of Biden, Harris and their tweets alongside a gravestone marked 'fallen service men and women.' The caption says: 'ZERO mention of the brave men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice for us. ZERO mention of the reason why we have this long weekend. ZERO mention of the families mourning for those who died in combat.' The social media posts give the impression that Biden and Harris did nothing to commemorate the holiday. That's not the case. While their May 29 tweets hinted at the fun-related aspects of Memorial Day weekend, and struck some as insensitive, Biden and Harris both made multiple statements honoring the military throughout the weekend and participated in the annual wreath-laying Memorial Day service at Arlington National Cemetery. On May 28, prior to her tweet, Harris delivered the commencement address to graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., where she saluted all branches of the military. 'You are a fierce fighting force,' she told the graduates. 'You are idealists in the truest sense. You are the embodiment of American aspiration.' Two days later, she tweeted: 'Throughout our history our service men and women have risked everything to defend our freedoms and our country. As we prepare to honor them on Memorial Day, we remember their service and their sacrifice.' Throughout our history our service men and women have risked everything to defend our freedoms and our country. As we prepare to honor them on Memorial Day, we remember their service and their sacrifice.- Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) May 30, 2021 That tribute was posted several hours before the Facebook post accusing Harris of saying 'not one word' about Memorial Day appeared, and hours before former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley called Harris 'unfit' for her tweet wishing Americans a good weekend. On Memorial Day, Harris wrote: 'We honor those members of our military who sacrificed their lives in order to defend our freedoms. We owe these heroes - and their loved ones - everything. Not just on Memorial Day. Every day.' We honor those members of our military who sacrificed their lives in order to defend our freedoms. We owe these heroes-and their loved ones-everything. Not just on Memorial Day. Every day. pic.twitter.com/bAbl6cxxw1- Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) May 31, 2021 On May 30, Biden delivered remarks in Delaware for a Memorial Day observance at War Memorial Plaza, near the Delaware Memorial Bridge. 'I know how much the loss hurts,' said Biden, whose son Beau, an Iraq War veteran, died of brain cancer in 2015. 'I know the black hole it leaves in the middle of your chest. It feels like you may get sucked into it and not come out.' On Twitter, Biden wrote: 'We have a sacred obligation as a nation to always honor the memory of those we've lost - and to support their families. That is the vow we make each year on Memorial Day.' We have a sacred obligation as a nation to always honor the memory of those we've lost - and to support their families. That is the vow we make each year on Memorial Day.- President Biden (@POTUS) May 31, 2021 'Each year, Memorial Day offers us a chance to reflect on the enormity of the sacrifices that generation after generation of Americans has made,' he said in another tweet. Each year, Memorial Day offers us a chance to reflect on the enormity of the sacrifices that generation after generation of Americans has made. pic.twitter.com/yARTptfyO2- President Biden (@POTUS) May 31, 2021 Biden also honored America's war dead at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day, laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and giving an address about the sacrifices of fallen service members. He was joined by Harris, first lady Jill Biden and second gentleman Doug Emhoff. 'We're gathered at this sacred place in this solemn hour to engage in the most fundamental of undertakings: the rite of remembrance,' Biden said. 'We remember those who gave their all in the service of America, in the service of freedom, in the service of justice. We remember their sacrifice, their valor, and their grace. We remember their smiles; their loves; their laughter; their essential, vibrant, and transcendent humanity.' | Our ruling Facebook posts claim that Biden and Harris didn't say 'one word' about American troops, veterans, or fallen military members for Memorial Day. This is inaccurate. Biden and Harris each posted a tweet on May 29 about the holiday weekend without mentioning service members. But they made other statements during the weekend honoring military members and their families. Biden spoke at a Memorial Day event in Delaware, and he and Harris participated in a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Not one word' from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris honoring service members for Memorial Day. | Contradiction | Memorial Day weekend is widely celebrated across America as the unofficial start of summer. But the Monday federal holiday is a more solemn occasion: a day to honor and mourn military personnel who died in the service of their country. A post circulating on Facebook suggests that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris completely disregarded the true meaning of the holiday. 'Not one word about vets. Not one word about our fallen heroes. Not one word about the troops. Not one word about the USA. Not one word about Memorial Day and what it means. Joe and Kamala - you are embarrassing,' the May 30 post reads. It features screenshots of two tweets posted by President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on May 29. 'Enjoy the long weekend,' Harris wrote in her post. 'Stay cool this weekend, folks,' Biden posted, along with a photo of him holding an ice cream cone. 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.) Other social media users also seized on the two tweets to argue that Biden and Harris ignored the holiday's meaning, and those claims were circulating throughout the weekend and into the next day. A May 31 Instagram post shows photos of Biden and Harris with the text of their tweets and placed them alongside images of people mourning at military gravesites. A Facebook post shared by Students for Trump on the same day features a photo illustration of Biden, Harris and their tweets alongside a gravestone marked 'fallen service men and women.' The caption says: 'ZERO mention of the brave men and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice for us. ZERO mention of the reason why we have this long weekend. ZERO mention of the families mourning for those who died in combat.' The social media posts give the impression that Biden and Harris did nothing to commemorate the holiday. That's not the case. While their May 29 tweets hinted at the fun-related aspects of Memorial Day weekend, and struck some as insensitive, Biden and Harris both made multiple statements honoring the military throughout the weekend and participated in the annual wreath-laying Memorial Day service at Arlington National Cemetery. On May 28, prior to her tweet, Harris delivered the commencement address to graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., where she saluted all branches of the military. 'You are a fierce fighting force,' she told the graduates. 'You are idealists in the truest sense. You are the embodiment of American aspiration.' Two days later, she tweeted: 'Throughout our history our service men and women have risked everything to defend our freedoms and our country. As we prepare to honor them on Memorial Day, we remember their service and their sacrifice.' Throughout our history our service men and women have risked everything to defend our freedoms and our country. As we prepare to honor them on Memorial Day, we remember their service and their sacrifice.- Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) May 30, 2021 That tribute was posted several hours before the Facebook post accusing Harris of saying 'not one word' about Memorial Day appeared, and hours before former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley called Harris 'unfit' for her tweet wishing Americans a good weekend. On Memorial Day, Harris wrote: 'We honor those members of our military who sacrificed their lives in order to defend our freedoms. We owe these heroes - and their loved ones - everything. Not just on Memorial Day. Every day.' We honor those members of our military who sacrificed their lives in order to defend our freedoms. We owe these heroes-and their loved ones-everything. Not just on Memorial Day. Every day. pic.twitter.com/bAbl6cxxw1- Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) May 31, 2021 On May 30, Biden delivered remarks in Delaware for a Memorial Day observance at War Memorial Plaza, near the Delaware Memorial Bridge. 'I know how much the loss hurts,' said Biden, whose son Beau, an Iraq War veteran, died of brain cancer in 2015. 'I know the black hole it leaves in the middle of your chest. It feels like you may get sucked into it and not come out.' On Twitter, Biden wrote: 'We have a sacred obligation as a nation to always honor the memory of those we've lost - and to support their families. That is the vow we make each year on Memorial Day.' We have a sacred obligation as a nation to always honor the memory of those we've lost - and to support their families. That is the vow we make each year on Memorial Day.- President Biden (@POTUS) May 31, 2021 'Each year, Memorial Day offers us a chance to reflect on the enormity of the sacrifices that generation after generation of Americans has made,' he said in another tweet. Each year, Memorial Day offers us a chance to reflect on the enormity of the sacrifices that generation after generation of Americans has made. pic.twitter.com/yARTptfyO2- President Biden (@POTUS) May 31, 2021 Biden also honored America's war dead at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day, laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and giving an address about the sacrifices of fallen service members. He was joined by Harris, first lady Jill Biden and second gentleman Doug Emhoff. 'We're gathered at this sacred place in this solemn hour to engage in the most fundamental of undertakings: the rite of remembrance,' Biden said. 'We remember those who gave their all in the service of America, in the service of freedom, in the service of justice. We remember their sacrifice, their valor, and their grace. We remember their smiles; their loves; their laughter; their essential, vibrant, and transcendent humanity.' | Our ruling Facebook posts claim that Biden and Harris didn't say 'one word' about American troops, veterans, or fallen military members for Memorial Day. This is inaccurate. Biden and Harris each posted a tweet on May 29 about the holiday weekend without mentioning service members. But they made other statements during the weekend honoring military members and their families. Biden spoke at a Memorial Day event in Delaware, and he and Harris participated in a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. We rate this claim False. | []
|
There are 500,000 'missing kids a year. | Contradiction | As the public took an outsize interest in the missing person case of Gabby Petito, a viral image suggested that not enough attention is being paid to the many children who go missing each year. The image depicts a streetlight shining on the words 'Gabby Petito case,' while the words '.5 million missing kids a year' are in darkness. 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 image overstates the number of reports of missing children in the United States each year by about 20%. And the number of active missing-child cases is far lower. Petito found dead days after being reported missing Petito, a 22-year-old white woman, was on a cross-country camping trip with her fiancé, Brian Laundrie. On Sept. 1, Laundrie returned to his parents' home without Petito. Petito was reported missing on Sept. 11. On Sept. 17, authorities began a search for Laundrie after his parents told them they hadn't seen him in three days. On Sept. 21, authorities announced that human remains found two days earlier in the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming were those of Petito, and that the cause of death was homicide. The FBI obtained an arrest warrant for Laundrie the next day, on a charge of unauthorized use of a debit card after Petito's death, and are still searching for him. The media attention to the case triggered criticisms that missing-person cases involving non-white women in the West were not being covered as widely. Missing children usually runaways The viral image about missing children follows in a similar vein, but it gets the numbers wrong. In 2020, 543,018 missing persons cases were entered into the FBI's National Crime Information Center system. Of those, 365,348 were age 17 or under, down from 421,394 in 2019. The counts include children who were reported missing to law enforcement more than one time. The number of active cases is much smaller. The nonprofit National Center for Missing & Exploited Children said it assisted law enforcement, families and child welfare agencies with 29,782 cases of missing children in 2020. Of those, 27,072 were runaways, the vast majority of whom are located quickly, said the center's Rebecca Steinbach. The next-largest category was family abduction, 1,396 cases. | Our ruling A viral image that invoked the Gabby Petito case claimed there are 500,000 'missing kids a year.' In 2020, there were 365,348 reports of missing children made to law enforcement agencies that were recorded by the FBI's National Crime Information Center. That's down from 421,394 in 2019. The number of active missing-child cases is much smaller. We rate the post Mostly False. | [
"107148-proof-00-22e9f8fe7d7029ee7326a29825d7f882.jpg"
]
|
There are 500,000 'missing kids a year. | Contradiction | As the public took an outsize interest in the missing person case of Gabby Petito, a viral image suggested that not enough attention is being paid to the many children who go missing each year. The image depicts a streetlight shining on the words 'Gabby Petito case,' while the words '.5 million missing kids a year' are in darkness. 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 image overstates the number of reports of missing children in the United States each year by about 20%. And the number of active missing-child cases is far lower. Petito found dead days after being reported missing Petito, a 22-year-old white woman, was on a cross-country camping trip with her fiancé, Brian Laundrie. On Sept. 1, Laundrie returned to his parents' home without Petito. Petito was reported missing on Sept. 11. On Sept. 17, authorities began a search for Laundrie after his parents told them they hadn't seen him in three days. On Sept. 21, authorities announced that human remains found two days earlier in the Bridger-Teton National Forest in Wyoming were those of Petito, and that the cause of death was homicide. The FBI obtained an arrest warrant for Laundrie the next day, on a charge of unauthorized use of a debit card after Petito's death, and are still searching for him. The media attention to the case triggered criticisms that missing-person cases involving non-white women in the West were not being covered as widely. Missing children usually runaways The viral image about missing children follows in a similar vein, but it gets the numbers wrong. In 2020, 543,018 missing persons cases were entered into the FBI's National Crime Information Center system. Of those, 365,348 were age 17 or under, down from 421,394 in 2019. The counts include children who were reported missing to law enforcement more than one time. The number of active cases is much smaller. The nonprofit National Center for Missing & Exploited Children said it assisted law enforcement, families and child welfare agencies with 29,782 cases of missing children in 2020. Of those, 27,072 were runaways, the vast majority of whom are located quickly, said the center's Rebecca Steinbach. The next-largest category was family abduction, 1,396 cases. | Our ruling A viral image that invoked the Gabby Petito case claimed there are 500,000 'missing kids a year.' In 2020, there were 365,348 reports of missing children made to law enforcement agencies that were recorded by the FBI's National Crime Information Center. That's down from 421,394 in 2019. The number of active missing-child cases is much smaller. We rate the post Mostly False. | [
"107148-proof-00-22e9f8fe7d7029ee7326a29825d7f882.jpg"
]
|
'The United States was energy independent in 2019 for the first time since 1957. In just 10 days we are sent back 50 years. | Contradiction | During his first eight days in office, President Joe Biden issued executive orders that would curtail the production and transportation of oil, sparking a backlash from supporters of former President Donald Trump. Musician Ted Nugent was among thousands of people on Facebook who shared an image that alluded to Trump's tenure and indirectly attacked Biden. It stated: 'The United States was energy independent in 2019 for the first time since 1957. In just 10 days we are sent back 50 years.' Nugent shared the post with an insult directed at Biden. The image 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 looked at both parts of the claim: whether the U.S. was energy independent in 2019, and whether Biden's early executive orders changed that status. The claim relies on one common measure of energy independence: whether a country produces more energy than it consumes. By that measure, the U.S. achieved independence in 2019 for the full year, and stayed that way through last year. If consumption were ultimately to top production for the year again, that would take the U.S. back to where it was in 2018, not 1957, and not back 50 years. But the government hasn't published full-year data yet for 2020, or any results for 2021. So there's no evidence yet that the U.S. situation changed since Biden took office. As for two executive orders issued by Biden on energy, they don't affect current U.S. production levels, and it's unclear whether they'll have a long-term effect on U.S. energy independence. We checked a similar claim that Biden's actions 'ended energy independence for the United States' and found it speculative at best. Production topped consumption in 2019 In 2019, U.S. energy production exceeded U.S. energy consumption on an annual basis for the first time since 1957, according to the Energy Information Administration. That includes petroleum and natural gas, which together accounted for 66% of total production in 2019, as well as coal, renewable energy and nuclear electric power. Production of crude oil and natural gas reached record highs in 2019, the federal agency said. U.S. energy producers scaled back in 2020 in response to the pandemic. But consumption fell even faster amid the recession. So for the first 10 months of 2020, the latest period for which composite data are available, energy production still exceeded consumption. The EIA says trends for this year will depend on the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and the speed of the U.S. economic recovery. In January, it forecast further declines in U.S. oil and natural gas in coming months as producers seek to prevent oversupplies that could hurt prices. U.S. remains reliant on imports Some experts prefer a stricter definition of energy independence: total disengagement from the global energy market, or zero imports. 'By that standard, energy independence for the U.S. would be practically unattainable for the foreseeable future,' said Stacey Morris, director of research at Alerian, which tracks energy and other investment markets. In 2019, as production surged, the U.S. exported more energy than it imported, according to the Energy Information Administration, and remained a net energy exporter through the first 10 months of 2020. Previously, the U.S. had been a net energy importer since 1952. But the U.S. is still one of the world's largest energy importers, according to the EIA. For example, it imported about 9.1 million barrels of petroleum per day in 2019 from about 90 countries. That's the lowest level of total petroleum imports since 1996, but the U.S. still uses imports to help supply domestic and international markets, according to the EIA. Regions such as the Pacific Northwest rely on imports from Canada year-round, and the U.S. still relies on imports from Canada in the winter to meet heating demand, said S&P Global Platts Analytics, an energy analytics firm. Biden's actions Biden's Jan. 20 executive order blocked construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and put a moratorium on oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The suspension of the Keystone XL, which would have helped carry Canadian oil to U.S. refineries on the Gulf coast, means the U.S. will seek more crude oil from areas such as the Middle East rather than Canada. But it doesn't affect U.S. production, Morris said. A decades-long push to drill for oil in the Alaskan refuge ended in January with a lease sale in which half of the offered leases drew no bids - evidence that oil companies had little interest in drilling there. No current production was affected. Biden's Jan. 27 order paused new federal oil drilling leases on public lands or in offshore waters until a review on federal oil and gas leasing policy is done. That order has no immediate effect on ongoing production either, and many producers have stockpiled permits in anticipation of regulations around activity on federal lands, Morris said. 'Over a longer time horizon, a ban of new leases on federal lands or limiting permits could have negative implications for U.S. production and ultimately require oil imports to replace lost production, making the U.S. less energy independent,' she said. 'This has not happened at this point,' she said. For it to happen 'would probably require more from a policy standpoint than the current pause on leases.' | Our ruling An image widely shared on Facebook claimed: 'The United States was energy independent in 2019 for the first time since 1957. In just 10 days we are sent back 50 years.' In 2019, U.S. energy production exceeded consumption on an annual basis for the first time since 1957. That's one definition of energy independence. Through the first 10 months of 2020, the latest period for which data are available, energy production was down from a year earlier, but still exceeded consumption. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to import millions of barrels of petroleum per day. The claim that Biden's orders reversed the trend or the gains in U.S. energy independence is not supported. The government hasn't published full-year data for 2020, or for the period since Biden took office. The orders didn't stop any current production, and any new production from the avenues he closed off would have taken years to materialize. The image contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"107162-proof-09-4f9471003011d3857099e635bf104709.jpeg"
]
|
