claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Says 'every time' the DSCC endorsed someone in North Carolina's U.S. Senate primary, 'and the person they didn't support was black, the candidate they picked ended up losing. | Contradiction | When it comes to endorsements, North Carolina's political parties mostly refrain from picking favorites in primary elections. The same is not true for organizations in Washington. This year the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is supporting Cal Cunningham in North Carolina's U.S. Senate race. The DSCC picked Cunningham over Erica Smith, Trevor Fuller and Atul Goel, who are all vying to face incumbent Republican Thom Tillis. The DSCC's decision didn't go over well with the Rev. William Barber, a liberal activist from North Carolina. Smith, who is black, along with Cunningham is considered a top primary competitor. 'Every time this has happened in the past & the person they didn't support was black, the candidate they picked ended up losing in the fall b/c Dems unnecessarily divided themselves in the primary,' Barber tweeted on Feb. 20, adding that the DSCC should stay out of the primary. Is it true that every time the DSCC has endorsed a candidate in North Carolina's US Senate primary, and overlooked a black Democrat, the endorsed candidate went on to lose? Martha Waggoner, a spokeswoman for Barber, said Barber had one race in mind, back in 2002. That year, 'the Democratic establishment went outside its normal way of doing business and endorsed Erskine Bowles in a primary race that included Dan Blue,' she said. Bowles beat Blue in the Democratic primary, then went on to lose to Republican Elizabeth Dole. Blue is now the minority leader in the state Senate. 'Since Blue was the only previous Democratic African American candidate for U.S. Senate here, his use of 'every time' was referring to this instance,' she said. But the claims by Waggoner and Barber are both inaccurate. In recent years, several black candidates filed to run for Senate in North Carolina. And in 2008, the DSCC overlooked a black candidate to support Kay Hagan, who went on to win the seat. To check Barber's claim, we searched for an election where: A black Democrat filed to run for U.S. Senate in North Carolina, In the primary, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee supported a candidate who is not black, The DSCC's chosen candidate went on to win. This situation happened with Hagan. Hagan over Dole North Carolina voters have only elected two Democrats to the U.S. Senate over the last 22 years: Hagan in 2008 and John Edwards in 1998. In 2008, five Democrats signed up to run against incumbent Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole: Hagan, Duskin Lassiter, Jim Neal, Howard Staley, and Marcus Williams. Williams, an attorney, was the only black candidate in the race. News reports show that the DSCC not only backed Hagan in the primary, but talked her into running. Indyweek reported in 2008 that the DSCC, along with state Democratic leaders, 'talked Hagan into running last fall just weeks after she announced that she wouldn't.' The News & Observer reported in 2007 that Hagan was recruited by former Gov. Jim Hunt and New York Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, after they had tried unsuccessfully to recruit state Rep. Grier Martin of Raleigh. DSCC spokesman Matt Miller told Politico in 2008 that his group 'worked hard to get Hagan; we really thought Dole was vulnerable,' he said, adding: 'Hagan has turned out to be a great candidate, all under the D.C. radar.' Campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission show the DSCC spent tens of thousands of dollars on Hagan's campaign prior to the May 6, 2008, primary. Black Senate candidates In North Carolina, several black candidates have run for U.S. Senate in recent years. And the DSCC hasn't endorsed any of them. But the DSCC's pick has not usually worked out in the general election. In 2016, Ernest Reeves and Chris Rey were defeated in the Democratic primary by Deborah Ross, who was endorsed by the DSCC. In the general election, Ross lost to incumbent Republican Richard Burr. In 2014, Hagan was the incumbent. Reeves ran against her in the primary and lost. Hagan went on to lose to Tillis. In 2010, there were three black candidates: Ken Lewis, Ann Worthy and the same Marcus Williams from 2008. As in 2020, the DSCC supported Cunningham in the primary. But it was Elaine Marshall who won the Democratic nomination. She then lost to Burr in the general election. Recent DSCC picks Another of Barber's Feb. 20 tweets was a little more on-point. 