'The United States was energy independent in 2019 for the first time since 1957. In just 10 days we are sent back 50 years. | Contradiction | During his first eight days in office, President Joe Biden issued executive orders that would curtail the production and transportation of oil, sparking a backlash from supporters of former President Donald Trump. Musician Ted Nugent was among thousands of people on Facebook who shared an image that alluded to Trump's tenure and indirectly attacked Biden. It stated: 'The United States was energy independent in 2019 for the first time since 1957. In just 10 days we are sent back 50 years.' Nugent shared the post with an insult directed at Biden. The image 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 looked at both parts of the claim: whether the U.S. was energy independent in 2019, and whether Biden's early executive orders changed that status. The claim relies on one common measure of energy independence: whether a country produces more energy than it consumes. By that measure, the U.S. achieved independence in 2019 for the full year, and stayed that way through last year. If consumption were ultimately to top production for the year again, that would take the U.S. back to where it was in 2018, not 1957, and not back 50 years. But the government hasn't published full-year data yet for 2020, or any results for 2021. So there's no evidence yet that the U.S. situation changed since Biden took office. As for two executive orders issued by Biden on energy, they don't affect current U.S. production levels, and it's unclear whether they'll have a long-term effect on U.S. energy independence. We checked a similar claim that Biden's actions 'ended energy independence for the United States' and found it speculative at best. Production topped consumption in 2019 In 2019, U.S. energy production exceeded U.S. energy consumption on an annual basis for the first time since 1957, according to the Energy Information Administration. That includes petroleum and natural gas, which together accounted for 66% of total production in 2019, as well as coal, renewable energy and nuclear electric power. Production of crude oil and natural gas reached record highs in 2019, the federal agency said. U.S. energy producers scaled back in 2020 in response to the pandemic. But consumption fell even faster amid the recession. So for the first 10 months of 2020, the latest period for which composite data are available, energy production still exceeded consumption. The EIA says trends for this year will depend on the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and the speed of the U.S. economic recovery. In January, it forecast further declines in U.S. oil and natural gas in coming months as producers seek to prevent oversupplies that could hurt prices. U.S. remains reliant on imports Some experts prefer a stricter definition of energy independence: total disengagement from the global energy market, or zero imports. 'By that standard, energy independence for the U.S. would be practically unattainable for the foreseeable future,' said Stacey Morris, director of research at Alerian, which tracks energy and other investment markets. In 2019, as production surged, the U.S. exported more energy than it imported, according to the Energy Information Administration, and remained a net energy exporter through the first 10 months of 2020. Previously, the U.S. had been a net energy importer since 1952. But the U.S. is still one of the world's largest energy importers, according to the EIA. For example, it imported about 9.1 million barrels of petroleum per day in 2019 from about 90 countries. That's the lowest level of total petroleum imports since 1996, but the U.S. still uses imports to help supply domestic and international markets, according to the EIA. Regions such as the Pacific Northwest rely on imports from Canada year-round, and the U.S. still relies on imports from Canada in the winter to meet heating demand, said S&P Global Platts Analytics, an energy analytics firm. Biden's actions Biden's Jan. 20 executive order blocked construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and put a moratorium on oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The suspension of the Keystone XL, which would have helped carry Canadian oil to U.S. refineries on the Gulf coast, means the U.S. will seek more crude oil from areas such as the Middle East rather than Canada. But it doesn't affect U.S. production, Morris said. A decades-long push to drill for oil in the Alaskan refuge ended in January with a lease sale in which half of the offered leases drew no bids - evidence that oil companies had little interest in drilling there. No current production was affected. Biden's Jan. 27 order paused new federal oil drilling leases on public lands or in offshore waters until a review on federal oil and gas leasing policy is done. That order has no immediate effect on ongoing production either, and many producers have stockpiled permits in anticipation of regulations around activity on federal lands, Morris said. 'Over a longer time horizon, a ban of new leases on federal lands or limiting permits could have negative implications for U.S. production and ultimately require oil imports to replace lost production, making the U.S. less energy independent,' she said. 'This has not happened at this point,' she said. For it to happen 'would probably require more from a policy standpoint than the current pause on leases.' | Our ruling An image widely shared on Facebook claimed: 'The United States was energy independent in 2019 for the first time since 1957. In just 10 days we are sent back 50 years.' In 2019, U.S. energy production exceeded consumption on an annual basis for the first time since 1957. That's one definition of energy independence. Through the first 10 months of 2020, the latest period for which data are available, energy production was down from a year earlier, but still exceeded consumption. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to import millions of barrels of petroleum per day. The claim that Biden's orders reversed the trend or the gains in U.S. energy independence is not supported. The government hasn't published full-year data for 2020, or for the period since Biden took office. The orders didn't stop any current production, and any new production from the avenues he closed off would have taken years to materialize. The image contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"107162-proof-09-4f9471003011d3857099e635bf104709.jpeg"
]
|
'The United States was energy independent in 2019 for the first time since 1957. In just 10 days we are sent back 50 years. | Contradiction | During his first eight days in office, President Joe Biden issued executive orders that would curtail the production and transportation of oil, sparking a backlash from supporters of former President Donald Trump. Musician Ted Nugent was among thousands of people on Facebook who shared an image that alluded to Trump's tenure and indirectly attacked Biden. It stated: 'The United States was energy independent in 2019 for the first time since 1957. In just 10 days we are sent back 50 years.' Nugent shared the post with an insult directed at Biden. The image 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 looked at both parts of the claim: whether the U.S. was energy independent in 2019, and whether Biden's early executive orders changed that status. The claim relies on one common measure of energy independence: whether a country produces more energy than it consumes. By that measure, the U.S. achieved independence in 2019 for the full year, and stayed that way through last year. If consumption were ultimately to top production for the year again, that would take the U.S. back to where it was in 2018, not 1957, and not back 50 years. But the government hasn't published full-year data yet for 2020, or any results for 2021. So there's no evidence yet that the U.S. situation changed since Biden took office. As for two executive orders issued by Biden on energy, they don't affect current U.S. production levels, and it's unclear whether they'll have a long-term effect on U.S. energy independence. We checked a similar claim that Biden's actions 'ended energy independence for the United States' and found it speculative at best. Production topped consumption in 2019 In 2019, U.S. energy production exceeded U.S. energy consumption on an annual basis for the first time since 1957, according to the Energy Information Administration. That includes petroleum and natural gas, which together accounted for 66% of total production in 2019, as well as coal, renewable energy and nuclear electric power. Production of crude oil and natural gas reached record highs in 2019, the federal agency said. U.S. energy producers scaled back in 2020 in response to the pandemic. But consumption fell even faster amid the recession. So for the first 10 months of 2020, the latest period for which composite data are available, energy production still exceeded consumption. The EIA says trends for this year will depend on the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and the speed of the U.S. economic recovery. In January, it forecast further declines in U.S. oil and natural gas in coming months as producers seek to prevent oversupplies that could hurt prices. U.S. remains reliant on imports Some experts prefer a stricter definition of energy independence: total disengagement from the global energy market, or zero imports. 'By that standard, energy independence for the U.S. would be practically unattainable for the foreseeable future,' said Stacey Morris, director of research at Alerian, which tracks energy and other investment markets. In 2019, as production surged, the U.S. exported more energy than it imported, according to the Energy Information Administration, and remained a net energy exporter through the first 10 months of 2020. Previously, the U.S. had been a net energy importer since 1952. But the U.S. is still one of the world's largest energy importers, according to the EIA. For example, it imported about 9.1 million barrels of petroleum per day in 2019 from about 90 countries. That's the lowest level of total petroleum imports since 1996, but the U.S. still uses imports to help supply domestic and international markets, according to the EIA. Regions such as the Pacific Northwest rely on imports from Canada year-round, and the U.S. still relies on imports from Canada in the winter to meet heating demand, said S&P Global Platts Analytics, an energy analytics firm. Biden's actions Biden's Jan. 20 executive order blocked construction of the Keystone XL pipeline and put a moratorium on oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The suspension of the Keystone XL, which would have helped carry Canadian oil to U.S. refineries on the Gulf coast, means the U.S. will seek more crude oil from areas such as the Middle East rather than Canada. But it doesn't affect U.S. production, Morris said. A decades-long push to drill for oil in the Alaskan refuge ended in January with a lease sale in which half of the offered leases drew no bids - evidence that oil companies had little interest in drilling there. No current production was affected. Biden's Jan. 27 order paused new federal oil drilling leases on public lands or in offshore waters until a review on federal oil and gas leasing policy is done. That order has no immediate effect on ongoing production either, and many producers have stockpiled permits in anticipation of regulations around activity on federal lands, Morris said. 'Over a longer time horizon, a ban of new leases on federal lands or limiting permits could have negative implications for U.S. production and ultimately require oil imports to replace lost production, making the U.S. less energy independent,' she said. 'This has not happened at this point,' she said. For it to happen 'would probably require more from a policy standpoint than the current pause on leases.' | Our ruling An image widely shared on Facebook claimed: 'The United States was energy independent in 2019 for the first time since 1957. In just 10 days we are sent back 50 years.' In 2019, U.S. energy production exceeded consumption on an annual basis for the first time since 1957. That's one definition of energy independence. Through the first 10 months of 2020, the latest period for which data are available, energy production was down from a year earlier, but still exceeded consumption. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to import millions of barrels of petroleum per day. The claim that Biden's orders reversed the trend or the gains in U.S. energy independence is not supported. The government hasn't published full-year data for 2020, or for the period since Biden took office. The orders didn't stop any current production, and any new production from the avenues he closed off would have taken years to materialize. The image contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"107162-proof-09-4f9471003011d3857099e635bf104709.jpeg"
]
|
Congress created 'a generous mortgage relief program' for veterans. | Contradiction | With Memorial Day just around the corner, social media posts targeting veterans and their loved ones are cropping up online. 'Congress gives veteran homeowners a generous mortgage relief program,' claims one May 7 Facebook post. 'You'll be happy when you see how much you could save.' Next, the post - which originated from a Facebook account called 'Veterans Loans Online' - goes on to encourage people to 'Select military branch to start calculating new house payment,' before listing different branches and providing a separate link for each one. It also includes a video with a caption that says 'Biden approves billions in mortgage financial assistance for struggling U.S. homeowners.' 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.) There is no evidence that Congress established 'a generous mortgage relief program' for veterans that would qualify those who served to significantly reduce their house payments. The Facebook page responsible for the post is managed by LowerMyBills, according to Facebook's page transparency information. It's not the first time the company's online promotion strategy has been called into question. A quick look at old posts on the 'Veterans Loans Online' page shows that Facebook users have called out their practices in the past. The people behind the Facebook page did not respond to PolitiFact's request for comment, and LowerMyBills' website provides no contact information - for media or otherwise. In January 2020, Lead Stories debunked an ad paid for by LowerMyBills (that was also shared on Facebook by the 'Veterans Loans Online' page). Similar to the Facebook post we are examining, the ad claimed veterans could utilize 'an ample mortgage relief program' established by Congress to 'pay off a house rapidly.' Lead Stories ultimately concluded it was 'misleading' and a 'fake ad.' When Lead Stories contacted LowerMyBills for comment, the company pointed to the 'Interest Rate Reduction Refinance Loan Program,' which is available through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The program was established more than 40 years ago as part of the Veterans' Disability Compensation and Housing Benefits Amendments of 1980. According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Affordable Mortgage Lending Guide, the program 'generally lowers the interest rate by refinancing an existing VA home loan. By obtaining a lower interest rate, the monthly mortgage payment should decrease.' On its website, LowerMyBills says the benefits of this refinance program include 'very little paperwork' and 'almost no' out-of-pocket costs. The website doesn't mention significant or 'generous' savings for homeowners. Organizations such as the VA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, AARP and MilitaryBenefits.info warn veterans against offers to refinance VA loans, particularly when terms seem too good to be true. A few red flags to watch out for include: offers to skip a mortgage payment or two (VA-approved loan lenders are prohibited from offering this), extremely low interest rate offers or promises that there will be no wait time and no out-of-pocket costs. In responses to complaints on the Better Business Bureau's page for LowerMyBills, the company repeatedly explains that it is an 'online financial services marketing platform' that 'operates an online lead generation service whereby consumers interested in comparing mortgage or financial services products, rates and services can fill out a form online to be matched with up to five different mortgage brokers and/or lenders.' If you follow the links provided in the Facebook posts, LowerMyBills includes disclaimers indicating that they do not, in fact, provide calculations for a 'new house payment' as the post claims. 'LowerMyBills is not acting as a lender or broker,' the disclaimer at the bottom of veteranloansonline.com reads. 'The information provided by you to LowerMyBills is not an application for a mortgage loan, nor is it used to pre-qualify you with any lender.' In reality, LowerMyBills provides information to loan companies, which can then contact veterans. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that 'Congress gives veteran homeowners a generous mortgage relief program,' which could help veterans lower their house payments. There is no evidence that Congress established a program that would substantially reduce veterans' mortgage payments. In the past, the company making the claim has said it was referring to a program that allows veterans to lower their interest rate by refinancing their existing VA home loan. While legitimate options to refinance VA home loans exist, veterans are advised to be cautious and remain on the lookout for predatory lenders. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
Congress created 'a generous mortgage relief program' for veterans. | Contradiction | With Memorial Day just around the corner, social media posts targeting veterans and their loved ones are cropping up online. 'Congress gives veteran homeowners a generous mortgage relief program,' claims one May 7 Facebook post. 'You'll be happy when you see how much you could save.' Next, the post - which originated from a Facebook account called 'Veterans Loans Online' - goes on to encourage people to 'Select military branch to start calculating new house payment,' before listing different branches and providing a separate link for each one. It also includes a video with a caption that says 'Biden approves billions in mortgage financial assistance for struggling U.S. homeowners.' 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.) There is no evidence that Congress established 'a generous mortgage relief program' for veterans that would qualify those who served to significantly reduce their house payments. The Facebook page responsible for the post is managed by LowerMyBills, according to Facebook's page transparency information. It's not the first time the company's online promotion strategy has been called into question. A quick look at old posts on the 'Veterans Loans Online' page shows that Facebook users have called out their practices in the past. The people behind the Facebook page did not respond to PolitiFact's request for comment, and LowerMyBills' website provides no contact information - for media or otherwise. In January 2020, Lead Stories debunked an ad paid for by LowerMyBills (that was also shared on Facebook by the 'Veterans Loans Online' page). Similar to the Facebook post we are examining, the ad claimed veterans could utilize 'an ample mortgage relief program' established by Congress to 'pay off a house rapidly.' Lead Stories ultimately concluded it was 'misleading' and a 'fake ad.' When Lead Stories contacted LowerMyBills for comment, the company pointed to the 'Interest Rate Reduction Refinance Loan Program,' which is available through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The program was established more than 40 years ago as part of the Veterans' Disability Compensation and Housing Benefits Amendments of 1980. According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Affordable Mortgage Lending Guide, the program 'generally lowers the interest rate by refinancing an existing VA home loan. By obtaining a lower interest rate, the monthly mortgage payment should decrease.' On its website, LowerMyBills says the benefits of this refinance program include 'very little paperwork' and 'almost no' out-of-pocket costs. The website doesn't mention significant or 'generous' savings for homeowners. Organizations such as the VA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, AARP and MilitaryBenefits.info warn veterans against offers to refinance VA loans, particularly when terms seem too good to be true. A few red flags to watch out for include: offers to skip a mortgage payment or two (VA-approved loan lenders are prohibited from offering this), extremely low interest rate offers or promises that there will be no wait time and no out-of-pocket costs. In responses to complaints on the Better Business Bureau's page for LowerMyBills, the company repeatedly explains that it is an 'online financial services marketing platform' that 'operates an online lead generation service whereby consumers interested in comparing mortgage or financial services products, rates and services can fill out a form online to be matched with up to five different mortgage brokers and/or lenders.' If you follow the links provided in the Facebook posts, LowerMyBills includes disclaimers indicating that they do not, in fact, provide calculations for a 'new house payment' as the post claims. 'LowerMyBills is not acting as a lender or broker,' the disclaimer at the bottom of veteranloansonline.com reads. 'The information provided by you to LowerMyBills is not an application for a mortgage loan, nor is it used to pre-qualify you with any lender.' In reality, LowerMyBills provides information to loan companies, which can then contact veterans. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that 'Congress gives veteran homeowners a generous mortgage relief program,' which could help veterans lower their house payments. There is no evidence that Congress established a program that would substantially reduce veterans' mortgage payments. In the past, the company making the claim has said it was referring to a program that allows veterans to lower their interest rate by refinancing their existing VA home loan. While legitimate options to refinance VA home loans exist, veterans are advised to be cautious and remain on the lookout for predatory lenders. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
Congress created 'a generous mortgage relief program' for veterans. | Contradiction | With Memorial Day just around the corner, social media posts targeting veterans and their loved ones are cropping up online. 'Congress gives veteran homeowners a generous mortgage relief program,' claims one May 7 Facebook post. 'You'll be happy when you see how much you could save.' Next, the post - which originated from a Facebook account called 'Veterans Loans Online' - goes on to encourage people to 'Select military branch to start calculating new house payment,' before listing different branches and providing a separate link for each one. It also includes a video with a caption that says 'Biden approves billions in mortgage financial assistance for struggling U.S. homeowners.' 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.) There is no evidence that Congress established 'a generous mortgage relief program' for veterans that would qualify those who served to significantly reduce their house payments. The Facebook page responsible for the post is managed by LowerMyBills, according to Facebook's page transparency information. It's not the first time the company's online promotion strategy has been called into question. A quick look at old posts on the 'Veterans Loans Online' page shows that Facebook users have called out their practices in the past. The people behind the Facebook page did not respond to PolitiFact's request for comment, and LowerMyBills' website provides no contact information - for media or otherwise. In January 2020, Lead Stories debunked an ad paid for by LowerMyBills (that was also shared on Facebook by the 'Veterans Loans Online' page). Similar to the Facebook post we are examining, the ad claimed veterans could utilize 'an ample mortgage relief program' established by Congress to 'pay off a house rapidly.' Lead Stories ultimately concluded it was 'misleading' and a 'fake ad.' When Lead Stories contacted LowerMyBills for comment, the company pointed to the 'Interest Rate Reduction Refinance Loan Program,' which is available through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The program was established more than 40 years ago as part of the Veterans' Disability Compensation and Housing Benefits Amendments of 1980. According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Affordable Mortgage Lending Guide, the program 'generally lowers the interest rate by refinancing an existing VA home loan. By obtaining a lower interest rate, the monthly mortgage payment should decrease.' On its website, LowerMyBills says the benefits of this refinance program include 'very little paperwork' and 'almost no' out-of-pocket costs. The website doesn't mention significant or 'generous' savings for homeowners. Organizations such as the VA, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, AARP and MilitaryBenefits.info warn veterans against offers to refinance VA loans, particularly when terms seem too good to be true. A few red flags to watch out for include: offers to skip a mortgage payment or two (VA-approved loan lenders are prohibited from offering this), extremely low interest rate offers or promises that there will be no wait time and no out-of-pocket costs. In responses to complaints on the Better Business Bureau's page for LowerMyBills, the company repeatedly explains that it is an 'online financial services marketing platform' that 'operates an online lead generation service whereby consumers interested in comparing mortgage or financial services products, rates and services can fill out a form online to be matched with up to five different mortgage brokers and/or lenders.' If you follow the links provided in the Facebook posts, LowerMyBills includes disclaimers indicating that they do not, in fact, provide calculations for a 'new house payment' as the post claims. 'LowerMyBills is not acting as a lender or broker,' the disclaimer at the bottom of veteranloansonline.com reads. 'The information provided by you to LowerMyBills is not an application for a mortgage loan, nor is it used to pre-qualify you with any lender.' In reality, LowerMyBills provides information to loan companies, which can then contact veterans. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims that 'Congress gives veteran homeowners a generous mortgage relief program,' which could help veterans lower their house payments. There is no evidence that Congress established a program that would substantially reduce veterans' mortgage payments. In the past, the company making the claim has said it was referring to a program that allows veterans to lower their interest rate by refinancing their existing VA home loan. While legitimate options to refinance VA home loans exist, veterans are advised to be cautious and remain on the lookout for predatory lenders. We rate this claim Mostly False. | []
|