'People from DC picking candidates in NC hasn't been a winning formula & opens up criticism of racial favoritism,' Barber tweeted. Dating back to 2008, there have been four US Senate elections in North Carolina. In one case, the DSCC's candidate won the primary and the general election. In two cases, the DSCC-supported candidate won the primary but lost the general. And in one case, 2010, the DSCC backed a candidate who didn't even win the primary. When PolitiFact shared its findings with Barber, he credited Hagan's 2008 win to 'Obama's coattails.' 'It was an election like no other, and the endorsement still wasn't right. Let North Carolinians choose their own candidate. After the primary, everybody can get behind that person,' he said in an email. | Our ruling Barber said that 'every time' the Democratic establishment overlooked a black candidate and endorsed someone else in the U.S. Senate primary, that candidate went on to lose. Records show that there was a black candidate, Marcus Williams, in the 2008 U.S. Senate race. That year, the DSCC backed Kay Hagan in the primary and she went on to beat incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole. Barber's claim was too sweeping. He's right that the DSCC doesn't have a great record in North Carolina. But he's wrong to say the DSCC-backed candidate has lost 'every time' it overlooked a black Democrat. We rate this claim False. | [
"107303-proof-53-45a390323516303ae7828ef05d671e8e.jpg"
]
|
Says 'every time' the DSCC endorsed someone in North Carolina's U.S. Senate primary, 'and the person they didn't support was black, the candidate they picked ended up losing. | Contradiction | When it comes to endorsements, North Carolina's political parties mostly refrain from picking favorites in primary elections. The same is not true for organizations in Washington. This year the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is supporting Cal Cunningham in North Carolina's U.S. Senate race. The DSCC picked Cunningham over Erica Smith, Trevor Fuller and Atul Goel, who are all vying to face incumbent Republican Thom Tillis. The DSCC's decision didn't go over well with the Rev. William Barber, a liberal activist from North Carolina. Smith, who is black, along with Cunningham is considered a top primary competitor. 'Every time this has happened in the past & the person they didn't support was black, the candidate they picked ended up losing in the fall b/c Dems unnecessarily divided themselves in the primary,' Barber tweeted on Feb. 20, adding that the DSCC should stay out of the primary. Is it true that every time the DSCC has endorsed a candidate in North Carolina's US Senate primary, and overlooked a black Democrat, the endorsed candidate went on to lose? Martha Waggoner, a spokeswoman for Barber, said Barber had one race in mind, back in 2002. That year, 'the Democratic establishment went outside its normal way of doing business and endorsed Erskine Bowles in a primary race that included Dan Blue,' she said. Bowles beat Blue in the Democratic primary, then went on to lose to Republican Elizabeth Dole. Blue is now the minority leader in the state Senate. 'Since Blue was the only previous Democratic African American candidate for U.S. Senate here, his use of 'every time' was referring to this instance,' she said. But the claims by Waggoner and Barber are both inaccurate. In recent years, several black candidates filed to run for Senate in North Carolina. And in 2008, the DSCC overlooked a black candidate to support Kay Hagan, who went on to win the seat. To check Barber's claim, we searched for an election where: A black Democrat filed to run for U.S. Senate in North Carolina, In the primary, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee supported a candidate who is not black, The DSCC's chosen candidate went on to win. This situation happened with Hagan. Hagan over Dole North Carolina voters have only elected two Democrats to the U.S. Senate over the last 22 years: Hagan in 2008 and John Edwards in 1998. In 2008, five Democrats signed up to run against incumbent Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole: Hagan, Duskin Lassiter, Jim Neal, Howard Staley, and Marcus Williams. Williams, an attorney, was the only black candidate in the race. News reports show that the DSCC not only backed Hagan in the primary, but talked her into running. Indyweek reported in 2008 that the DSCC, along with state Democratic leaders, 'talked Hagan into running last fall just weeks after she announced that she wouldn't.' The News & Observer reported in 2007 that Hagan was recruited by former Gov. Jim Hunt and New York Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, after they had tried unsuccessfully to recruit state Rep. Grier