Ted Budd's family used AgriBioTech money to help 'give donations to these Washington special interest groups that are running negative ads against me in the Senate race. | Contradiction | To hear Pat McCrory tell it, the family of one of his opponents has been 'ripping off farmers.' Not only that, McCrory suggests that some of the money owed to farmers has instead gone to special interest groups that are attacking his campaign for U.S. Senate. Yes, there is a lot to unpack here. Let's start with the basics. McCrory, former governor of North Carolina, is one of several Republicans now running for the U.S. Senate. The opponent in McCrory's crosshairs is U.S. Rep. Ted Budd, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump and is seen as one of the stronger candidates in the race. During Pete Kaliner's radio show on Sept. 17, McCrory said that the Budd family is under scrutiny for its involvement in a seed company called AgriBioTech, which ultimately declared bankruptcy. The Washington Post wrote a detailed story about the settlement, and other media outlets followed-up with their own stories about the controversy. McCrory accurately pointed out that the company repaid a $10 million loan from the Budd family shortly before going bankrupt. He accused them of 'ripping off farmers.' Then he said this: 'How did the Budd family somehow recover and pay off all their loans before the bankruptcy, and then lose a civil court case about this?' he said. While judges did rule against the Budd family, the legal battles technically ended because the parties involved settled out of court. But here's the part of McCrory's statement that we wanted to fact-check: 'And, you know, some of that same money now that was made is being used on TV ads against me, because the Budd family also helps give donations to these Washington special interest groups that are running negative ads against me in the Senate race.' Here, McCrory suggests that the Budd family: Made money through the AgriBioTech loan repayment Donated that money to 'special interest groups' And that the special interest groups are using the Budd family money to run negative ads against him. Is that all true? McCrory is drawing some long, squiggly lines to try to connect those dots. Budd and AgriBioTech McCrory referred to money 'that was made' from the AgriBioTech settlement. But it's not clear the family 'made' much money at all. Budd's father, Richard, agreed to take over as chief executive in March 1999 as AgriBioTech struggled. Shortly thereafter, Richard Budd secured a $10 million loan that he then transferred to the company. Ted Budd signed as one of 11 'co-makers' of the loan, allowing his stock to be used as collateral, campaign spokesman Jonathan Felts said. The company repaid the loan to the family, then declared bankruptcy seven months later. The federal government estimated the bankruptcy left $50 million in payments undelivered to farmers and others. These details all come from the Washington Post report. Other creditors sued, saying the company should've paid them before repaying the Budd loan. They also alleged that Richard Budd improperly transferred assets to his family, including Ted. (The family denies these claims.) A federal bankruptcy judge in 2005 ruled that Richard Budd would have to repay $15 million, a figure that accounted for the original loan plus interest and other costs. The two sides settled the case out of court later that year, with 'Budd entities' agreeing to pay about $6 million. So let's recap. The Budd family loaned AgriBioTech $10 million. The company then repaid the loan with $25,234 interest, the Post reported. Creditors sued. Then Budd 'entities' agreed to repay about $6 million, leaving them with about $4 million. In the end, there was no admission of wrongdoing. The money AgriBioTech distributed to the Budd family was repaid to the bank that issued the initial loan, Budd spokesman Felts told PolitiFact. Meanwhile, 'Richard Budd and his family never sold their ABT stock so they lost all of that investment when the company went bankrupt,' Felts said. Should the money that AgriBioTech paid to the Budds have gone to farmers instead? People are free to debate. Did the Budd family 'make' money off their loan to AgriBioTech? That seems like a stretch. Attacking McCrory Now, who are the 'special interests' using Budd money to attack McCrory? Club for Growth Action, a conservative PAC, has endorsed Budd and is running negative ads against McCrory. When we reached out to McCrory about his comments, campaign spokesman Jordan Shaw pointed out that Budd's family has donated both to Budd's campaign and Club for Growth. However, the donations Shaw cited were given years before Budd announced his run for Senate. Richard Budd and Joe Budd, Ted's brother, have donated a combined $70,000 to Club for Growth Action. Each donated $25,000 in 2016 and $10,000 in 2018, according to Federal Election Commission records. While McCrory singled-out 'Washington special interest groups' in his interview with Kaliner, his spokesman added that Budd is also receiving donations from family members and people connected to AgriBioTech. Shaw noted that Budd loaned himself $250,000, FEC records show. He also claimed that Budd has received donations for former AgriBioTech executives. PolitiFact NC asked Shaw for evidence that the money AgriBioTech paid the Budd family was the money donated to Club For Growth. After all, the family members could have used funds of their own that they earned or acquired through other means. Shaw said McCrory's broader point is that the Budd family accumulated 'wealth' through AgriBioTech, and is now using some of it to fund attack ads. Ultimately, though, there's no way for Shaw to know whether the money Budd's father and brother donated years ago was used on ads against McCrory. Club for Growth Action doesn't exactly need to look beneath its couch cushions for old donations. The group announced in June that it had raised $5.1 million to support Budd's Senate campaign, and that it plans to raise more. | Our ruling McCrory said the Budd family 'made' money by having its loan repaid by AgriBioTech. There are several reasons available evidence doesn't support that. The Budd family loaned the company $10 million, got about $10 million back, then had to repay $6 million of it. So, in a vacuum, the family is down about $6 million. Now, it would be hypothetically possible for the Budd family (or anyone who's fiscally savvy) to take that $10 million repayment, invest it wisely, and have it grow - all before having to repay $6 million. However, Budd's spokesman says the family used the money to repay the bank. Budd's father and brother have donated money to Club for Growth Action, a group that's now running attack ads against the former governor. But the donations were made in 2016 and 2018, years before Budd decided to run for senate. So it's highly unlikely those donations, specifically, are being used against McCrory now. McCrory's statement contains an element of truth -- the Budd family has, in the past, contributed to a political group that is now running ads against McCrory. But it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That's our definition of Mostly False. | [
"107180-proof-02-0ada17facabf8822ba34ffd24ed148f9.JPG.jpg"
]
|
Ted Budd's family used AgriBioTech money to help 'give donations to these Washington special interest groups that are running negative ads against me in the Senate race. | Contradiction | To hear Pat McCrory tell it, the family of one of his opponents has been 'ripping off farmers.' Not only that, McCrory suggests that some of the money owed to farmers has instead gone to special interest groups that are attacking his campaign for U.S. Senate. Yes, there is a lot to unpack here. Let's start with the basics. McCrory, former governor of North Carolina, is one of several Republicans now running for the U.S. Senate. The opponent in McCrory's crosshairs is U.S. Rep. Ted Budd, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump and is seen as one of the stronger candidates in the race. During Pete Kaliner's radio show on Sept. 17, McCrory said that the Budd family is under scrutiny for its involvement in a seed company called AgriBioTech, which ultimately declared bankruptcy. The Washington Post wrote a detailed story about the settlement, and other media outlets followed-up with their own stories about the controversy. McCrory accurately pointed out that the company repaid a $10 million loan from the Budd family shortly before going bankrupt. He accused them of 'ripping off farmers.' Then he said this: 'How did the Budd family somehow recover and pay off all their loans before the bankruptcy, and then lose a civil court case about this?' he said. While judges did rule against the Budd family, the legal battles technically ended because the parties involved settled out of court. But here's the part of McCrory's statement that we wanted to fact-check: 'And, you know, some of that same money now that was made is being used on TV ads against me, because the Budd family also helps give donations to these Washington special interest groups that are running negative ads against me in the Senate race.' Here, McCrory suggests that the Budd family: Made money through the AgriBioTech loan repayment Donated that money to 'special interest groups' And that the special interest groups are using the Budd family money to run negative ads against him. Is that all true? McCrory is drawing some long, squiggly lines to try to connect those dots. Budd and AgriBioTech McCrory referred to money 'that was made' from the AgriBioTech settlement. But it's not clear the family 'made' much money at all. Budd's father, Richard, agreed to take over as chief executive in March 1999 as AgriBioTech struggled. Shortly thereafter, Richard Budd secured a $10 million loan that he then transferred to the company. Ted Budd signed as one of 11 'co-makers' of the loan, allowing his stock to be used as collateral, campaign spokesman Jonathan Felts said. The company repaid the loan to the family, then declared bankruptcy seven months later. The federal government estimated the bankruptcy left $50 million in payments undelivered to farmers and others. These details all come from the Washington Post report. Other creditors sued, saying the company should've paid them before repaying the Budd loan. They also alleged that Richard Budd improperly transferred assets to his family, including Ted. (The family denies these claims.) A federal bankruptcy judge in 2005 ruled that Richard Budd would have to repay $15 million, a figure that accounted for the original loan plus interest and other costs. The two sides settled the case out of court later that year, with 'Budd entities' agreeing to pay about $6 million. So let's recap. The Budd family loaned AgriBioTech $10 million. The company then repaid the loan with $25,234 interest, the Post reported. Creditors sued. Then Budd 'entities' agreed to repay about $6 million, leaving them with about $4 million. In the end, there was no admission of wrongdoing. The money AgriBioTech distributed to the Budd family was repaid to the bank that issued the initial loan, Budd spokesman Felts told PolitiFact. Meanwhile, 'Richard Budd and his family never sold their ABT stock so they lost all of that investment when the company went bankrupt,' Felts said. Should the money that AgriBioTech paid to the Budds have gone to farmers instead? People are free to debate. Did the Budd family 'make' money off their loan to AgriBioTech? That seems like a stretch. Attacking McCrory Now, who are the 'special interests' using Budd money to attack McCrory? Club for Growth Action, a conservative PAC, has endorsed Budd and is running negative ads against McCrory. When we reached out to McCrory about his comments, campaign spokesman Jordan Shaw pointed out that Budd's family has donated both to Budd's campaign and Club for Growth. However, the donations Shaw cited were given years before Budd announced his run for Senate. Richard Budd and Joe Budd, Ted's brother, have donated a combined $70,000 to Club for Growth Action. Each donated $25,000 in 2016 and $10,000 in 2018, according to Federal Election Commission records. While McCrory singled-out 'Washington special interest groups' in his interview with Kaliner, his spokesman added that Budd is also receiving donations from family members and people connected to AgriBioTech. Shaw noted that Budd loaned himself $250,000, FEC records show. He also claimed that Budd has received donations for former AgriBioTech executives. PolitiFact NC asked Shaw for evidence that the money AgriBioTech paid the Budd family was the money donated to Club For Growth. After all, the family members could have used funds of their own that they earned or acquired through other means. Shaw said McCrory's broader point is that the Budd family accumulated 'wealth' through AgriBioTech, and is now using some of it to fund attack ads. Ultimately, though, there's no way for Shaw to know whether the money Budd's father and brother donated years ago was used on ads against McCrory. Club for Growth Action doesn't exactly need to look beneath its couch cushions for old donations. The group announced in June that it had raised $5.1 million to support Budd's Senate campaign, and that it plans to raise more. | Our ruling McCrory said the Budd family 'made' money by having its loan repaid by AgriBioTech. There are several reasons available evidence doesn't support that. The Budd family loaned the company $10 million, got about $10 million back, then had to repay $6 million of it. So, in a vacuum, the family is down about $6 million. Now, it would be hypothetically possible for the Budd family (or anyone who's fiscally savvy) to take that $10 million repayment, invest it wisely, and have it grow - all before having to repay $6 million. However, Budd's spokesman says the family used the money to repay the bank. Budd's father and brother have donated money to Club for Growth Action, a group that's now running attack ads against the former governor. But the donations were made in 2016 and 2018, years before Budd decided to run for senate. So it's highly unlikely those donations, specifically, are being used against McCrory now. McCrory's statement contains an element of truth -- the Budd family has, in the past, contributed to a political group that is now running ads against McCrory. But it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That's our definition of Mostly False. | [
"107180-proof-02-0ada17facabf8822ba34ffd24ed148f9.JPG.jpg"
]
|
Ted Budd's family used AgriBioTech money to help 'give donations to these Washington special interest groups that are running negative ads against me in the Senate race. | Contradiction | To hear Pat McCrory tell it, the family of one of his opponents has been 'ripping off farmers.' Not only that, McCrory suggests that some of the money owed to farmers has instead gone to special interest groups that are attacking his campaign for U.S. Senate. Yes, there is a lot to unpack here. Let's start with the basics. McCrory, former governor of North Carolina, is one of several Republicans now running for the U.S. Senate. The opponent in McCrory's crosshairs is U.S. Rep. Ted Budd, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump and is seen as one of the stronger candidates in the race. During Pete Kaliner's radio show on Sept. 17, McCrory said that the Budd family is under scrutiny for its involvement in a seed company called AgriBioTech, which ultimately declared bankruptcy. The Washington Post wrote a detailed story about the settlement, and other media outlets followed-up with their own stories about the controversy. McCrory accurately pointed out that the company repaid a $10 million loan from the Budd family shortly before going bankrupt. He accused them of 'ripping off farmers.' Then he said this: 'How did the Budd family somehow recover and pay off all their loans before the bankruptcy, and then lose a civil court case about this?' he said. While judges did rule against the Budd family, the legal battles technically ended because the parties involved settled out of court. But here's the part of McCrory's statement that we wanted to fact-check: 'And, you know, some of that same money now that was made is being used on TV ads against me, because the Budd family also helps give donations to these Washington special interest groups that are running negative ads against me in the Senate race.' Here, McCrory suggests that the Budd family: Made money through the AgriBioTech loan repayment Donated that money to 'special interest groups' And that the special interest groups are using the Budd family money to run negative ads against him. Is that all true? McCrory is drawing some long, squiggly lines to try to connect those dots. Budd and AgriBioTech McCrory referred to money 'that was made' from the AgriBioTech settlement. But it's not clear the family 'made' much money at all. Budd's father, Richard, agreed to take over as chief executive in March 1999 as AgriBioTech struggled. Shortly thereafter, Richard Budd secured a $10 million loan that he then transferred to the company. Ted Budd signed as one of 11 'co-makers' of the loan, allowing his stock to be used as collateral, campaign spokesman Jonathan Felts said. The company repaid the loan to the family, then declared bankruptcy seven months later. The federal government estimated the bankruptcy left $50 million in payments undelivered to farmers and others. These details all come from the Washington Post report. Other creditors sued, saying the company should've paid them before repaying the Budd loan. They also alleged that Richard Budd improperly transferred assets to his family, including Ted. (The family denies these claims.) A federal bankruptcy judge in 2005 ruled that Richard Budd would have to repay $15 million, a figure that accounted for the original loan plus interest and other costs. The two sides settled the case out of court later that year, with 'Budd entities' agreeing to pay about $6 million. So let's recap. The Budd family loaned AgriBioTech $10 million. The company then repaid the loan with $25,234 interest, the Post reported. Creditors sued. Then Budd 'entities' agreed to repay about $6 million, leaving them with about $4 million. In the end, there was no admission of wrongdoing. The money AgriBioTech distributed to the Budd family was repaid to the bank that issued the initial loan, Budd spokesman Felts told PolitiFact. Meanwhile, 'Richard Budd and his family never sold their ABT stock so they lost all of that investment when the company went bankrupt,' Felts said. Should the money that AgriBioTech paid to the Budds have gone to farmers instead? People are free to debate. Did the Budd family 'make' money off their loan to AgriBioTech? That seems like a stretch. Attacking McCrory Now, who are the 'special interests' using Budd money to attack McCrory? Club for Growth Action, a conservative PAC, has endorsed Budd and is running negative ads against McCrory. When we reached out to McCrory about his comments, campaign spokesman Jordan Shaw pointed out that Budd's family has donated both to Budd's campaign and Club for Growth. However, the donations Shaw cited were given years before Budd announced his run for Senate. Richard Budd and Joe Budd, Ted's brother, have donated a combined $70,000 to Club for Growth Action. Each donated $25,000 in 2016 and $10,000 in 2018, according to Federal Election Commission records. While McCrory singled-out 'Washington special interest groups' in his interview with Kaliner, his spokesman added that Budd is also receiving donations from family members and people connected to AgriBioTech. Shaw noted that Budd loaned himself $250,000, FEC records show. He also claimed that Budd has received donations for former AgriBioTech executives. PolitiFact NC asked Shaw for evidence that the money AgriBioTech paid the Budd family was the money donated to Club For Growth. After all, the family members could have used funds of their own that they earned or acquired through other means. Shaw said McCrory's broader point is that the Budd family accumulated 'wealth' through AgriBioTech, and is now using some of it to fund attack ads. Ultimately, though, there's no way for Shaw to know whether the money Budd's father and brother donated years ago was used on ads against McCrory. Club for Growth Action doesn't exactly need to look beneath its couch cushions for old donations. The group announced in June that it had raised $5.1 million to support Budd's Senate campaign, and that it plans to raise more. | Our ruling McCrory said the Budd family 'made' money by having its loan repaid by AgriBioTech. There are several reasons available evidence doesn't support that. The Budd family loaned the company $10 million, got about $10 million back, then had to repay $6 million of it. So, in a vacuum, the family is down about $6 million. Now, it would be hypothetically possible for the Budd family (or anyone who's fiscally savvy) to take that $10 million repayment, invest it wisely, and have it grow - all before having to repay $6 million. However, Budd's spokesman says the family used the money to repay the bank. Budd's father and brother have donated money to Club for Growth Action, a group that's now running attack ads against the former governor. But the donations were made in 2016 and 2018, years before Budd decided to run for senate. So it's highly unlikely those donations, specifically, are being used against McCrory now. McCrory's statement contains an element of truth -- the Budd family has, in the past, contributed to a political group that is now running ads against McCrory. But it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That's our definition of Mostly False. | [
"107180-proof-02-0ada17facabf8822ba34ffd24ed148f9.JPG.jpg"
]
|
'A lot of these migrants that are coming, we have no way to screen their backgrounds for either health or for security. | Contradiction | Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., arguing against President Joe Biden's immigration agenda, claimed that there's no screening process for people coming into the United States. While millions of Americans are out of work, Cotton said in a Feb. 1 Fox News interview, Biden wants to give 'amnesty to 15 million' people living illegally in the country, invite more guest workers, and give people 'with bogus claims of asylum' an opportunity to come into the country to work. 'And we are in a pandemic, good job,' Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade responded sarcastically. Cotton continued: 'A lot of these migrants that are coming, we have no way to screen their backgrounds for either health or for security.' He praised former President Donald Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' policy to keep asylum seekers in Mexico, 'as opposed to being released into our country' pending a hearing. During his presidential campaign, Biden promised a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million people illegally in the country, and spoke out against the Remain in Mexico program, saying he would allow people seeking asylum to stay in the U.S. while their cases were under review. Biden's administration stopped enrolling people in the program, but has not revoked it. We asked Cotton's press office for more information about his claim that there's 'no way to screen' migrants. 'Relying on the honor system for security and health background checks is not a sufficient screen,' said Caroline Tabler, a spokesperson for Cotton. But U.S. officials don't have to rely on an 'honor system.' U.S. Customs and Border Protection has tools and processes to screen immigrants who are apprehended at the border for health and security issues, even if the people aren't fully upfront or don't have medical records or documentation on hand proving they have a clean background. Health screenings by border officials CBP told PolitiFact that it does initial inspections for symptoms or risk factors associated with COVID-19, and 'pursuant to longstanding infectious disease protocols,' refers immigrants who might have an infectious disease to local clinics or hospitals 'for appropriate medical evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment.' Procedures for COVID-19 have been in place since the beginning of the pandemic, said Matthew Dyman, a spokesperson for the CBP. In late April, CBP said that a 31-year-old Indian man was the first person in its custody to test positive for COVID-19. The oversight office within the Department of Homeland Security surveyed CBP personnel from April 22 to May 1. Ninety percent of the Border Patrol stations and ports of entry offices that responded to the survey said they conducted risk assessments to determine if people in CBP custody were exposed to COVID-19. Protocols included 'screening individuals for COVID-19 symptoms when they are initially processed at a facility, and continued monitoring for potential COVID-19 symptoms for as long as they remain in CBP custody,' said the September 2020 inspector general report. The report said, however, that it was rare for facilities to be able to administer COVID-19 tests on site. As of July 13, 58 migrants across all Border Patrol stations had tested positive for COVID-19, the report said. CBP in late 2019 issued a directive to improve the medical screening of people in its custody after several children died while in CBP care. The three-phase approach called forCBP personnel to observe people for potential medical issues, conduct health interviews on all people under 18 years old, 'at a minimim'; and 'subject to availability of resources and operational requirements,' perform a medical assessment on children age 12 and younger and people with a known or reported medical concern. Implementation of the directive was contingent upon funding and resources, the CBP acting commissioner said in 2019. Whether CBP's health screening procedures are sufficient and effective can be debated, but it's inaccurate to say there's 'no way to screen' people. The Texas Tribune and ProPublica reported in August that a different immigration agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was testing unaccompanied children for COVID-19 and deporting those who tested negative. The news organizations said that ICE had agreements with 10 countries requiring that children test negative for COVID-19 before being sent back to their home countries. The Washington Post reported in early December that 1,061 minors in U.S. immigration custody had tested positive for COVID-19 since March. In March 2020, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a section of federal law that allows the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to deny entry to immigrants coming from countries with infectious disease outbreaks. So far, Biden's administration has kept that directive, allowing quick expulsion of people arriving at the border. Security screenings by border officials CBP has access to international databases through TECS, an information-sharing platform that allows the agency to obtain the criminal history of a person who attempts to enter the United States, said Nicole Hallett, an associate clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. A 2016 DHS report said that the purpose of TECS was 'to track individuals who have violated or are suspected of violating a law or regulation that is enforced or administered by CBP, to provide a record of any inspections conducted at the border by CBP, to determine admissibility into the United States, and to record information regarding individuals, firms, and organizations to whom DHS/CBP has issued detentions and warnings.' CBP statistics on the number of 'criminal aliens' identified at the border prove that CBP regularly identifies individuals with criminal histories before they enter the United States, Hallett said. If a person poses a threat to national security, they can't get asylum, said Lynn Marcus, director of the Community Immigration Law Placement Clinic at the University of Arizona. 'There is a process for screening all of this,' she said. | Our ruling Cotton said, 'A lot of these migrants that are coming, we have no way to screen their backgrounds for either health or security.' A CBP database allows personnel to run criminal background checks on people apprehended at the border and access records collected by U.S. and foreign authorities. CBP routinely publishes data on immigrants who attempted to enter the country and have a criminal record. CBP might not always have access to a person's full medical records, but the agency says it screens people for COVID-19 and other health issues. It's fair to question whether existing protocols are sufficient, but it's inaccurate to say 'we have no way to screen' immigrants. We rate Cotton's claim False. | [
"107182-proof-31-74f275c9b1d555ffcc3c4c763b7110ae.jpg"
]
|
'A lot of these migrants that are coming, we have no way to screen their backgrounds for either health or for security. | Contradiction | Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., arguing against President Joe Biden's immigration agenda, claimed that there's no screening process for people coming into the United States. While millions of Americans are out of work, Cotton said in a Feb. 1 Fox News interview, Biden wants to give 'amnesty to 15 million' people living illegally in the country, invite more guest workers, and give people 'with bogus claims of asylum' an opportunity to come into the country to work. 'And we are in a pandemic, good job,' Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade responded sarcastically. Cotton continued: 'A lot of these migrants that are coming, we have no way to screen their backgrounds for either health or for security.' He praised former President Donald Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' policy to keep asylum seekers in Mexico, 'as opposed to being released into our country' pending a hearing. During his presidential campaign, Biden promised a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million people illegally in the country, and spoke out against the Remain in Mexico program, saying he would allow people seeking asylum to stay in the U.S. while their cases were under review. Biden's administration stopped enrolling people in the program, but has not revoked it. We asked Cotton's press office for more information about his claim that there's 'no way to screen' migrants. 'Relying on the honor system for security and health background checks is not a sufficient screen,' said Caroline Tabler, a spokesperson for Cotton. But U.S. officials don't have to rely on an 'honor system.' U.S. Customs and Border Protection has tools and processes to screen immigrants who are apprehended at the border for health and security issues, even if the people aren't fully upfront or don't have medical records or documentation on hand proving they have a clean background. Health screenings by border officials CBP told PolitiFact that it does initial inspections for symptoms or risk factors associated with COVID-19, and 'pursuant to longstanding infectious disease protocols,' refers immigrants who might have an infectious disease to local clinics or hospitals 'for appropriate medical evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment.' Procedures for COVID-19 have been in place since the beginning of the pandemic, said Matthew Dyman, a spokesperson for the CBP. In late April, CBP said that a 31-year-old Indian man was the first person in its custody to test positive for COVID-19. The oversight office within the Department of Homeland Security surveyed CBP personnel from April 22 to May 1. Ninety percent of the Border Patrol stations and ports of entry offices that responded to the survey said they conducted risk assessments to determine if people in CBP custody were exposed to COVID-19. Protocols included 'screening individuals for COVID-19 symptoms when they are initially processed at a facility, and continued monitoring for potential COVID-19 symptoms for as long as they remain in CBP custody,' said the September 2020 inspector general report. The report said, however, that it was rare for facilities to be able to administer COVID-19 tests on site. As of July 13, 58 migrants across all Border Patrol stations had tested positive for COVID-19, the report said. CBP in late 2019 issued a directive to improve the medical screening of people in its custody after several children died while in CBP care. The three-phase approach called forCBP personnel to observe people for potential medical issues, conduct health interviews on all people under 18 years old, 'at a minimim'; and 'subject to availability of resources and operational requirements,' perform a medical assessment on children age 12 and younger and people with a known or reported medical concern. Implementation of the directive was contingent upon funding and resources, the CBP acting commissioner said in 2019. Whether CBP's health screening procedures are sufficient and effective can be debated, but it's inaccurate to say there's 'no way to screen' people. The Texas Tribune and ProPublica reported in August that a different immigration agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was testing unaccompanied children for COVID-19 and deporting those who tested negative. The news organizations said that ICE had agreements with 10 countries requiring that children test negative for COVID-19 before being sent back to their home countries. The Washington Post reported in early December that 1,061 minors in U.S. immigration custody had tested positive for COVID-19 since March. In March 2020, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a section of federal law that allows the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to deny entry to immigrants coming from countries with infectious disease outbreaks. So far, Biden's administration has kept that directive, allowing quick expulsion of people arriving at the border. Security screenings by border officials CBP has access to international databases through TECS, an information-sharing platform that allows the agency to obtain the criminal history of a person who attempts to enter the United States, said Nicole Hallett, an associate clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. A 2016 DHS report said that the purpose of TECS was 'to track individuals who have violated or are suspected of violating a law or regulation that is enforced or administered by CBP, to provide a record of any inspections conducted at the border by CBP, to determine admissibility into the United States, and to record information regarding individuals, firms, and organizations to whom DHS/CBP has issued detentions and warnings.' CBP statistics on the number of 'criminal aliens' identified at the border prove that CBP regularly identifies individuals with criminal histories before they enter the United States, Hallett said. If a person poses a threat to national security, they can't get asylum, said Lynn Marcus, director of the Community Immigration Law Placement Clinic at the University of Arizona. 'There is a process for screening all of this,' she said. | Our ruling Cotton said, 'A lot of these migrants that are coming, we have no way to screen their backgrounds for either health or security.' A CBP database allows personnel to run criminal background checks on people apprehended at the border and access records collected by U.S. and foreign authorities. CBP routinely publishes data on immigrants who attempted to enter the country and have a criminal record. CBP might not always have access to a person's full medical records, but the agency says it screens people for COVID-19 and other health issues. It's fair to question whether existing protocols are sufficient, but it's inaccurate to say 'we have no way to screen' immigrants. We rate Cotton's claim False. | [
"107182-proof-31-74f275c9b1d555ffcc3c4c763b7110ae.jpg"
]
|
'The Arizona forensic audit found over 17,000 duplicates of votes. | Contradiction | After five months, Florida-based firm Cyber Ninjas released results from its GOP-backed audit of ballots in Maricopa County, Ariz., and found no significant differences from the official vote count. Nevertheless, in a presentation before the Arizona State Senate, officials involved with the audit put forth a wide range of unproven allegations about the election. Some of these allegations gave rise to claims on social media, which were presented without context as evidence that the 2020 election was rigged against Donald Trump. 'The Arizona forensic audit found over 17,000 duplicates of votes,' reads a Facebook post. 'The election must be decertified & people should be prosecuted.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim is wrong, even based on the audit's own standards. The Maricopa County report didn't find over 17,000 duplicate votes in the county's files. Instead, it found 17,000 'duplicate' ballot envelope images, which are created during a routine election process called signature curing. Duplicate ballot envelope images don't prove the existence of voter fraud in Maricopa County, said election experts and administrators. The presence of these images 'is no proof of a Trump win,' said Trey Grayson, a former Kentucky secretary of state and a Republican. Here's why the county had these duplicate images on file: Sometimes election workers receive a ballot envelope with a signature that raises questions. For example, it could have a blank signature line, or a signature that doesn't closely resemble the one the county has on file. In this case, election workers are required by law to take a photo of this original, unopened envelope and then contact the voter who cast it to get a new signature. If the voter provides a valid signature, the county takes another image of the envelope. Only one vote is counted. The presence of 'duplicate' ballot envelope images in the county's database does not prove that illegitimate votes were recorded during the 2020 presidential election, but that election workers were reaching out to voters with inconsistent signatures, said Megan Gilbertson, spokesperson for Maricopa elections. 'The (presence of these duplicated envelopes) is normal and appropriate, and it's a sign that our team is doing their job' she said. Some social media users have pointed to the fact that a number of duplicate images were created after the election as evidence of voter fraud. However, Arizona state law gives Maricopa County staff five business days after an election to contact voters with inconsistent signatures. As a result, said Gilbertson, there was a spike in duplicate envelopes after the election as workers contacted people who had cast their ballots on or shortly before Election Day. 'We dedicated people to continue to call those voters ... to try to cure their signatures,' Gilbertson said. | Our ruling Facebook posts claim that 'the Arizona forensic audit found over 17,000 duplicates of votes.' This is factually inaccurate. The highly contested audit found 17,000 images of 'duplicate' ballot envelopes. Duplicate ballot envelopes are created when election officials contact voters with inconsistent or blank signatures to cure their signatures. We rate the claim False. | []
|
Says with his guilty impeachment vote, Senator Mitt Romney 'could be removed from office. | Contradiction | Utah Sen. Mitt Romney cast the only Republican vote to convict president Donald Trump in the impeachment trial - marking the first time in U.S. history a senator voted to convict a president of the same party. Trump was acquitted on both charges, but that didn't stop Romney's vote from making him a top target of misinformation online. One viral blog post circulating on Facebook claims that Romney could be removed from office over his vote. Its headline reads: '#RecallMitt Movement: With His 'Guilty' Vote, Mitt Romney Could Be Removed From Office.' 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 headline makes it appear as if his vote alone could have him removed. That's not true. The body of the post goes into specifics about a state measure introduced in Utah that would allow voters to recall their senators. It's a proposal and not official law. 'As Mitt Romney grandstands in the U.S Senate's doomed Trump impeachment trial in an effort to demonstrate his own moral superiority, the Utah legislature is mulling a measure that would allow the state's citizens to recall their senators. The measure could hypothetically be used to recall Romney from office.' The bill, HB217 was introduced on Jan. 29 by Rep. Tim Quinn and would create a system where Utah voters could set up a 'recall election to remove senators.' Quinn maintains that the bill's timing is coincidence and has nothing to do with Romney. He told Utah public radio station KPCW that the bill stems from constituents' concerns with the 17th amendment, which established the six-year term for U.S. senators. The measure says 25% of 'active voters' (Utahns who voted in the last two elections) would have to sign a petition requesting a recall vote. Senators could not be recalled within the first year of their term or within a year of the end of their term. But, if passed, the bill would likely face a constitutional challenge. Some states have recall provisions for state offices such as governor, attorney general or state representatives, but the U.S. Constitution doesn't provide for the recall of federally elected officials. A similar legal precedent may be a 1995 Supreme Court ruling that struck down an Arkansas challenge to set term limits on its representatives. The court ruled that states did not have the right to impose requirements for individuals to qualify for federal office. The blog post's headline falsely states that Romney could be removed from office over his impeachment vote. It oversimplifies a state bill that contains several requirements, hasn't passed and may not be constitutional if it does. We rate this False. | We rate this False. | [
"107192-proof-03-bdae79592d8e0e053ef555eb238f2f77.jpg"
]
|
Says with his guilty impeachment vote, Senator Mitt Romney 'could be removed from office. | Contradiction | Utah Sen. Mitt Romney cast the only Republican vote to convict president Donald Trump in the impeachment trial - marking the first time in U.S. history a senator voted to convict a president of the same party. Trump was acquitted on both charges, but that didn't stop Romney's vote from making him a top target of misinformation online. One viral blog post circulating on Facebook claims that Romney could be removed from office over his vote. Its headline reads: '#RecallMitt Movement: With His 'Guilty' Vote, Mitt Romney Could Be Removed From Office.' 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 headline makes it appear as if his vote alone could have him removed. That's not true. The body of the post goes into specifics about a state measure introduced in Utah that would allow voters to recall their senators. It's a proposal and not official law. 'As Mitt Romney grandstands in the U.S Senate's doomed Trump impeachment trial in an effort to demonstrate his own moral superiority, the Utah legislature is mulling a measure that would allow the state's citizens to recall their senators. The measure could hypothetically be used to recall Romney from office.' The bill, HB217 was introduced on Jan. 29 by Rep. Tim Quinn and would create a system where Utah voters could set up a 'recall election to remove senators.' Quinn maintains that the bill's timing is coincidence and has nothing to do with Romney. He told Utah public radio station KPCW that the bill stems from constituents' concerns with the 17th amendment, which established the six-year term for U.S. senators. The measure says 25% of 'active voters' (Utahns who voted in the last two elections) would have to sign a petition requesting a recall vote. Senators could not be recalled within the first year of their term or within a year of the end of their term. But, if passed, the bill would likely face a constitutional challenge. Some states have recall provisions for state offices such as governor, attorney general or state representatives, but the U.S. Constitution doesn't provide for the recall of federally elected officials. A similar legal precedent may be a 1995 Supreme Court ruling that struck down an Arkansas challenge to set term limits on its representatives. The court ruled that states did not have the right to impose requirements for individuals to qualify for federal office. The blog post's headline falsely states that Romney could be removed from office over his impeachment vote. It oversimplifies a state bill that contains several requirements, hasn't passed and may not be constitutional if it does. We rate this False. | We rate this False. | [
"107192-proof-03-bdae79592d8e0e053ef555eb238f2f77.jpg"
]
|
Says with his guilty impeachment vote, Senator Mitt Romney 'could be removed from office. | Contradiction | Utah Sen. Mitt Romney cast the only Republican vote to convict president Donald Trump in the impeachment trial - marking the first time in U.S. history a senator voted to convict a president of the same party. Trump was acquitted on both charges, but that didn't stop Romney's vote from making him a top target of misinformation online. One viral blog post circulating on Facebook claims that Romney could be removed from office over his vote. Its headline reads: '#RecallMitt Movement: With His 'Guilty' Vote, Mitt Romney Could Be Removed From Office.' 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 headline makes it appear as if his vote alone could have him removed. That's not true. The body of the post goes into specifics about a state measure introduced in Utah that would allow voters to recall their senators. It's a proposal and not official law. 'As Mitt Romney grandstands in the U.S Senate's doomed Trump impeachment trial in an effort to demonstrate his own moral superiority, the Utah legislature is mulling a measure that would allow the state's citizens to recall their senators. The measure could hypothetically be used to recall Romney from office.' The bill, HB217 was introduced on Jan. 29 by Rep. Tim Quinn and would create a system where Utah voters could set up a 'recall election to remove senators.' Quinn maintains that the bill's timing is coincidence and has nothing to do with Romney. He told Utah public radio station KPCW that the bill stems from constituents' concerns with the 17th amendment, which established the six-year term for U.S. senators. The measure says 25% of 'active voters' (Utahns who voted in the last two elections) would have to sign a petition requesting a recall vote. Senators could not be recalled within the first year of their term or within a year of the end of their term. But, if passed, the bill would likely face a constitutional challenge. Some states have recall provisions for state offices such as governor, attorney general or state representatives, but the U.S. Constitution doesn't provide for the recall of federally elected officials. A similar legal precedent may be a 1995 Supreme Court ruling that struck down an Arkansas challenge to set term limits on its representatives. The court ruled that states did not have the right to impose requirements for individuals to qualify for federal office. The blog post's headline falsely states that Romney could be removed from office over his impeachment vote. It oversimplifies a state bill that contains several requirements, hasn't passed and may not be constitutional if it does. We rate this False. | We rate this False. | [
"107192-proof-03-bdae79592d8e0e053ef555eb238f2f77.jpg"
]
|
A photo shows Mike Tyson wearing a T-shirt with an anti-vaccine message. | Contradiction | A Facebook post showing a photo of former heavyweight boxing champ Mike Tyson apparently sending an anti-jab message is actually a feint. In the photo, Tyson's T-shirt has an image of a syringe crossed out. The text around it says, 'Trust In God, Not In Vaccines.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image in the post is a doctored version of a photo Tyson posted on Instagram on Nov. 23, 2020. Tyson's shirt in that photo, bearing a black-and-white image of him in a boxing ring, was a promotion for his apparel line, Mike Tyson Collection. Real image A similarly altered Tyson photo was used once before in connection with COVID-19 misinformation. On April 29, 2021, Full Fact debunked a claim that Tyson was wearing a shirt with a logo for 'Plan-Demic,' a documentary that touted conspiracy theories about COVID-19's origins. The photo was a doctored screenshot from Tyson's promotional video for the drink brand Smart Cups. We scoured news reports for any statements by Tyson about his views of the COVID-19 vaccines and didn't find any. No split decision here. We rate this claim False. | No split decision here. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Pope Francis says covid vaccine will now be required to enter heaven. | Contradiction | Facebook posts are spreading claims that Pope Francis said getting a COVID-19 vaccine will be required to enter heaven. The posts leave out that they are actually sharing an image and headline from a satire website. 'Pope Francis says covid vaccine will now be required to enter heaven,' said Facebook posts published Dec. 3 and Dec. 9. They feature an image of a smiling Pope Francis and an inset picture of a vial labeled 'Coronavirus COVID-19 Vaccine.' 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.) Pope Francis has advocated for fair access to the COVID-19 vaccine, saying in September that 'if anyone should be given preference, let it be the poorest, the most vulnerable, those who so often experience discrimination because they have neither power nor economic resources.' But the pope hasn't said a COVID-19 vaccine is a requirement to enter heaven. Those words are from a Nov. 30 post on The Babylon Bee, a satire website that writes 'about Christian stuff, political stuff, and everyday life.' While some Facebook users seemed to have caught on that the posts stem from satire, others appeared to be unaware. The Facebook posts are promoting as fact something that is fabricated. We rate the posts Pants on Fire! | The Facebook posts are promoting as fact something that is fabricated. We rate the posts Pants on Fire! | []
|
The Atlanta shooting suspect wrote an anti-China post on Facebook prior to the shootings. | Contradiction | Questions are swirling about Robert Aaron Long, the white gunman charged with killing eight people at three Atlanta area spas on March 16. Six of those killed were of Asian descent, and many have speculated that the rampage was racially motivated. But as details about the shooting continue to unfold, it appears that some on social media are reaching conclusions based on what looks like a Facebook post made by Long. A screenshot of the post displays Long's name and reads: 'China is engaged in a COVID coverup. They blocked our investigators from going to their lab in Wuhan and finding the truth about the experiments they were conducting there. If they're innocent, why block? China must be hiding something. They know how the Wuhan virus was created, and killing 500000 Americans was just part of their plan to secure global domination for the 21st century. ALL AMERICANS NEED TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST CHINA, NOW. REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS, WE ALL NEED TO STAND AGAINST CHINA, THE GREATEST EVIL OF OUR TIME.' 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 a legitimate post from Long. While the origins of the screenshot aren't known, we do know that the post was manufactured using an online tool and didn't come from an authentic Facebook account. The first sign that the post is fake is the color of Long's name in the screenshot. It appears in blue lettering, and while that was the previous style for Facebook profile names, it no longer is. All names are now in black. Another indicator is the positioning of the profile picture and the reactions graphics. Both are not aligned. We found several websites that help people create fake Facebook posts that still use the old style of blue letters for names. These free generators offer a range of customizable options for the posts including the name, profile picture, message, time, reactions and more. Facebook also told PolitiFact that the screenshot does not show a real post. 'We've confirmed that these screenshots are fake and we're removing them from the platform for violating our policies,' company spokesperson Sally Aldous said. We didn't find a legitimate Facebook account belonging to Long, but CNN reported that a Facebook spokesperson said the company did remove an Instagram account it believed to be linked to Long. We rate this post False. | Facebook also told PolitiFact that the screenshot does not show a real post. 'We've confirmed that these screenshots are fake and we're removing them from the platform for violating our policies,' company spokesperson Sally Aldous said. We didn't find a legitimate Facebook account belonging to Long, but CNN reported that a Facebook spokesperson said the company did remove an Instagram account it believed to be linked to Long. We rate this post False. | []
|