Martin of Raleigh. DSCC spokesman Matt Miller told Politico in 2008 that his group 'worked hard to get Hagan; we really thought Dole was vulnerable,' he said, adding: 'Hagan has turned out to be a great candidate, all under the D.C. radar.' Campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission show the DSCC spent tens of thousands of dollars on Hagan's campaign prior to the May 6, 2008, primary. Black Senate candidates In North Carolina, several black candidates have run for U.S. Senate in recent years. And the DSCC hasn't endorsed any of them. But the DSCC's pick has not usually worked out in the general election. In 2016, Ernest Reeves and Chris Rey were defeated in the Democratic primary by Deborah Ross, who was endorsed by the DSCC. In the general election, Ross lost to incumbent Republican Richard Burr. In 2014, Hagan was the incumbent. Reeves ran against her in the primary and lost. Hagan went on to lose to Tillis. In 2010, there were three black candidates: Ken Lewis, Ann Worthy and the same Marcus Williams from 2008. As in 2020, the DSCC supported Cunningham in the primary. But it was Elaine Marshall who won the Democratic nomination. She then lost to Burr in the general election. Recent DSCC picks Another of Barber's Feb. 20 tweets was a little more on-point. 'People from DC picking candidates in NC hasn't been a winning formula & opens up criticism of racial favoritism,' Barber tweeted. Dating back to 2008, there have been four US Senate elections in North Carolina. In one case, the DSCC's candidate won the primary and the general election. In two cases, the DSCC-supported candidate won the primary but lost the general. And in one case, 2010, the DSCC backed a candidate who didn't even win the primary. When PolitiFact shared its findings with Barber, he credited Hagan's 2008 win to 'Obama's coattails.' 'It was an election like no other, and the endorsement still wasn't right. Let North Carolinians choose their own candidate. After the primary, everybody can get behind that person,' he said in an email. | Our ruling Barber said that 'every time' the Democratic establishment overlooked a black candidate and endorsed someone else in the U.S. Senate primary, that candidate went on to lose. Records show that there was a black candidate, Marcus Williams, in the 2008 U.S. Senate race. That year, the DSCC backed Kay Hagan in the primary and she went on to beat incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole. Barber's claim was too sweeping. He's right that the DSCC doesn't have a great record in North Carolina. But he's wrong to say the DSCC-backed candidate has lost 'every time' it overlooked a black Democrat. We rate this claim False. | [
"107303-proof-53-45a390323516303ae7828ef05d671e8e.jpg"
]
|
Says 'every time' the DSCC endorsed someone in North Carolina's U.S. Senate primary, 'and the person they didn't support was black, the candidate they picked ended up losing. | Contradiction | When it comes to endorsements, North Carolina's political parties mostly refrain from picking favorites in primary elections. The same is not true for organizations in Washington. This year the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is supporting Cal Cunningham in North Carolina's U.S. Senate race. The DSCC picked Cunningham over Erica Smith, Trevor Fuller and Atul Goel, who are all vying to face incumbent Republican Thom Tillis. The DSCC's decision didn't go over well with the Rev. William Barber, a liberal activist from North Carolina. Smith, who is black, along with Cunningham is considered a top primary competitor. 'Every time this has happened in the past & the person they didn't support was black, the candidate they picked ended up losing in the fall b/c Dems unnecessarily divided themselves in the primary,' Barber tweeted on Feb. 20, adding that the DSCC should stay out of the primary. Is it true that every time the DSCC has endorsed a candidate in North Carolina's US Senate primary, and overlooked a black Democrat, the endorsed candidate went on to lose? Martha Waggoner, a spokeswoman for Barber, said Barber had one race in mind, back in 2002. That year, 'the Democratic establishment went outside its normal way of doing business and endorsed Erskine Bowles in a primary race that included Dan Blue,' she said. Bowles beat Blue in the Democratic primary, then went on to lose to Republican Elizabeth Dole. Blue is now the minority leader in the state Senate. 