The Atlanta shooting suspect wrote an anti-China post on Facebook prior to the shootings. | Contradiction | Questions are swirling about Robert Aaron Long, the white gunman charged with killing eight people at three Atlanta area spas on March 16. Six of those killed were of Asian descent, and many have speculated that the rampage was racially motivated. But as details about the shooting continue to unfold, it appears that some on social media are reaching conclusions based on what looks like a Facebook post made by Long. A screenshot of the post displays Long's name and reads: 'China is engaged in a COVID coverup. They blocked our investigators from going to their lab in Wuhan and finding the truth about the experiments they were conducting there. If they're innocent, why block? China must be hiding something. They know how the Wuhan virus was created, and killing 500000 Americans was just part of their plan to secure global domination for the 21st century. ALL AMERICANS NEED TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST CHINA, NOW. REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS, WE ALL NEED TO STAND AGAINST CHINA, THE GREATEST EVIL OF OUR TIME.' 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 a legitimate post from Long. While the origins of the screenshot aren't known, we do know that the post was manufactured using an online tool and didn't come from an authentic Facebook account. The first sign that the post is fake is the color of Long's name in the screenshot. It appears in blue lettering, and while that was the previous style for Facebook profile names, it no longer is. All names are now in black. Another indicator is the positioning of the profile picture and the reactions graphics. Both are not aligned. We found several websites that help people create fake Facebook posts that still use the old style of blue letters for names. These free generators offer a range of customizable options for the posts including the name, profile picture, message, time, reactions and more. Facebook also told PolitiFact that the screenshot does not show a real post. 'We've confirmed that these screenshots are fake and we're removing them from the platform for violating our policies,' company spokesperson Sally Aldous said. We didn't find a legitimate Facebook account belonging to Long, but CNN reported that a Facebook spokesperson said the company did remove an Instagram account it believed to be linked to Long. We rate this post False. | Facebook also told PolitiFact that the screenshot does not show a real post. 'We've confirmed that these screenshots are fake and we're removing them from the platform for violating our policies,' company spokesperson Sally Aldous said. We didn't find a legitimate Facebook account belonging to Long, but CNN reported that a Facebook spokesperson said the company did remove an Instagram account it believed to be linked to Long. We rate this post False. | []
|
The survival rate for COVID-19 is over 99% for most age groups. | Contradiction | With COVID-19 infections surging in the United States because of the more contagious delta variant, some have downplayed the number of deaths from the virus and the effectiveness of vaccines. To minimize the importance of vaccination, an Instagram post claimed that the COVID-19 survival rate is over 99% for most age groups, while the COVID-19 vaccine's effectiveness was 94%. The post's alleged survival rate for COVID-19: 0 - 19 years, 99.997% 20 - 49 years, 99.98% 50 - 69 years, 99.5% 70+ years, 94.6% The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A problem with the post is that it improperly used the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's statistics for modeling pandemic scenarios, not for calculating COVID-19's survival rate. The CDC recommends the COVID-19 vaccines because they are safe and effective, even against the delta variant. Although the delta variant has slightly decreased the effectiveness of vaccines, experts still encourage vaccination as it provides a high level of protection against hospitalization and death. An incorrect use of data The Instagram post misrepresents data from the CDC's COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios document published in September 2020. It was created so public health officials who use mathematical models could help hospitals and policymakers react to different levels of severity of the pandemic. The data does not show the likelihood of surviving COVID-19. These numbers are meant to be used for estimates of death over time, said Dr. Ruth Etzioni, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Washington School of Public Health. PolitiFact in December fact-checked another claim that also misused the CDC data. We found that survival rates are usually calculated over a longer period of time, because death data can sometimes lag for months behind new cases. How many people are surviving COVID-19? Most people who get COVID-19 will survive. Of roughly 35.2 million confirmed COVID-19 cases in the United States, around 614,300 people, or 1.7%, have died, according to Johns Hopkins University's mortality data as of Aug 6. The CDC issues provisional death counts for COVID-19, but that data should not be used to infer a survival rate. Experts say that during a pandemic, it's difficult to determine survival rates - such rates are usually calculated for a longer period of time, rather than as a snapshot. The CDC data shows that most people who have died from COVID-19, about 79%, have been people ages 65 and older. People between 45 and 64 years old account for about 18% of COVID-19 deaths, and people under 45 years account for 2.8% of such deaths, according to the CDC's data as of Aug. 6. (The CDC data isn't broken down in the same age groups offered in the Instagram post.) Experts believe there's likely an undercount of COVID-19 deaths. Etzioni said that it's not useful to just look at the rate that people die, even if it's low, because it doesn't tell the whole story. 'If more and more younger people are getting COVID, then the total number of young people who die is going to skyrocket,' Etzioni said. Also, people should not use data on how many people have survived COVID-19 to predict their own chances of surviving infection, experts say. Someone's chances of surviving COVID-19 can vary depending on their age, health, and vaccination status - national statistics don't account for these factors. At an Aug. 2 press briefing, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, discussed three different studies on the Pfizer vaccine's effectiveness against the delta variant. Fauci said the studies showed the vaccine was highly effective in protecting people against symptomatic infection and hospitalization, although the vaccine's overall effectiveness had decreased since the delta variant emerged. 'The vaccines are doing exactly what we're asking them to do when it comes to keeping you out of the hospital, out of serious disease, and certainly preventing your death,' Fauci said. | Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that the COVID-19 survival rate is over 99% for most age groups. The data it cited does not show the likelihood of surviving COVID-19. The post's claim is based on data used to model pandemic scenarios. Experts say a person cannot determine their own chances at surviving COVID-19 by looking at national statistics, because the data doesn't take into account the person's own risks and COVID-19 deaths are believed to be undercounted. Survival rate data is not yet available from the CDC. We rate this claim False. | []
|
The survival rate for COVID-19 is over 99% for most age groups. | Contradiction | With COVID-19 infections surging in the United States because of the more contagious delta variant, some have downplayed the number of deaths from the virus and the effectiveness of vaccines. To minimize the importance of vaccination, an Instagram post claimed that the COVID-19 survival rate is over 99% for most age groups, while the COVID-19 vaccine's effectiveness was 94%. The post's alleged survival rate for COVID-19: 0 - 19 years, 99.997% 20 - 49 years, 99.98% 50 - 69 years, 99.5% 70+ years, 94.6% The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) A problem with the post is that it improperly used the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's statistics for modeling pandemic scenarios, not for calculating COVID-19's survival rate. The CDC recommends the COVID-19 vaccines because they are safe and effective, even against the delta variant. Although the delta variant has slightly decreased the effectiveness of vaccines, experts still encourage vaccination as it provides a high level of protection against hospitalization and death. An incorrect use of data The Instagram post misrepresents data from the CDC's COVID-19 Pandemic Planning Scenarios document published in September 2020. It was created so public health officials who use mathematical models could help hospitals and policymakers react to different levels of severity of the pandemic. The data does not show the likelihood of surviving COVID-19. These numbers are meant to be used for estimates of death over time, said Dr. Ruth Etzioni, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Washington School of Public Health. PolitiFact in December fact-checked another claim that also misused the CDC data. We found that survival rates are usually calculated over a longer period of time, because death data can sometimes lag for months behind new cases. How many people are surviving COVID-19? Most people who get COVID-19 will survive. Of roughly 35.2 million confirmed COVID-19 cases in the United States, around 614,300 people, or 1.7%, have died, according to Johns Hopkins University's mortality data as of Aug 6. The CDC issues provisional death counts for COVID-19, but that data should not be used to infer a survival rate. Experts say that during a pandemic, it's difficult to determine survival rates - such rates are usually calculated for a longer period of time, rather than as a snapshot. The CDC data shows that most people who have died from COVID-19, about 79%, have been people ages 65 and older. People between 45 and 64 years old account for about 18% of COVID-19 deaths, and people under 45 years account for 2.8% of such deaths, according to the CDC's data as of Aug. 6. (The CDC data isn't broken down in the same age groups offered in the Instagram post.) Experts believe there's likely an undercount of COVID-19 deaths. Etzioni said that it's not useful to just look at the rate that people die, even if it's low, because it doesn't tell the whole story. 'If more and more younger people are getting COVID, then the total number of young people who die is going to skyrocket,' Etzioni said. Also, people should not use data on how many people have survived COVID-19 to predict their own chances of surviving infection, experts say. Someone's chances of surviving COVID-19 can vary depending on their age, health, and vaccination status - national statistics don't account for these factors. At an Aug. 2 press briefing, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, discussed three different studies on the Pfizer vaccine's effectiveness against the delta variant. Fauci said the studies showed the vaccine was highly effective in protecting people against symptomatic infection and hospitalization, although the vaccine's overall effectiveness had decreased since the delta variant emerged. 'The vaccines are doing exactly what we're asking them to do when it comes to keeping you out of the hospital, out of serious disease, and certainly preventing your death,' Fauci said. | Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that the COVID-19 survival rate is over 99% for most age groups. The data it cited does not show the likelihood of surviving COVID-19. The post's claim is based on data used to model pandemic scenarios. Experts say a person cannot determine their own chances at surviving COVID-19 by looking at national statistics, because the data doesn't take into account the person's own risks and COVID-19 deaths are believed to be undercounted. Survival rate data is not yet available from the CDC. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Video shows Palestinians faking a funeral procession for a child. | Contradiction | A video of men carrying what looks like a body on a stretcher down a street ends when sirens sound, the group drops the stretcher and runs away while the person they were carrying sits up and darts off camera. It's being shared on social media as an example of staged anti-Israel propaganda. 'Palestinian funeral procession for a child killed by the Israeli reprisals. Only to be interrupted by an air raid siren,' one post sharing the video says. 'The siren was so loud it woke the dead!' More than two dozen children have been killed in Gaza amid violence there, but this video isn't depicting the funeral after such a death. It wasn't even filmed there. 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.) Doing a reverse image search, we found that this video has been online for more than a year. It was published on YouTube in March 2020, and translated into English, the title says, 'A (fake) funeral during home quarantine in Jordan.' A media outlet in the United Arab Emirates published an article that month that said Twitter users were then sharing the video of a group of people in Jordan who were trying to break a stay-at-home order the government imposed to try to slow the spread of COVID-19. Reuters reported that it was shared as a satirical example of Jordanians creatively trying to circumvent the lockdown. We rate claims that this was staged and filmed in Palestine False. | We rate claims that this was staged and filmed in Palestine False. | []
|
'Cocaine kills corona virus, scientists is shocked to discover that this drug can fight the virus. | Contradiction | The Novel Coronavirus has been surrounded by panic and misinformation since its discovery in December 2019. The most recent false claim is that cocaine is the cure. Images of breaking news stories claiming that cocaine is the newest remedy to coronavirus are being reposted on Twitter and Facebook. One Facebook post from Jan. 30 included an image of a bag of cocaine in the background of a news banner that says 'Cocaine kills corona virus' and 'Scientists is shocked to discover that this drug can fight the virus.' No, this grammatically challenged image was not from a real breaking news alert. This image is made by an online news generator. There is still no cure for the coronavirus. This post 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 breaking news format of this social media claim came from a website that allows you to create your own breaking news stories by uploading your own image and headline into a generator. The waterstamp 'breakyourownnews.com' in the top right corner is blurred out in the Facebook post. In the original image of the bag of cocaine, which can be found on multiple stock image sites, there was no blurry white spot in the corner. This breaking news image is fabricated. If there were a cure for the Novel Coronavirus, we wouldn't count on it being a stimulant like cocaine. Cocaine is a highly addictive drug that can lead to long-term respiratory problems and movement disorders like Parkinson's disease, according to the National Institutes of Health. In 2017 there were a total of 13,942 drug overdose deaths in the United States that involved cocaine. There have been 1,016 deaths reported worldwide from the coronavirus as of Feb. 10, none in the United States. We wouldn't recommend trying a highly addictive drug in hopes of fighting off a viral disease. We rate this Pants on Fire! | We wouldn't recommend trying a highly addictive drug in hopes of fighting off a viral disease. We rate this Pants on Fire! | []
|
'Cocaine kills corona virus, scientists is shocked to discover that this drug can fight the virus. | Contradiction | The Novel Coronavirus has been surrounded by panic and misinformation since its discovery in December 2019. The most recent false claim is that cocaine is the cure. Images of breaking news stories claiming that cocaine is the newest remedy to coronavirus are being reposted on Twitter and Facebook. One Facebook post from Jan. 30 included an image of a bag of cocaine in the background of a news banner that says 'Cocaine kills corona virus' and 'Scientists is shocked to discover that this drug can fight the virus.' No, this grammatically challenged image was not from a real breaking news alert. This image is made by an online news generator. There is still no cure for the coronavirus. This post 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 breaking news format of this social media claim came from a website that allows you to create your own breaking news stories by uploading your own image and headline into a generator. The waterstamp 'breakyourownnews.com' in the top right corner is blurred out in the Facebook post. In the original image of the bag of cocaine, which can be found on multiple stock image sites, there was no blurry white spot in the corner. This breaking news image is fabricated. If there were a cure for the Novel Coronavirus, we wouldn't count on it being a stimulant like cocaine. Cocaine is a highly addictive drug that can lead to long-term respiratory problems and movement disorders like Parkinson's disease, according to the National Institutes of Health. In 2017 there were a total of 13,942 drug overdose deaths in the United States that involved cocaine. There have been 1,016 deaths reported worldwide from the coronavirus as of Feb. 10, none in the United States. We wouldn't recommend trying a highly addictive drug in hopes of fighting off a viral disease. We rate this Pants on Fire! | We wouldn't recommend trying a highly addictive drug in hopes of fighting off a viral disease. We rate this Pants on Fire! | []
|
'Lego unveils new genderless bricks with no male/female connectors. | Contradiction | A headline ripped from a satire site is being shared on social media and getting confused for real news. 'Lego unveils new genderless bricks with no male/female connectors,' reads a screenshot of a headline above the date May 20, 2021. Below is an image of a smooth blue brick, Lego's logo and the words 'introducing genderless.' 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.) Lego did not respond to PolitiFact's query about the post, but it's a screenshot of a page on the Babylon Bee, which describes itself as 'your trusted source for Christian news satire.' The Facebook post doesn't make clear the headline is from the Bee and while some people recognize it as a joke anyway, others are unsure. The story was published the same day that Lego announced a new LGBTQ-themed set called 'Everyone Is Awesome.' The 346-piece set includes 11 figures in the colors of the rainbow. It was inspired by the rainbow flag, a symbol of LGBTQ pride. We rate claims that Lego is introducing genderless bricks False. | We rate claims that Lego is introducing genderless bricks False. | []
|
Says celebrities are calling for a ''total Hollywood strike' until Trump resigns. | Contradiction | Those Trump-hating Hollywood liberals are at it again, according to a fake news article shared on Facebook. The story, which was published on a website called News Mag on April 3, claims that movie stars like Rosie O'Donnell and George Clooney have organized a strike, until President Donald Trump is removed or voted out of office. 'Portraying Hollywood as 'the base of the entire current American culture', the gathering likewise claims to speak for the advantage of 'all of humankind,'' reads the article, which has been shared in conspiracy theory and pro-Trump Facebook groups. 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.) (Screenshot from NewsMag.pro) Plenty of Hollywood stars have been outspoken in their criticism of Trump. But there is no evidence entertainment celebrities are organizing a strike until he's removed from office. According to public domain records, News Mag was registered on March 18. We found several copies of the Hollywood strike article on other bogus websites posing as legitimate news organizations. The claim that Hollywood is organizing an anti-Trump strike has been circulating online since he was elected. Other fact-checking outlets, including PolitiFact, have debunked versions of the hoax. The rumor appears to have stemmed from a January 2017 ad in the New York Times by a group called Refuse Fascism. The group included O'Donnell and called for millions to hold a protest and sign a petition to 'create a political crisis that prevents the Trump/Pence fascist regime from consolidating its hold on the governance of society.' Many celebrities signed the petition, but they weren't calling for a strike. And we could find no evidence to support the latest version of the hoax. The article is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The article is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"107262-proof-20-4609067a34f2c8322a581c71ed0e1731.jpg",
"107262-proof-33-Screen_Shot_2020-04-07_at_10.26.53_AM.jpg"
]
|
Says celebrities are calling for a ''total Hollywood strike' until Trump resigns. | Contradiction | Those Trump-hating Hollywood liberals are at it again, according to a fake news article shared on Facebook. The story, which was published on a website called News Mag on April 3, claims that movie stars like Rosie O'Donnell and George Clooney have organized a strike, until President Donald Trump is removed or voted out of office. 'Portraying Hollywood as 'the base of the entire current American culture', the gathering likewise claims to speak for the advantage of 'all of humankind,'' reads the article, which has been shared in conspiracy theory and pro-Trump Facebook groups. 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.) (Screenshot from NewsMag.pro) Plenty of Hollywood stars have been outspoken in their criticism of Trump. But there is no evidence entertainment celebrities are organizing a strike until he's removed from office. According to public domain records, News Mag was registered on March 18. We found several copies of the Hollywood strike article on other bogus websites posing as legitimate news organizations. The claim that Hollywood is organizing an anti-Trump strike has been circulating online since he was elected. Other fact-checking outlets, including PolitiFact, have debunked versions of the hoax. The rumor appears to have stemmed from a January 2017 ad in the New York Times by a group called Refuse Fascism. The group included O'Donnell and called for millions to hold a protest and sign a petition to 'create a political crisis that prevents the Trump/Pence fascist regime from consolidating its hold on the governance of society.' Many celebrities signed the petition, but they weren't calling for a strike. And we could find no evidence to support the latest version of the hoax. The article is inaccurate. We rate it False. | The article is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"107262-proof-20-4609067a34f2c8322a581c71ed0e1731.jpg",
"107262-proof-33-Screen_Shot_2020-04-07_at_10.26.53_AM.jpg"
]
|
Quotes actor Will Smith as saying: 'I'm not afraid to say that Trump and his supporters are ba...' | Contradiction | A headline generating interest on social media quotes actor Will Smith as saying, 'I'm not afraid to say that Trump and his supporters are ba...' The quote isn't just incomplete. It's also entirely made-up. The headline appears in a Feb. 9 story on Trump Train Pro News, a website we've fact-checked for recycling bogus quotes about President Donald Trump before. Posts sharing the headline 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.) While the headline broadcasts a fake Smith quote, the text of the Trump Train Pro News story is a slightly altered representation of criticisms Smith lobbed at then-candidate Trump in 2016. The Trump Train Pro News story lifts almost verbatim from an authentic news report published Aug. 3, 2016, by news.com.au, an Australian news outlet. The report features comments Smith made about Trump while promoting 'Suicide Squad,' a movie about supervillains. The quotes Smith gave to news.com.au made headlines in mainstream British and U.S. news outlets as well, including the Guardian, Time, the Hill and the Washington Post. According to the report, Smith said he hoped Trump wouldn't win the 2016 election and condemned what he called a 'separatist non-inclusive xenophobic, racist wave that is sweeping the globe.' He said he had no tolerance for Trump's comments about women and wondered why they didn't seem to diminish Trump's support. 'For a man to be able to publicly refer to a woman as a fat pig, that makes me teary. And for people to applaud, that is absolutely f------ insanity to me,' Smith told news.com.au. In the Trump Train Pro News story, that same quote - and others from Smith's news.com.au interview - appears as though it was filtered through a thesaurus machine. The Trump Train Pro News version of Smith's quote about Trump's comments on women reads: 'Fоr a man tо hаvе the аbіlіtу tо ѕtrаіghtfоrwаrdlу intimate a wоmаn as a fаt ріg, thаt mаkеѕ me mіѕеrаblе. Lіkеwіѕе, fоr реорlе tо endorsement, thаt is аbѕоlutеlу f------frаntісnеѕѕ tо me.' We found no record that Smith made the statement spotlighted in the Trump Train Pro News headline, which isn't referenced in the body of its story. Other fact-checkers debunked the same false headline when it appeared on another site. Smith was critical of Trump throughout the promotional tour for the August 2016 film. 'As painful as it is to hear Donald Trump talk, and as embarrassing it is as an American to hear him talk, I think it's good,' he said during another press event. 'We get to hear it, we get to know who people are, and now we get to cleanse it out of our country.' The actor made similar remarks about 'cleansing' racism from the United States during a 'Tonight Show' interview that same month. But there's no proof that he said, 'I'm not afraid to say that Trump and his supporters are ba...' We rate this statement False. | We rate this statement False. | [
"107271-proof-18-a93c4807d45024725fea91ef1fe17617.jpg"
]
|
'Beware - George Soros is starting a Fake News site in Missouri' | Contradiction | The Missouri Independent is a news outlet that was founded in October in partnership with States Newsroom, a national nonprofit funded by grants, donors and readers. It has created nonprofit news organizations in 19 U.S. states. Liberty Alliance, which advocates for conservative causes, has accused the Missouri Independent of being a liberal propaganda outlet created by left-leaning philanthropist George Soros. In a Facebook post, the group told their supporters, 'Beware - George Soros is starting a Fake News site in Missouri. Don't fall for it - the Missouri Independent is BAD NEWS.' The group has repeatedly made this claim online and even called for conservative elected officials to refuse to give interviews or provide comment to the outlet. This all came to a head when Republican Gov. Mike Parson refused to answer Missouri Independent reporter and deputy editor Rudi Keller's question at a Nov. 5 press conference. 'First of all Rudi, I'm not gonna answer your question,' Parson said before Keller had a chance to speak. 'But I'm gonna tell you this: I am not going to respond to a c4 (nonprofit) out of Virginia that is absolutely a propaganda news agency... This political agenda, whether it's George Soros or people like him, of what you're gonna be doing is not fair to Missouri outlets.' Before co-founding the Missouri Independent, Keller worked for 22 years at the Columbia Daily Tribune and spent 30 years as a journalist. Liberty Alliance has even created a website devoted to trashing the Missouri Independent and its founders. In addition to calling the founders 'Liberals who have made a career of attacking Conservatives,' it repeats the claim that Soros is behind it all. 'George Soros-connected entities started the States Newsroom network as a pet project to spread misinformation to appease their Liberal donors,' it reads. Soros is a Jewish Hungarian whose family hid from the Nazis during the Holocaust and later fled a communist regime in their home country. He eventually emigrated to the United States and became a hedge fund tycoon and one of the wealthiest men in the world. He has used that wealth to support countless liberal causes, largely through his charity, the Open Society Foundations. Conservatives have criticized his use of personal wealth to affect U.S. politics in favor of liberal causes. Soros has also been the target of countless right-wing conspiracy theories including that he is a former Nazi officer, that he's made it his 'life's mission to destroy the United States' and that he instigated racial protests in Charlottesville, Va. PolitiFact and other independent fact-checkers have found these to be false. Where's the connection? Chris Vas, the executive director of Liberty Alliance, pointed to an investigation done by the Open Secrets Center for Responsive Politics, a research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. The investigation detailed a number of news outlets and their financial connections and briefly mentions States Newsroom. It found that States Newsroom had a connection to the Hopewell Fund, a liberal charity that promotes various social projects and left-wing causes, that Vas alleges is run by Soros. States Newsroom's connection to the Hopewell Fund goes back to the early days of the news organization, before the Missouri Independent was founded. States Newsroom is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit supported by grants and donors. According to Influence Watch, an online database that tracks influencers of public policy, the Hopewell Fund served as a fiscal sponsor before States Newsroom's tax-exempt status was approved in July 2019. In November that year, the two organizations separated. Fiscal sponsorship allowed States Newsroom - then known as Newsroom Network - to use Hopewell's legal and tax-exempt status until its nonprofit status was approved. This is a common practice among nonprofits. The Hopewell Fund also managed its funding and performed all the administrative and business functions, such as human resources and legal compliance. States Newsroom and the Missouri Independent said that despite that assistance, the Hopewell Fund did not give any money to the news outlet. The Hopewell Fund's 2018 IRS 990 tax form - which can be accessed via ProPublica's nonprofit database - shows that the charity did not give States Newsroom or any affiliated organization more than $5,000. The form does not disclose donations smaller than that. Even if they did, is the Hopewell Fund run by Soros? There is no evidence of this. Based on that IRS 990 tax form, we know that Soros doesn't serve as an executive there. We also looked through the IRS 990 tax forms filed by Soros's organization, the Open Society Foundations as well as its sister organization, the Foundation to Promote Open Society, dating back to 2015, the year the Hopewell Fund was founded. We found that neither gave money to the Hopewell Fund. Additionally, neither gave money to States Newsroom or any of its affiliates. At times, projects funded by the Hopewell Fund and Open Society Foundations overlapped. That's not unusual, and none of them amounted to Soros and Open Society Foundations controlling the Hopewell Fund. States Newsroom discloses all donations over $500. Neither the Hopewell Fund nor Soros are listed as donors. Andrea Verykoukis, deputy director of States Newsroom, also said it received no donations from Soros or the Hopewell Fund. Additionally, Thomas Watson, a representative of the Open Society Foundations, said that neither Soros nor his foundation have given funding to States Newsroom or the Missouri Independent. We reached out to Jason Hancock, editor-in-chief and co-founder the Missouri Independent to discuss their policies. Formerly the lead political reporter for The Kansas City Star, Hancock has spent nearly two decades working for news organizations across the Midwest. The Missouri Independent, like other States Newsroom affiliates, is free to read and has no ads. Unlike many traditional newspapers, it funds its journalism through donations made by readers, grants and foundations, but Hancock said this is the only difference between it and other outlets. Where traditional newspapers have subscribers and advertisers, the Missouri Independent has donors. 'Ultimately, what we're doing is not that much different from any other newsroom,' he said. On its website, the Missouri Independent contends that it retains 'full editorial independence, and all editorial decisions are made by our journalists. Donors have no influence over content.' The site pushes investigative beat reporting in state government. Like traditional newspapers, its commentary section is separate from news. Hancock compared the Missouri Independent's business model to NPR-affiliated news radio stations that are usually nonprofit and largely funded by donors and grants. Hancock said that fundraising is left to the national offices at States Newsroom and that the Missouri Independent doesn't deal with any fundraising matters directly. He said that even if he were to cover an event involving a large donor, he would have never met that donor. 'I'm aware of some of the small donors because they may have reached out, like readers who donated 10 bucks or 25 bucks or something like that, but those are the only donors that I'm aware of,' he said. Hancock said even if Soros cut him a check, his coverage wouldn't change. He said it's no different than not letting advertisers dictate your coverage at a traditional newspaper. 'At the end of the day,' Hancock said. 'if you're gonna judge us, judge us based on our work, which I think stands with any other journalistic work out there.' | Our ruling Liberty Alliance said, 'George Soros is starting a Fake News site in Missouri,' referring to the Missouri Independent, but there's no evidence of Soros being involved. Liberty Alliance points to the Missouri Independent's parent organization, States Newsroom, and its ties to the Hopewell Fund as evidence. But IRS tax forms tell us that Soros's foundations have not given any money to the Hopewell Fund, States Newsroom or the Missouri Independent. Soros does not serve in any sort of officer capacity for these organizations. The Missouri Independent is not a 'fake news' site. It's a news organization covering state government politics and policy - not a website peddling hoaxes. Therefore, we rate this claim False. | []
|
'Beware - George Soros is starting a Fake News site in Missouri' | Contradiction | The Missouri Independent is a news outlet that was founded in October in partnership with States Newsroom, a national nonprofit funded by grants, donors and readers. It has created nonprofit news organizations in 19 U.S. states. Liberty Alliance, which advocates for conservative causes, has accused the Missouri Independent of being a liberal propaganda outlet created by left-leaning philanthropist George Soros. In a Facebook post, the group told their supporters, 'Beware - George Soros is starting a Fake News site in Missouri. Don't fall for it - the Missouri Independent is BAD NEWS.' The group has repeatedly made this claim online and even called for conservative elected officials to refuse to give interviews or provide comment to the outlet. This all came to a head when Republican Gov. Mike Parson refused to answer Missouri Independent reporter and deputy editor Rudi Keller's question at a Nov. 5 press conference. 'First of all Rudi, I'm not gonna answer your question,' Parson said before Keller had a chance to speak. 'But I'm gonna tell you this: I am not going to respond to a c4 (nonprofit) out of Virginia that is absolutely a propaganda news agency... This political agenda, whether it's George Soros or people like him, of what you're gonna be doing is not fair to Missouri outlets.' Before co-founding the Missouri Independent, Keller worked for 22 years at the Columbia Daily Tribune and spent 30 years as a journalist. Liberty Alliance has even created a website devoted to trashing the Missouri Independent and its founders. In addition to calling the founders 'Liberals who have made a career of attacking Conservatives,' it repeats the claim that Soros is behind it all. 'George Soros-connected entities started the States Newsroom network as a pet project to spread misinformation to appease their Liberal donors,' it reads. Soros is a Jewish Hungarian whose family hid from the Nazis during the Holocaust and later fled a communist regime in their home country. He eventually emigrated to the United States and became a hedge fund tycoon and one of the wealthiest men in the world. He has used that wealth to support countless liberal causes, largely through his charity, the Open Society Foundations. Conservatives have criticized his use of personal wealth to affect U.S. politics in favor of liberal causes. Soros has also been the target of countless right-wing conspiracy theories including that he is a former Nazi officer, that he's made it his 'life's mission to destroy the United States' and that he instigated racial protests in Charlottesville, Va. PolitiFact and other independent fact-checkers have found these to be false. Where's the connection? Chris Vas, the executive director of Liberty Alliance, pointed to an investigation done by the Open Secrets Center for Responsive Politics, a research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. The investigation detailed a number of news outlets and their financial connections and briefly mentions States Newsroom. It found that States Newsroom had a connection to the Hopewell Fund, a liberal charity that promotes various social projects and left-wing causes, that Vas alleges is run by Soros. States Newsroom's connection to the Hopewell Fund goes back to the early days of the news organization, before the Missouri Independent was founded. States Newsroom is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit supported by grants and donors. According to Influence Watch, an online database that tracks influencers of public policy, the Hopewell Fund served as a fiscal sponsor before States Newsroom's tax-exempt status was approved in July 2019. In November that year, the two organizations separated. Fiscal sponsorship allowed States Newsroom - then known as Newsroom Network - to use Hopewell's legal and tax-exempt status until its nonprofit status was approved. This is a common practice among nonprofits. The Hopewell Fund also managed its funding and performed all the administrative and business functions, such as human resources and legal compliance. States Newsroom and the Missouri Independent said that despite that assistance, the Hopewell Fund did not give any money to the news outlet. The Hopewell Fund's 2018 IRS 990 tax form - which can be accessed via ProPublica's nonprofit database - shows that the charity did not give States Newsroom or any affiliated organization more than $5,000. The form does not disclose donations smaller than that. Even if they did, is the Hopewell Fund run by Soros? There is no evidence of this. Based on that IRS 990 tax form, we know that Soros doesn't serve as an executive there. We also looked through the IRS 990 tax forms filed by Soros's organization, the Open Society Foundations as well as its sister organization, the Foundation to Promote Open Society, dating back to 2015, the year the Hopewell Fund was founded. We found that neither gave money to the Hopewell Fund. Additionally, neither gave money to States Newsroom or any of its affiliates. At times, projects funded by the Hopewell Fund and Open Society Foundations overlapped. That's not unusual, and none of them amounted to Soros and Open Society Foundations controlling the Hopewell Fund. States Newsroom discloses all donations over $500. Neither the Hopewell Fund nor Soros are listed as donors. Andrea Verykoukis, deputy director of States Newsroom, also said it received no donations from Soros or the Hopewell Fund. Additionally, Thomas Watson, a representative of the Open Society Foundations, said that neither Soros nor his foundation have given funding to States Newsroom or the Missouri Independent. We reached out to Jason Hancock, editor-in-chief and co-founder the Missouri Independent to discuss their policies. Formerly the lead political reporter for The Kansas City Star, Hancock has spent nearly two decades working for news organizations across the Midwest. The Missouri Independent, like other States Newsroom affiliates, is free to read and has no ads. Unlike many traditional newspapers, it funds its journalism through donations made by readers, grants and foundations, but Hancock said this is the only difference between it and other outlets. Where traditional newspapers have subscribers and advertisers, the Missouri Independent has donors. 'Ultimately, what we're doing is not that much different from any other newsroom,' he said. On its website, the Missouri Independent contends that it retains 'full editorial independence, and all editorial decisions are made by our journalists. Donors have no influence over content.' The site pushes investigative beat reporting in state government. Like traditional newspapers, its commentary section is separate from news. Hancock compared the Missouri Independent's business model to NPR-affiliated news radio stations that are usually nonprofit and largely funded by donors and grants. Hancock said that fundraising is left to the national offices at States Newsroom and that the Missouri Independent doesn't deal with any fundraising matters directly. He said that even if he were to cover an event involving a large donor, he would have never met that donor. 'I'm aware of some of the small donors because they may have reached out, like readers who donated 10 bucks or 25 bucks or something like that, but those are the only donors that I'm aware of,' he said. Hancock said even if Soros cut him a check, his coverage wouldn't change. He said it's no different than not letting advertisers dictate your coverage at a traditional newspaper. 'At the end of the day,' Hancock said. 'if you're gonna judge us, judge us based on our work, which I think stands with any other journalistic work out there.' | Our ruling Liberty Alliance said, 'George Soros is starting a Fake News site in Missouri,' referring to the Missouri Independent, but there's no evidence of Soros being involved. Liberty Alliance points to the Missouri Independent's parent organization, States Newsroom, and its ties to the Hopewell Fund as evidence. But IRS tax forms tell us that Soros's foundations have not given any money to the Hopewell Fund, States Newsroom or the Missouri Independent. Soros does not serve in any sort of officer capacity for these organizations. The Missouri Independent is not a 'fake news' site. It's a news organization covering state government politics and policy - not a website peddling hoaxes. Therefore, we rate this claim False. | []
|
'Beware - George Soros is starting a Fake News site in Missouri' | Contradiction | The Missouri Independent is a news outlet that was founded in October in partnership with States Newsroom, a national nonprofit funded by grants, donors and readers. It has created nonprofit news organizations in 19 U.S. states. Liberty Alliance, which advocates for conservative causes, has accused the Missouri Independent of being a liberal propaganda outlet created by left-leaning philanthropist George Soros. In a Facebook post, the group told their supporters, 'Beware - George Soros is starting a Fake News site in Missouri. Don't fall for it - the Missouri Independent is BAD NEWS.' The group has repeatedly made this claim online and even called for conservative elected officials to refuse to give interviews or provide comment to the outlet. This all came to a head when Republican Gov. Mike Parson refused to answer Missouri Independent reporter and deputy editor Rudi Keller's question at a Nov. 5 press conference. 'First of all Rudi, I'm not gonna answer your question,' Parson said before Keller had a chance to speak. 'But I'm gonna tell you this: I am not going to respond to a c4 (nonprofit) out of Virginia that is absolutely a propaganda news agency... This political agenda, whether it's George Soros or people like him, of what you're gonna be doing is not fair to Missouri outlets.' Before co-founding the Missouri Independent, Keller worked for 22 years at the Columbia Daily Tribune and spent 30 years as a journalist. Liberty Alliance has even created a website devoted to trashing the Missouri Independent and its founders. In addition to calling the founders 'Liberals who have made a career of attacking Conservatives,' it repeats the claim that Soros is behind it all. 'George Soros-connected entities started the States Newsroom network as a pet project to spread misinformation to appease their Liberal donors,' it reads. Soros is a Jewish Hungarian whose family hid from the Nazis during the Holocaust and later fled a communist regime in their home country. He eventually emigrated to the United States and became a hedge fund tycoon and one of the wealthiest men in the world. He has used that wealth to support countless liberal causes, largely through his charity, the Open Society Foundations. Conservatives have criticized his use of personal wealth to affect U.S. politics in favor of liberal causes. Soros has also been the target of countless right-wing conspiracy theories including that he is a former Nazi officer, that he's made it his 'life's mission to destroy the United States' and that he instigated racial protests in Charlottesville, Va. PolitiFact and other independent fact-checkers have found these to be false. Where's the connection? Chris Vas, the executive director of Liberty Alliance, pointed to an investigation done by the Open Secrets Center for Responsive Politics, a research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. The investigation detailed a number of news outlets and their financial connections and briefly mentions States Newsroom. It found that States Newsroom had a connection to the Hopewell Fund, a liberal charity that promotes various social projects and left-wing causes, that Vas alleges is run by Soros. States Newsroom's connection to the Hopewell Fund goes back to the early days of the news organization, before the Missouri Independent was founded. States Newsroom is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit supported by grants and donors. According to Influence Watch, an online database that tracks influencers of public policy, the Hopewell Fund served as a fiscal sponsor before States Newsroom's tax-exempt status was approved in July 2019. In November that year, the two organizations separated. Fiscal sponsorship allowed States Newsroom - then known as Newsroom Network - to use Hopewell's legal and tax-exempt status until its nonprofit status was approved. This is a common practice among nonprofits. The Hopewell Fund also managed its funding and performed all the administrative and business functions, such as human resources and legal compliance. States Newsroom and the Missouri Independent said that despite that assistance, the Hopewell Fund did not give any money to the news outlet. The Hopewell Fund's 2018 IRS 990 tax form - which can be accessed via ProPublica's nonprofit database - shows that the charity did not give States Newsroom or any affiliated organization more than $5,000. The form does not disclose donations smaller than that. Even if they did, is the Hopewell Fund run by Soros? There is no evidence of this. Based on that IRS 990 tax form, we know that Soros doesn't serve as an executive there. We also looked through the IRS 990 tax forms filed by Soros's organization, the Open Society Foundations as well as its sister organization, the Foundation to Promote Open Society, dating back to 2015, the year the Hopewell Fund was founded. We found that neither gave money to the Hopewell Fund. Additionally, neither gave money to States Newsroom or any of its affiliates. At times, projects funded by the Hopewell Fund and Open Society Foundations overlapped. That's not unusual, and none of them amounted to Soros and Open Society Foundations controlling the Hopewell Fund. States Newsroom discloses all donations over $500. Neither the Hopewell Fund nor Soros are listed as donors. Andrea Verykoukis, deputy director of States Newsroom, also said it received no donations from Soros or the Hopewell Fund. Additionally, Thomas Watson, a representative of the Open Society Foundations, said that neither Soros nor his foundation have given funding to States Newsroom or the Missouri Independent. We reached out to Jason Hancock, editor-in-chief and co-founder the Missouri Independent to discuss their policies. Formerly the lead political reporter for The Kansas City Star, Hancock has spent nearly two decades working for news organizations across the Midwest. The Missouri Independent, like other States Newsroom affiliates, is free to read and has no ads. Unlike many traditional newspapers, it funds its journalism through donations made by readers, grants and foundations, but Hancock said this is the only difference between it and other outlets. Where traditional newspapers have subscribers and advertisers, the Missouri Independent has donors. 'Ultimately, what we're doing is not that much different from any other newsroom,' he said. On its website, the Missouri Independent contends that it retains 'full editorial independence, and all editorial decisions are made by our journalists. Donors have no influence over content.' The site pushes investigative beat reporting in state government. Like traditional newspapers, its commentary section is separate from news. Hancock compared the Missouri Independent's business model to NPR-affiliated news radio stations that are usually nonprofit and largely funded by donors and grants. Hancock said that fundraising is left to the national offices at States Newsroom and that the Missouri Independent doesn't deal with any fundraising matters directly. He said that even if he were to cover an event involving a large donor, he would have never met that donor. 'I'm aware of some of the small donors because they may have reached out, like readers who donated 10 bucks or 25 bucks or something like that, but those are the only donors that I'm aware of,' he said. Hancock said even if Soros cut him a check, his coverage wouldn't change. He said it's no different than not letting advertisers dictate your coverage at a traditional newspaper. 'At the end of the day,' Hancock said. 'if you're gonna judge us, judge us based on our work, which I think stands with any other journalistic work out there.' | Our ruling Liberty Alliance said, 'George Soros is starting a Fake News site in Missouri,' referring to the Missouri Independent, but there's no evidence of Soros being involved. Liberty Alliance points to the Missouri Independent's parent organization, States Newsroom, and its ties to the Hopewell Fund as evidence. But IRS tax forms tell us that Soros's foundations have not given any money to the Hopewell Fund, States Newsroom or the Missouri Independent. Soros does not serve in any sort of officer capacity for these organizations. The Missouri Independent is not a 'fake news' site. It's a news organization covering state government politics and policy - not a website peddling hoaxes. Therefore, we rate this claim False. | []
|