'Since Blue was the only previous Democratic African American candidate for U.S. Senate here, his use of 'every time' was referring to this instance,' she said. But the claims by Waggoner and Barber are both inaccurate. In recent years, several black candidates filed to run for Senate in North Carolina. And in 2008, the DSCC overlooked a black candidate to support Kay Hagan, who went on to win the seat. To check Barber's claim, we searched for an election where: A black Democrat filed to run for U.S. Senate in North Carolina, In the primary, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee supported a candidate who is not black, The DSCC's chosen candidate went on to win. This situation happened with Hagan. Hagan over Dole North Carolina voters have only elected two Democrats to the U.S. Senate over the last 22 years: Hagan in 2008 and John Edwards in 1998. In 2008, five Democrats signed up to run against incumbent Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole: Hagan, Duskin Lassiter, Jim Neal, Howard Staley, and Marcus Williams. Williams, an attorney, was the only black candidate in the race. News reports show that the DSCC not only backed Hagan in the primary, but talked her into running. Indyweek reported in 2008 that the DSCC, along with state Democratic leaders, 'talked Hagan into running last fall just weeks after she announced that she wouldn't.' The News & Observer reported in 2007 that Hagan was recruited by former Gov. Jim Hunt and New York Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, after they had tried unsuccessfully to recruit state Rep. Grier Martin of Raleigh. DSCC spokesman Matt Miller told Politico in 2008 that his group 'worked hard to get Hagan; we really thought Dole was vulnerable,' he said, adding: 'Hagan has turned out to be a great candidate, all under the D.C. radar.' Campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission show the DSCC spent tens of thousands of dollars on Hagan's campaign prior to the May 6, 2008, primary. Black Senate candidates In North Carolina, several black candidates have run for U.S. Senate in recent years. And the DSCC hasn't endorsed any of them. But the DSCC's pick has not usually worked out in the general election. In 2016, Ernest Reeves and Chris Rey were defeated in the Democratic primary by Deborah Ross, who was endorsed by the DSCC. In the general election, Ross lost to incumbent Republican Richard Burr. In 2014, Hagan was the incumbent. Reeves ran against her in the primary and lost. Hagan went on to lose to Tillis. In 2010, there were three black candidates: Ken Lewis, Ann Worthy and the same Marcus Williams from 2008. As in 2020, the DSCC supported Cunningham in the primary. But it was Elaine Marshall who won the Democratic nomination. She then lost to Burr in the general election. Recent DSCC picks Another of Barber's Feb. 20 tweets was a little more on-point. 'People from DC picking candidates in NC hasn't been a winning formula & opens up criticism of racial favoritism,' Barber tweeted. Dating back to 2008, there have been four US Senate elections in North Carolina. In one case, the DSCC's candidate won the primary and the general election. In two cases, the DSCC-supported candidate won the primary but lost the general. And in one case, 2010, the DSCC backed a candidate who didn't even win the primary. When PolitiFact shared its findings with Barber, he credited Hagan's 2008 win to 'Obama's coattails.' 'It was an election like no other, and the endorsement still wasn't right. Let North Carolinians choose their own candidate. After the primary, everybody can get behind that person,' he said in an email. | Our ruling Barber said that 'every time' the Democratic establishment overlooked a black candidate and endorsed someone else in the U.S. Senate primary, that candidate went on to lose. Records show that there was a black candidate, Marcus Williams, in the 2008 U.S. Senate race. That year, the DSCC backed Kay Hagan in the primary and she went on to beat incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole. Barber's claim was too sweeping. He's right that the DSCC doesn't have a great record in North Carolina. But he's wrong to say the DSCC-backed candidate has lost 'every time' it overlooked a black Democrat. We rate this claim False. | [
"107303-proof-53-45a390323516303ae7828ef05d671e8e.jpg"
]
|