Georgia didn't update its voter rolls prior to the 2020 presidential election; 'this means we (you!) won the presidential election in Georgia. | Contradiction | Former President Donald Trump distorted Georgia's plans to remove ineligible voters, wrongly suggesting that the state failed to keep the voter rolls up to date before the 2020 election and that therefore, he won. Trump's claim alludes to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's announcement that the state plans to remove 101,789 people from its voter rolls, largely those who have since moved. While that effort is routine, Trump cast it as suspicious. 'But what about the last election? Why wasn't this done prior to the November 3rd presidential election where they had us losing by a very small number of votes, many times less than the 101,789 figure?' Trump said in a June 22 statement from his Save America PAC. 'This means we (you!) won the Presidential Election in Georgia. Trump ended with a familiar refrain: 'The 2020 presidential election was rigged!' Trump's repeated statements that he won the presidential election in Georgia or nationally or that it was rigged are Pants on Fire wrong. Trump's latest claim, that the removal of more than 100,000 people from the voter rolls suggests something nefarious about the 2020 election, ignores the reality. State officials nationwide are in the process of removing ineligible voters. 'This is happening across the U.S. in every state, and it is focused on voters who literally did not vote in 2020,' said Amber McReynolds, CEO of Vote at Home Institute. 'So, Trump clearly does not understand federal law or election processes or procedures.' We asked Trump's Save America PAC for evidence to back up his statements and did not get a reply. Background on routine maintenance of voter rolls Nationwide, voter rolls constantly change. New people register to vote or people are removed after they move away, die, or in some states, after they are convicted of certain crimes. State election officials have programs in place to keep voter rolls up to date. These efforts aren't perfect - sometimes states make errors. But states have gotten better at working together on this front - many, including Georgia, are members of the Electronic Registration Information Center, which shares information about voters. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires states to complete a program to remove ineligible voters who have moved not later than 90 days before a federal election. Some removals can still take place within the 90-day window, such as voters who have died. Georgia election officials removed dead voters throughout 2020. Due to the 90-day rule, states generally avoid mass removals during federal election years. 'Many states, including Georgia, do these activities in odd-numbered years, as this also means that if anyone was inadvertently removed, they have plenty of time to re-register before the next federal election,' said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research. Georgia's plan to clean up its voter rolls Raffensperger announced in June that most of the people slated for removal from Georgia's voter rolls had moved - they had submitted a change of address form to the post office or had election mail returned. These individuals had no contact with elections officials in the past two general elections. Election officials plan to send people a notice that they will be removed and give them 40 days to respond. People who are eventually removed can re-register if they are eligible. The number of voters flagged for removal is smaller than previous years. In 2019, the state removed about 290,000 voters, and in 2017 about 670,000. Additionally, about 18,000 people who have died are being removed from the voter rolls. List maintenance in 2021 has no bearing on the outcome of the 2020 election Trump is wrong to claim that these removals of voters means that he won the election in Georgia. Raffensperger and Gabriel Sterling, also a Republican and a state elections official, stand by Georgia's election procedures, which affirmed Joe Biden's victory in the state. The roughly 5 million ballots cast in Georgia were counted three times, including once by hand. The hand recount uncovered more than 2,600 uncounted votes, most of which favored Trump, in Floyd County. But election officials said the mistake was due to human error, not voter or election fraud. In the end, the certified results showed Biden beat Trump by 11,779 votes in Georgia. Congress accepted the results Jan. 6. | Our ruling Trump said Georgia didn't update its voter rolls prior to the 2020 presidential election and 'this means we (you!) won the presidential election in Georgia.' Trump is wrong on both counts. Federal law requires states to establish programs to keep voter rolls up to date. To comply with the law, Georgia and other states routinely handle such removals in non-federal election years. In 2019, the state removed about 290,000 voters. In 2021, the state is on track to remove about 100,000 voters. The removal of voters who have moved, died or are otherwise ineligible is a routine occurrence, and it doesn't change this fact: Georgia election officials certified the results showing that Trump lost. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. | [
"107282-proof-26-1e813995a1c310ad3b251c2179cb451e.jpg"
]
|
Georgia didn't update its voter rolls prior to the 2020 presidential election; 'this means we (you!) won the presidential election in Georgia. | Contradiction | Former President Donald Trump distorted Georgia's plans to remove ineligible voters, wrongly suggesting that the state failed to keep the voter rolls up to date before the 2020 election and that therefore, he won. Trump's claim alludes to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's announcement that the state plans to remove 101,789 people from its voter rolls, largely those who have since moved. While that effort is routine, Trump cast it as suspicious. 'But what about the last election? Why wasn't this done prior to the November 3rd presidential election where they had us losing by a very small number of votes, many times less than the 101,789 figure?' Trump said in a June 22 statement from his Save America PAC. 'This means we (you!) won the Presidential Election in Georgia. Trump ended with a familiar refrain: 'The 2020 presidential election was rigged!' Trump's repeated statements that he won the presidential election in Georgia or nationally or that it was rigged are Pants on Fire wrong. Trump's latest claim, that the removal of more than 100,000 people from the voter rolls suggests something nefarious about the 2020 election, ignores the reality. State officials nationwide are in the process of removing ineligible voters. 'This is happening across the U.S. in every state, and it is focused on voters who literally did not vote in 2020,' said Amber McReynolds, CEO of Vote at Home Institute. 'So, Trump clearly does not understand federal law or election processes or procedures.' We asked Trump's Save America PAC for evidence to back up his statements and did not get a reply. Background on routine maintenance of voter rolls Nationwide, voter rolls constantly change. New people register to vote or people are removed after they move away, die, or in some states, after they are convicted of certain crimes. State election officials have programs in place to keep voter rolls up to date. These efforts aren't perfect - sometimes states make errors. But states have gotten better at working together on this front - many, including Georgia, are members of the Electronic Registration Information Center, which shares information about voters. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires states to complete a program to remove ineligible voters who have moved not later than 90 days before a federal election. Some removals can still take place within the 90-day window, such as voters who have died. Georgia election officials removed dead voters throughout 2020. Due to the 90-day rule, states generally avoid mass removals during federal election years. 'Many states, including Georgia, do these activities in odd-numbered years, as this also means that if anyone was inadvertently removed, they have plenty of time to re-register before the next federal election,' said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research. Georgia's plan to clean up its voter rolls Raffensperger announced in June that most of the people slated for removal from Georgia's voter rolls had moved - they had submitted a change of address form to the post office or had election mail returned. These individuals had no contact with elections officials in the past two general elections. Election officials plan to send people a notice that they will be removed and give them 40 days to respond. People who are eventually removed can re-register if they are eligible. The number of voters flagged for removal is smaller than previous years. In 2019, the state removed about 290,000 voters, and in 2017 about 670,000. Additionally, about 18,000 people who have died are being removed from the voter rolls. List maintenance in 2021 has no bearing on the outcome of the 2020 election Trump is wrong to claim that these removals of voters means that he won the election in Georgia. Raffensperger and Gabriel Sterling, also a Republican and a state elections official, stand by Georgia's election procedures, which affirmed Joe Biden's victory in the state. The roughly 5 million ballots cast in Georgia were counted three times, including once by hand. The hand recount uncovered more than 2,600 uncounted votes, most of which favored Trump, in Floyd County. But election officials said the mistake was due to human error, not voter or election fraud. In the end, the certified results showed Biden beat Trump by 11,779 votes in Georgia. Congress accepted the results Jan. 6. | Our ruling Trump said Georgia didn't update its voter rolls prior to the 2020 presidential election and 'this means we (you!) won the presidential election in Georgia.' Trump is wrong on both counts. Federal law requires states to establish programs to keep voter rolls up to date. To comply with the law, Georgia and other states routinely handle such removals in non-federal election years. In 2019, the state removed about 290,000 voters. In 2021, the state is on track to remove about 100,000 voters. The removal of voters who have moved, died or are otherwise ineligible is a routine occurrence, and it doesn't change this fact: Georgia election officials certified the results showing that Trump lost. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. | [
"107282-proof-26-1e813995a1c310ad3b251c2179cb451e.jpg"
]
|
Georgia didn't update its voter rolls prior to the 2020 presidential election; 'this means we (you!) won the presidential election in Georgia. | Contradiction | Former President Donald Trump distorted Georgia's plans to remove ineligible voters, wrongly suggesting that the state failed to keep the voter rolls up to date before the 2020 election and that therefore, he won. Trump's claim alludes to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger's announcement that the state plans to remove 101,789 people from its voter rolls, largely those who have since moved. While that effort is routine, Trump cast it as suspicious. 'But what about the last election? Why wasn't this done prior to the November 3rd presidential election where they had us losing by a very small number of votes, many times less than the 101,789 figure?' Trump said in a June 22 statement from his Save America PAC. 'This means we (you!) won the Presidential Election in Georgia. Trump ended with a familiar refrain: 'The 2020 presidential election was rigged!' Trump's repeated statements that he won the presidential election in Georgia or nationally or that it was rigged are Pants on Fire wrong. Trump's latest claim, that the removal of more than 100,000 people from the voter rolls suggests something nefarious about the 2020 election, ignores the reality. State officials nationwide are in the process of removing ineligible voters. 'This is happening across the U.S. in every state, and it is focused on voters who literally did not vote in 2020,' said Amber McReynolds, CEO of Vote at Home Institute. 'So, Trump clearly does not understand federal law or election processes or procedures.' We asked Trump's Save America PAC for evidence to back up his statements and did not get a reply. Background on routine maintenance of voter rolls Nationwide, voter rolls constantly change. New people register to vote or people are removed after they move away, die, or in some states, after they are convicted of certain crimes. State election officials have programs in place to keep voter rolls up to date. These efforts aren't perfect - sometimes states make errors. But states have gotten better at working together on this front - many, including Georgia, are members of the Electronic Registration Information Center, which shares information about voters. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires states to complete a program to remove ineligible voters who have moved not later than 90 days before a federal election. Some removals can still take place within the 90-day window, such as voters who have died. Georgia election officials removed dead voters throughout 2020. Due to the 90-day rule, states generally avoid mass removals during federal election years. 'Many states, including Georgia, do these activities in odd-numbered years, as this also means that if anyone was inadvertently removed, they have plenty of time to re-register before the next federal election,' said David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research. Georgia's plan to clean up its voter rolls Raffensperger announced in June that most of the people slated for removal from Georgia's voter rolls had moved - they had submitted a change of address form to the post office or had election mail returned. These individuals had no contact with elections officials in the past two general elections. Election officials plan to send people a notice that they will be removed and give them 40 days to respond. People who are eventually removed can re-register if they are eligible. The number of voters flagged for removal is smaller than previous years. In 2019, the state removed about 290,000 voters, and in 2017 about 670,000. Additionally, about 18,000 people who have died are being removed from the voter rolls. List maintenance in 2021 has no bearing on the outcome of the 2020 election Trump is wrong to claim that these removals of voters means that he won the election in Georgia. Raffensperger and Gabriel Sterling, also a Republican and a state elections official, stand by Georgia's election procedures, which affirmed Joe Biden's victory in the state. The roughly 5 million ballots cast in Georgia were counted three times, including once by hand. The hand recount uncovered more than 2,600 uncounted votes, most of which favored Trump, in Floyd County. But election officials said the mistake was due to human error, not voter or election fraud. In the end, the certified results showed Biden beat Trump by 11,779 votes in Georgia. Congress accepted the results Jan. 6. | Our ruling Trump said Georgia didn't update its voter rolls prior to the 2020 presidential election and 'this means we (you!) won the presidential election in Georgia.' Trump is wrong on both counts. Federal law requires states to establish programs to keep voter rolls up to date. To comply with the law, Georgia and other states routinely handle such removals in non-federal election years. In 2019, the state removed about 290,000 voters. In 2021, the state is on track to remove about 100,000 voters. The removal of voters who have moved, died or are otherwise ineligible is a routine occurrence, and it doesn't change this fact: Georgia election officials certified the results showing that Trump lost. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. | [
"107282-proof-26-1e813995a1c310ad3b251c2179cb451e.jpg"
]
|
'President Trump has come into contact with a potential coronavirus sufferer!' | Contradiction | A Facebook post on March 9, 2020, the day stock markets were rattled by news about the coronavirus, carried this headline about President Donald Trump and the Conservative Political Action Conference: 'Trump shakes hands with CPAC Chairman - President Trump has come into contact with a potential coronavirus sufferer!' The post, shared by United Kingdom-based Daily Mail, 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 headline exaggerates what happened and raises alarm over the possibility that Trump has been exposed to coronavirus. Based on current reporting, that's not what we know. A Daily Mail spokesman told us the post would be edited to make it clearer. Indeed, before we published this check, they changed it to read, 'The chairman of the American Conservative Union has revealed that he interacted with a 55-year-old man infected with coronavirus before shaking hands with Donald Trump.' Let's take a look. The video post The Daily Mail post includes a looping video clip of Trump on stage at CPAC and shaking hands with a white-haired man before taking the lectern for his speech. Trump spoke on the final day of that conference, which was sponsored by the American Conservative Union and held in National Harbor, Md., Feb. 26-29, 2020. The words that appear as the Daily Mail video plays state that the man, identified as the CPAC chairman, said he had 'interacted with an infected man recovering in New Jersey' before greeting Trump. The facts On March 7, 2020, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan announced that someone who'd traveled to the state Feb. 27-March 1 for the conference was confirmed to have COVID-19. 'Those who attended or worked at the conference may be at some risk for acquiring COVID-19,' Hogan's statement read. The next day, March 8, 2020, the Washington Post reported the following: The man Trump shook hands with is Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union and CPAC. Schlapp said he briefly interacted personally early in the four-day conference with a man infected with the coronavirus. The man has not been identified. Schlapp said he used hand sanitizer regularly during the conference and had not had any symptoms before or after shaking hands with Trump. He said he has been in touch with his own doctor and with the infected patient, who is being quarantined in New Jersey. What the White House and others say The White House has maintained that Trump was never in direct contact with the infected person and does not have any symptoms. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., said in a statement on March 8, 2020, that he 'briefly interacted' with the infected person while at CPAC and would self-quarantine at his Texas home 'out of an abundance of caution.' Rep. Paul A. Gosar, R-Ariz., tweeted that same day that he and three of his staff members are under self-quarantine 'after sustained contact at CPAC' with the person who has the virus. Schlapp told the New York Times he had had incidental contact with the infected person. The Times reported March 9, 2020, that the man, a 55-year-old New Jersey resident, was in stable condition in a hospital. As for the spread of coronavirus, we've reported that: Older people and those with preexisting health conditions are more at risk of developing complications from the coronavirus. For the American public, the immediate risk of coronavirus remains relatively low. The best ways to prevent the spread of the virus are to wash your hands, avoid touching your face, cover your sneezes and coughs, and disinfect your home. | Our ruling A headline on a Daily Mail video shared on Facebook claimed Trump has come into contact with a 'potential coronavirus sufferer.' Trump shook hands with Matt Schlapp, a man who says he had been in contact days earlier with someone who is reportedly being treated for the virus. Schlapp says he has had no symptoms of the illness. Some may argue third-hand contact indicates possible exposure for Trump, but such a conclusion ignores available evidence. While the Daily Mail did qualify its assertion by using the word 'potential' in 'potential coronavirus sufferer,' the headline (which ended in an exclamation point) nevertheless led readers to believe that Trump's exposure is worthy of alarm. Indeed, anyone in a population could be a 'potential' coronavirus sufferer. Based on what is verifiable, we rate the statement Mostly False. | []
|
'President Trump has come into contact with a potential coronavirus sufferer!' | Contradiction | A Facebook post on March 9, 2020, the day stock markets were rattled by news about the coronavirus, carried this headline about President Donald Trump and the Conservative Political Action Conference: 'Trump shakes hands with CPAC Chairman - President Trump has come into contact with a potential coronavirus sufferer!' The post, shared by United Kingdom-based Daily Mail, 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 headline exaggerates what happened and raises alarm over the possibility that Trump has been exposed to coronavirus. Based on current reporting, that's not what we know. A Daily Mail spokesman told us the post would be edited to make it clearer. Indeed, before we published this check, they changed it to read, 'The chairman of the American Conservative Union has revealed that he interacted with a 55-year-old man infected with coronavirus before shaking hands with Donald Trump.' Let's take a look. The video post The Daily Mail post includes a looping video clip of Trump on stage at CPAC and shaking hands with a white-haired man before taking the lectern for his speech. Trump spoke on the final day of that conference, which was sponsored by the American Conservative Union and held in National Harbor, Md., Feb. 26-29, 2020. The words that appear as the Daily Mail video plays state that the man, identified as the CPAC chairman, said he had 'interacted with an infected man recovering in New Jersey' before greeting Trump. The facts On March 7, 2020, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan announced that someone who'd traveled to the state Feb. 27-March 1 for the conference was confirmed to have COVID-19. 'Those who attended or worked at the conference may be at some risk for acquiring COVID-19,' Hogan's statement read. The next day, March 8, 2020, the Washington Post reported the following: The man Trump shook hands with is Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union and CPAC. Schlapp said he briefly interacted personally early in the four-day conference with a man infected with the coronavirus. The man has not been identified. Schlapp said he used hand sanitizer regularly during the conference and had not had any symptoms before or after shaking hands with Trump. He said he has been in touch with his own doctor and with the infected patient, who is being quarantined in New Jersey. What the White House and others say The White House has maintained that Trump was never in direct contact with the infected person and does not have any symptoms. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., said in a statement on March 8, 2020, that he 'briefly interacted' with the infected person while at CPAC and would self-quarantine at his Texas home 'out of an abundance of caution.' Rep. Paul A. Gosar, R-Ariz., tweeted that same day that he and three of his staff members are under self-quarantine 'after sustained contact at CPAC' with the person who has the virus. Schlapp told the New York Times he had had incidental contact with the infected person. The Times reported March 9, 2020, that the man, a 55-year-old New Jersey resident, was in stable condition in a hospital. As for the spread of coronavirus, we've reported that: Older people and those with preexisting health conditions are more at risk of developing complications from the coronavirus. For the American public, the immediate risk of coronavirus remains relatively low. The best ways to prevent the spread of the virus are to wash your hands, avoid touching your face, cover your sneezes and coughs, and disinfect your home. | Our ruling A headline on a Daily Mail video shared on Facebook claimed Trump has come into contact with a 'potential coronavirus sufferer.' Trump shook hands with Matt Schlapp, a man who says he had been in contact days earlier with someone who is reportedly being treated for the virus. Schlapp says he has had no symptoms of the illness. Some may argue third-hand contact indicates possible exposure for Trump, but such a conclusion ignores available evidence. While the Daily Mail did qualify its assertion by using the word 'potential' in 'potential coronavirus sufferer,' the headline (which ended in an exclamation point) nevertheless led readers to believe that Trump's exposure is worthy of alarm. Indeed, anyone in a population could be a 'potential' coronavirus sufferer. Based on what is verifiable, we rate the statement Mostly False. | []
|
'President Trump has come into contact with a potential coronavirus sufferer!' | Contradiction | A Facebook post on March 9, 2020, the day stock markets were rattled by news about the coronavirus, carried this headline about President Donald Trump and the Conservative Political Action Conference: 'Trump shakes hands with CPAC Chairman - President Trump has come into contact with a potential coronavirus sufferer!' The post, shared by United Kingdom-based Daily Mail, 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 headline exaggerates what happened and raises alarm over the possibility that Trump has been exposed to coronavirus. Based on current reporting, that's not what we know. A Daily Mail spokesman told us the post would be edited to make it clearer. Indeed, before we published this check, they changed it to read, 'The chairman of the American Conservative Union has revealed that he interacted with a 55-year-old man infected with coronavirus before shaking hands with Donald Trump.' Let's take a look. The video post The Daily Mail post includes a looping video clip of Trump on stage at CPAC and shaking hands with a white-haired man before taking the lectern for his speech. Trump spoke on the final day of that conference, which was sponsored by the American Conservative Union and held in National Harbor, Md., Feb. 26-29, 2020. The words that appear as the Daily Mail video plays state that the man, identified as the CPAC chairman, said he had 'interacted with an infected man recovering in New Jersey' before greeting Trump. The facts On March 7, 2020, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan announced that someone who'd traveled to the state Feb. 27-March 1 for the conference was confirmed to have COVID-19. 'Those who attended or worked at the conference may be at some risk for acquiring COVID-19,' Hogan's statement read. The next day, March 8, 2020, the Washington Post reported the following: The man Trump shook hands with is Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union and CPAC. Schlapp said he briefly interacted personally early in the four-day conference with a man infected with the coronavirus. The man has not been identified. Schlapp said he used hand sanitizer regularly during the conference and had not had any symptoms before or after shaking hands with Trump. He said he has been in touch with his own doctor and with the infected patient, who is being quarantined in New Jersey. What the White House and others say The White House has maintained that Trump was never in direct contact with the infected person and does not have any symptoms. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., said in a statement on March 8, 2020, that he 'briefly interacted' with the infected person while at CPAC and would self-quarantine at his Texas home 'out of an abundance of caution.' Rep. Paul A. Gosar, R-Ariz., tweeted that same day that he and three of his staff members are under self-quarantine 'after sustained contact at CPAC' with the person who has the virus. Schlapp told the New York Times he had had incidental contact with the infected person. The Times reported March 9, 2020, that the man, a 55-year-old New Jersey resident, was in stable condition in a hospital. As for the spread of coronavirus, we've reported that: Older people and those with preexisting health conditions are more at risk of developing complications from the coronavirus. For the American public, the immediate risk of coronavirus remains relatively low. The best ways to prevent the spread of the virus are to wash your hands, avoid touching your face, cover your sneezes and coughs, and disinfect your home. | Our ruling A headline on a Daily Mail video shared on Facebook claimed Trump has come into contact with a 'potential coronavirus sufferer.' Trump shook hands with Matt Schlapp, a man who says he had been in contact days earlier with someone who is reportedly being treated for the virus. Schlapp says he has had no symptoms of the illness. Some may argue third-hand contact indicates possible exposure for Trump, but such a conclusion ignores available evidence. While the Daily Mail did qualify its assertion by using the word 'potential' in 'potential coronavirus sufferer,' the headline (which ended in an exclamation point) nevertheless led readers to believe that Trump's exposure is worthy of alarm. Indeed, anyone in a population could be a 'potential' coronavirus sufferer. Based on what is verifiable, we rate the statement Mostly False. | []