The Paris Climate Agreement is 'bad for America,' because it 'does nothing to hold real polluters, like Communist China and India, accountable. | Contradiction | President Joe Biden has been systematically undoing former President Donald Trump's policies on climate change. Case in point - Trump took the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement. On Biden's first day, he signed paperwork to bring the United States back in. Under the Paris agreement, about 200 nations promised to set goals to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. Each nation decides for itself what its goal will be. The hope is that cumulatively, those reductions would limit global temperature increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, criticized Biden's move. 'We have to stop joining deals that are bad for America,' Scott said in a statement to the press. 'President Biden is throwing the U.S. back into the Paris Agreement just to appease his liberal friends. This deal does nothing to hold real polluters, like Communist China and India, accountable.' There's debate over how well the agreement's overall approach will meet the challenge of climate change. Here, we focus on Scott's claim that the agreement puts the U.S. at a disadvantage because it does nothing to hold 'real' polluters like China and India accountable. Limited enforcement Under the agreement, each country submits a set of greenhouse gas reduction targets called a Nationally Determined Contribution. Countries have been sending these to the United Nations since they launched the agreement in 2015, with new or updated goals due in 2020, and every five years after that. For example, in its 2016 plan, China said that by 2030, it would lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% compared with 2005 releases. So, while its emissions would rise as its economy grew, they wouldn't rise as much as they would have if everything worked the way it did in 2005. China said it would aim for carbon dioxide emissions to peak in about 2030. India set a more modest goal of cutting emissions by 33% to 35% per unit of GDP by 2030. Both China and India had additional goals on their list. Scott said the agreement has no way to hold nations accountable if they stray from meeting their goals. Benjamin Zycher, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a market-oriented think tank, said Scott has a point. 'The Nationally Determined Contributions are strictly voluntary,' Zycher said. 'There is no enforcement mechanism.' Zycher is no fan of the Paris agreement. But even those who think it holds promise agree that it lacks teeth. 'There are no penalties other than naming and shaming if these pledges are too weak or are not fulfilled,' said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. Countries are required to report their progress publicly. Law professor Daniel Bodansky at the Arizona State University College of Law said transparency matters, and those progress reports are not simply taken on faith. 'The agreement provides for both expert and peer review of these reports,' Bodansky said. Holding to international norms is a form of pressure, Bodansky argued. Zycher countered that China is autocratic and can ignore domestic and international pressure more easily than the United States, Canada and Europe. Unfair advantage? Gerrard said Scott's reference to China and India was misleading. 'It implies that China and India are subject to weaker requirements than the U.S.,' Gerrard said. 'That is incorrect.' The agreement's compliance rules might be weak, but they apply equally to all participating countries. The Biden administration will determine how ambitious the U.S. goals will be when it rejoins the agreement. At this point, we don't know what those will be. Gerrard and Bodansky both fault Scott for calling China and India the 'real polluters.' The actual rankings are more complicated. As this chart shows, by one measure, China releases more carbon dioxide than the U.S. By another, the U.S. tops China. 'The United States is the second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, and has higher per capita emissions than either China or India,' Bodansky said. 'It is misleading to point the finger at China and India and label them as the real polluters.' By the yardstick of carbon dioxide releases relative to the size of the economy, the latest numbers come from 2016 World Bank data. China was at the top with 0.5 kilograms per dollar of GDP, with India and the U.S. tied at 0.3 kilograms per dollar of GDP. We reached out to Scott's office and did not hear back. | Our ruling Scott said the Paris Climate Agreement is bad for the United States because it fails to hold 'real polluters' such as China and India accountable. People who study the agreement agree that it lacks teeth to hold each country to its carbon dioxide reduction goals. But its rules apply equally to all nations. China and India are treated the same as the U.S. China emits almost twice as much carbon dioxide as the U.S., but per person, the ranking is flipped, and the U.S. emits twice as much as China. By both standards, India emits much less than either country. The Paris agreement lacks strict enforcement, but Scott's comparisons to China and India are misleading. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"107316-proof-34-d33538f12299baa3e5857f6fdaf1f523.jpg"