|
'President Trump has come into contact with a potential coronavirus sufferer!' | Contradiction | A Facebook post on March 9, 2020, the day stock markets were rattled by news about the coronavirus, carried this headline about President Donald Trump and the Conservative Political Action Conference: 'Trump shakes hands with CPAC Chairman - President Trump has come into contact with a potential coronavirus sufferer!' The post, shared by United Kingdom-based Daily Mail, 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 headline exaggerates what happened and raises alarm over the possibility that Trump has been exposed to coronavirus. Based on current reporting, that's not what we know. A Daily Mail spokesman told us the post would be edited to make it clearer. Indeed, before we published this check, they changed it to read, 'The chairman of the American Conservative Union has revealed that he interacted with a 55-year-old man infected with coronavirus before shaking hands with Donald Trump.' Let's take a look. The video post The Daily Mail post includes a looping video clip of Trump on stage at CPAC and shaking hands with a white-haired man before taking the lectern for his speech. Trump spoke on the final day of that conference, which was sponsored by the American Conservative Union and held in National Harbor, Md., Feb. 26-29, 2020. The words that appear as the Daily Mail video plays state that the man, identified as the CPAC chairman, said he had 'interacted with an infected man recovering in New Jersey' before greeting Trump. The facts On March 7, 2020, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan announced that someone who'd traveled to the state Feb. 27-March 1 for the conference was confirmed to have COVID-19. 'Those who attended or worked at the conference may be at some risk for acquiring COVID-19,' Hogan's statement read. The next day, March 8, 2020, the Washington Post reported the following: The man Trump shook hands with is Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union and CPAC. Schlapp said he briefly interacted personally early in the four-day conference with a man infected with the coronavirus. The man has not been identified. Schlapp said he used hand sanitizer regularly during the conference and had not had any symptoms before or after shaking hands with Trump. He said he has been in touch with his own doctor and with the infected patient, who is being quarantined in New Jersey. What the White House and others say The White House has maintained that Trump was never in direct contact with the infected person and does not have any symptoms. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., said in a statement on March 8, 2020, that he 'briefly interacted' with the infected person while at CPAC and would self-quarantine at his Texas home 'out of an abundance of caution.' Rep. Paul A. Gosar, R-Ariz., tweeted that same day that he and three of his staff members are under self-quarantine 'after sustained contact at CPAC' with the person who has the virus. Schlapp told the New York Times he had had incidental contact with the infected person. The Times reported March 9, 2020, that the man, a 55-year-old New Jersey resident, was in stable condition in a hospital. As for the spread of coronavirus, we've reported that: Older people and those with preexisting health conditions are more at risk of developing complications from the coronavirus. For the American public, the immediate risk of coronavirus remains relatively low. The best ways to prevent the spread of the virus are to wash your hands, avoid touching your face, cover your sneezes and coughs, and disinfect your home. | Our ruling A headline on a Daily Mail video shared on Facebook claimed Trump has come into contact with a 'potential coronavirus sufferer.' Trump shook hands with Matt Schlapp, a man who says he had been in contact days earlier with someone who is reportedly being treated for the virus. Schlapp says he has had no symptoms of the illness. Some may argue third-hand contact indicates possible exposure for Trump, but such a conclusion ignores available evidence. While the Daily Mail did qualify its assertion by using the word 'potential' in 'potential coronavirus sufferer,' the headline (which ended in an exclamation point) nevertheless led readers to believe that Trump's exposure is worthy of alarm. Indeed, anyone in a population could be a 'potential' coronavirus sufferer. Based on what is verifiable, we rate the statement Mostly False. | []
|
'Clearly, the Obama administration did not leave any kind of game plan for something like this. | Contradiction | Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell alleged that the Obama administration did not provide the Trump administration with any information about the threat of a possible pandemic during a May 11 Team Trump Facebook Live video discussion with Lara Trump. 'They claim pandemics only happen once every 100 years, but what if that is no longer true? We want to be ready, early, for the next one. Because clearly, the Obama administration did not leave any kind of game plan for something like this,' said McConnell. This claim caught our attention because its definitive nature was directly at odds with the position of some former Obama administration officials, who immediately disputed it and started circulating on social media the link to such a plan. We reached out to McConnell's press team to ask for the basis of his statement. McConnell's spokesperson David Popp said in an emailed response that 'this is a unique crisis and we are all adapting to the public health and economic challenges.' In terms of the pandemic's economic impact, he said there was 'definitely no playbook there' and instead credited McConnell with his work on the CARES act, a coronavirus relief bill passed by Congress. The pandemic playbook Soon after McConnell made his playbook comment, Ronald Klain, who was the White House Ebola response coordinator from October 2014 to February 2015, tweeted out a link to a document titled 'Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents.' The document, originally unearthed in March by Politico, is a 69-page National Security Council guidebook developed in 2016 with the goal of assisting leaders 'in coordinating a complex U.S. Government response to a high-consequence emerging disease threat anywhere in the world.' It outlined questions to ask, who should be asked to get the answers and what key decisions should be made. Nicole Lurie, another Obama administration official, confirmed to us the existence of the NSC pandemic playbook and also said similar documents were created for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 'To say there was no playbook was ridiculous,' said Lurie, who served as the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at HHS during both terms of the Obama administration. The playbook lists types of infectious disease threats that could emerge. 'Novel coronaviruses' were among pathogens flagged as having potential to cause heightened concern. Lurie said that there were tabletop exercises, which included planning for a pandemic-like situation, during the transition between the Obama and Trump administrations. (The Trump administration also conducted an exercise - known as 'Crimson Contagion' - in 2019.) Other Obama-era officials offered similar stories in interviews this week with CNN: 'They were extensively briefed, to the extent that they paid attention to these things during the transition,' said Jeremy Konyndyk, who directed USAID's Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance. 'We absolutely did leave a plan. It was called a playbook,' said Lisa Monaco, who was a former homeland security adviser to President Obama The goal, she said, was to share the lessons learned during Ebola and Zika. Meanwhile, Peter Loge, who served as a senior adviser within Obama's Food and Drug Administration, told KHN he remembered a very clear message from the HHS secretary regarding the presidential transition. 'Our job was to set up the Trump political staff for success, and we took that mandate very seriously,' said Loge. He and his colleagues wrote memos to inform the Trump staff about priority issues. 'But nobody called me and asked what I was doing in my job,' said Loge. However, the Trump administration has maintained that the coronavirus sneaked up on the U.S., and Trump himself has even said it was a 'very unforeseen thing.' But, in a May 14 exchange with reporters on the White House lawn, press secretary Kayleigh McEnany acknowledged the existence of the Obama pandemic playbook, even holding it up to show the press. She also dismissed its usefulness. 'The Obama-Biden plan that has been referenced was insufficient. It wasn't going to work. What our administration did under the leadership of President Trump was do an entire 2018 pandemic preparedness report,' said McEnany. Trump, who was standing nearby, agreed. | Our ruling Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Obama administration did not leave behind a 'game plan' for a pandemic. That's wrong. Multiple Obama-era officials have said they left a 2016 'pandemic playbook' that detailed exact steps to take in the event of an infectious disease outbreak. The White House press secretary even held up the actual document on the White House lawn. There has been discussion in recent days as to whether the Obama plan was dated because it dealt with lessons learned from earlier outbreaks that may not apply to the current pandemic. Still, McConnell's statement focused only on whether any such 'game plan' existed, and ample evidence suggests it did. We rate it Pants on Fire. UPDATE, May 15, 2020: In a Fox News interview, McConnell acknowledged that he was incorrect in his assertion that the Obama administration didn't leave behind any kind of 'game plan' regarding a pandemic threat. 'I was wrong. They did leave behind a plan so I clearly made a mistake in that regard,' McConnell said May 14. | []
|
'Clearly, the Obama administration did not leave any kind of game plan for something like this. | Contradiction | Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell alleged that the Obama administration did not provide the Trump administration with any information about the threat of a possible pandemic during a May 11 Team Trump Facebook Live video discussion with Lara Trump. 'They claim pandemics only happen once every 100 years, but what if that is no longer true? We want to be ready, early, for the next one. Because clearly, the Obama administration did not leave any kind of game plan for something like this,' said McConnell. This claim caught our attention because its definitive nature was directly at odds with the position of some former Obama administration officials, who immediately disputed it and started circulating on social media the link to such a plan. We reached out to McConnell's press team to ask for the basis of his statement. McConnell's spokesperson David Popp said in an emailed response that 'this is a unique crisis and we are all adapting to the public health and economic challenges.' In terms of the pandemic's economic impact, he said there was 'definitely no playbook there' and instead credited McConnell with his work on the CARES act, a coronavirus relief bill passed by Congress. The pandemic playbook Soon after McConnell made his playbook comment, Ronald Klain, who was the White House Ebola response coordinator from October 2014 to February 2015, tweeted out a link to a document titled 'Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents.' The document, originally unearthed in March by Politico, is a 69-page National Security Council guidebook developed in 2016 with the goal of assisting leaders 'in coordinating a complex U.S. Government response to a high-consequence emerging disease threat anywhere in the world.' It outlined questions to ask, who should be asked to get the answers and what key decisions should be made. Nicole Lurie, another Obama administration official, confirmed to us the existence of the NSC pandemic playbook and also said similar documents were created for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 'To say there was no playbook was ridiculous,' said Lurie, who served as the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at HHS during both terms of the Obama administration. The playbook lists types of infectious disease threats that could emerge. 'Novel coronaviruses' were among pathogens flagged as having potential to cause heightened concern. Lurie said that there were tabletop exercises, which included planning for a pandemic-like situation, during the transition between the Obama and Trump administrations. (The Trump administration also conducted an exercise - known as 'Crimson Contagion' - in 2019.) Other Obama-era officials offered similar stories in interviews this week with CNN: 'They were extensively briefed, to the extent that they paid attention to these things during the transition,' said Jeremy Konyndyk, who directed USAID's Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance. 'We absolutely did leave a plan. It was called a playbook,' said Lisa Monaco, who was a former homeland security adviser to President Obama The goal, she said, was to share the lessons learned during Ebola and Zika. Meanwhile, Peter Loge, who served as a senior adviser within Obama's Food and Drug Administration, told KHN he remembered a very clear message from the HHS secretary regarding the presidential transition. 'Our job was to set up the Trump political staff for success, and we took that mandate very seriously,' said Loge. He and his colleagues wrote memos to inform the Trump staff about priority issues. 'But nobody called me and asked what I was doing in my job,' said Loge. However, the Trump administration has maintained that the coronavirus sneaked up on the U.S., and Trump himself has even said it was a 'very unforeseen thing.' But, in a May 14 exchange with reporters on the White House lawn, press secretary Kayleigh McEnany acknowledged the existence of the Obama pandemic playbook, even holding it up to show the press. She also dismissed its usefulness. 'The Obama-Biden plan that has been referenced was insufficient. It wasn't going to work. What our administration did under the leadership of President Trump was do an entire 2018 pandemic preparedness report,' said McEnany. Trump, who was standing nearby, agreed. | Our ruling Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Obama administration did not leave behind a 'game plan' for a pandemic. That's wrong. Multiple Obama-era officials have said they left a 2016 'pandemic playbook' that detailed exact steps to take in the event of an infectious disease outbreak. The White House press secretary even held up the actual document on the White House lawn. There has been discussion in recent days as to whether the Obama plan was dated because it dealt with lessons learned from earlier outbreaks that may not apply to the current pandemic. Still, McConnell's statement focused only on whether any such 'game plan' existed, and ample evidence suggests it did. We rate it Pants on Fire. UPDATE, May 15, 2020: In a Fox News interview, McConnell acknowledged that he was incorrect in his assertion that the Obama administration didn't leave behind any kind of 'game plan' regarding a pandemic threat. 'I was wrong. They did leave behind a plan so I clearly made a mistake in that regard,' McConnell said May 14. | []
|
If Donald Trump 'didn't win Michigan why does the actual government site say he did?' | Contradiction | A screenshot of the Michigan secretary of state's website has caused confusion after the election, leading some people to wrongly suggest that President Donald Trump won there. We've already debunked the claim that news organizations called the state for Joe Biden even though Trump had more votes. Another social media post from singer Kaya Jones shared the screenshot and said: 'If he didn't win Michigan why does the actual government site say he did? Hmm.' 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 an archived version of the secretary of state's election results page showing what it looked like when the screenshot was taken. Then, the results were last updated at 9:37 p.m. on Nov. 3. They reflected that Biden had about 2.1 million votes, or nearly 47% of the votes counted and that Trump had 2.3 million votes, or about 51%. The Associated Press had declared Biden the winner in Michigan about four hours earlier, but they called the race based on data that was not yet posted on the secretary of state's website. A spokesperson for the office told us that its website is always the last place election results are updated, and that people should check county websites first for more up-to-date information. The unofficial Michigan election results now on the secretary of state's website - last updated at 5:54 p.m. on Nov. 9 - show Biden with 2.79 million votes, or 50.57%. Trump won 2.64 million votes, or 47.91%, according to the page. We rate this Instagram post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this Instagram post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
If Donald Trump 'didn't win Michigan why does the actual government site say he did?' | Contradiction | A screenshot of the Michigan secretary of state's website has caused confusion after the election, leading some people to wrongly suggest that President Donald Trump won there. We've already debunked the claim that news organizations called the state for Joe Biden even though Trump had more votes. Another social media post from singer Kaya Jones shared the screenshot and said: 'If he didn't win Michigan why does the actual government site say he did? Hmm.' 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 an archived version of the secretary of state's election results page showing what it looked like when the screenshot was taken. Then, the results were last updated at 9:37 p.m. on Nov. 3. They reflected that Biden had about 2.1 million votes, or nearly 47% of the votes counted and that Trump had 2.3 million votes, or about 51%. The Associated Press had declared Biden the winner in Michigan about four hours earlier, but they called the race based on data that was not yet posted on the secretary of state's website. A spokesperson for the office told us that its website is always the last place election results are updated, and that people should check county websites first for more up-to-date information. The unofficial Michigan election results now on the secretary of state's website - last updated at 5:54 p.m. on Nov. 9 - show Biden with 2.79 million votes, or 50.57%. Trump won 2.64 million votes, or 47.91%, according to the page. We rate this Instagram post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this Instagram post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Dominion and Smartmatic 'have closed up shop' and executives are 'on the run. | Contradiction | Conspiracy theories continue to swirl around Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, two voting technology companies. A social media post is now claiming the two companies have stopped doing business, and that their executives are evading law enforcement. 'Dominion and Smartmatic have closed up shop all around the world and all execs have gone on the run. What does that tell you???' a Nov. 21 Facebook post read. 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.) PolitiFact has debunked several claims about Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic in the past month as President Donald Trump and his supporters continue to promote conspiracy theories around the companies that make voting machines and software. Both Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems have their websites or pages dedicated to debunking false rumors as they emerge. Dominion's site says: 'Dominion is not shuttering its offices. Employees have been encouraged to work remotely and protect their social media profiles due to persistent harassment and threats against personal safety.' A Dominion spokesperson declined to comment further on personnel matters. The company said in a statement that employees are working with law enforcement and taking other measures 'to ensure the safety of our employees.' A Smartmatic spokesperson also told PolitiFact it has not shut down. 'Smartmatic has not closed any offices following the US election,' Smartmatic said in a statement. 'We continue to operate in our offices around the world, although we already have many employees working from home (since March) as a result of the pandemic.' There are no reports or evidence that the companies' executives are suspected of any crime or are 'on the run.' We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Dominion and Smartmatic 'have closed up shop' and executives are 'on the run. | Contradiction | Conspiracy theories continue to swirl around Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, two voting technology companies. A social media post is now claiming the two companies have stopped doing business, and that their executives are evading law enforcement. 'Dominion and Smartmatic have closed up shop all around the world and all execs have gone on the run. What does that tell you???' a Nov. 21 Facebook post read. 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.) PolitiFact has debunked several claims about Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic in the past month as President Donald Trump and his supporters continue to promote conspiracy theories around the companies that make voting machines and software. Both Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems have their websites or pages dedicated to debunking false rumors as they emerge. Dominion's site says: 'Dominion is not shuttering its offices. Employees have been encouraged to work remotely and protect their social media profiles due to persistent harassment and threats against personal safety.' A Dominion spokesperson declined to comment further on personnel matters. The company said in a statement that employees are working with law enforcement and taking other measures 'to ensure the safety of our employees.' A Smartmatic spokesperson also told PolitiFact it has not shut down. 'Smartmatic has not closed any offices following the US election,' Smartmatic said in a statement. 'We continue to operate in our offices around the world, although we already have many employees working from home (since March) as a result of the pandemic.' There are no reports or evidence that the companies' executives are suspected of any crime or are 'on the run.' We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Dominion and Smartmatic 'have closed up shop' and executives are 'on the run. | Contradiction | Conspiracy theories continue to swirl around Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, two voting technology companies. A social media post is now claiming the two companies have stopped doing business, and that their executives are evading law enforcement. 'Dominion and Smartmatic have closed up shop all around the world and all execs have gone on the run. What does that tell you???' a Nov. 21 Facebook post read. 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.) PolitiFact has debunked several claims about Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic in the past month as President Donald Trump and his supporters continue to promote conspiracy theories around the companies that make voting machines and software. Both Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems have their websites or pages dedicated to debunking false rumors as they emerge. Dominion's site says: 'Dominion is not shuttering its offices. Employees have been encouraged to work remotely and protect their social media profiles due to persistent harassment and threats against personal safety.' A Dominion spokesperson declined to comment further on personnel matters. The company said in a statement that employees are working with law enforcement and taking other measures 'to ensure the safety of our employees.' A Smartmatic spokesperson also told PolitiFact it has not shut down. 'Smartmatic has not closed any offices following the US election,' Smartmatic said in a statement. 'We continue to operate in our offices around the world, although we already have many employees working from home (since March) as a result of the pandemic.' There are no reports or evidence that the companies' executives are suspected of any crime or are 'on the run.' We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.