]
|
The Paris Climate Agreement is 'bad for America,' because it 'does nothing to hold real polluters, like Communist China and India, accountable. | Contradiction | President Joe Biden has been systematically undoing former President Donald Trump's policies on climate change. Case in point - Trump took the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement. On Biden's first day, he signed paperwork to bring the United States back in. Under the Paris agreement, about 200 nations promised to set goals to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. Each nation decides for itself what its goal will be. The hope is that cumulatively, those reductions would limit global temperature increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, criticized Biden's move. 'We have to stop joining deals that are bad for America,' Scott said in a statement to the press. 'President Biden is throwing the U.S. back into the Paris Agreement just to appease his liberal friends. This deal does nothing to hold real polluters, like Communist China and India, accountable.' There's debate over how well the agreement's overall approach will meet the challenge of climate change. Here, we focus on Scott's claim that the agreement puts the U.S. at a disadvantage because it does nothing to hold 'real' polluters like China and India accountable. Limited enforcement Under the agreement, each country submits a set of greenhouse gas reduction targets called a Nationally Determined Contribution. Countries have been sending these to the United Nations since they launched the agreement in 2015, with new or updated goals due in 2020, and every five years after that. For example, in its 2016 plan, China said that by 2030, it would lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% compared with 2005 releases. So, while its emissions would rise as its economy grew, they wouldn't rise as much as they would have if everything worked the way it did in 2005. China said it would aim for carbon dioxide emissions to peak in about 2030. India set a more modest goal of cutting emissions by 33% to 35% per unit of GDP by 2030. Both China and India had additional goals on their list. Scott said the agreement has no way to hold nations accountable if they stray from meeting their goals. Benjamin Zycher, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a market-oriented think tank, said Scott has a point. 'The Nationally Determined Contributions are strictly voluntary,' Zycher said. 'There is no enforcement mechanism.' Zycher is no fan of the Paris agreement. But even those who think it holds promise agree that it lacks teeth. 'There are no penalties other than naming and shaming if these pledges are too weak or are not fulfilled,' said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. Countries are required to report their progress publicly. Law professor Daniel Bodansky at the Arizona State University College of Law said transparency matters, and those progress reports are not simply taken on faith. 'The agreement provides for both expert and peer review of these reports,' Bodansky said. Holding to international norms is a form of pressure, Bodansky argued. Zycher countered that China is autocratic and can ignore domestic and international pressure more easily than the United States, Canada and Europe. Unfair advantage? Gerrard said Scott's reference to China and India was misleading. 'It implies that China and India are subject to weaker requirements than the U.S.,' Gerrard said. 'That is incorrect.' The agreement's compliance rules might be weak, but they apply equally to all participating countries. The Biden administration will determine how ambitious the U.S. goals will be when it rejoins the agreement. At this point, we don't know what those will be. Gerrard and Bodansky both fault Scott for calling China and India the 'real polluters.' The actual rankings are more complicated. As this chart shows, by one measure, China releases more carbon dioxide than the U.S. By another, the U.S. tops China. 'The United States is the second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, and has higher per capita emissions than either China or India,' Bodansky said. 'It is misleading to point the finger at China and India and label them as the real polluters.' By the yardstick of carbon dioxide releases relative to the size of the economy, the latest numbers come from 2016 World Bank data. China was at the top with 0.5 kilograms per dollar of GDP, with India and the U.S. tied at 0.3 kilograms per dollar of GDP. We reached out to Scott's office and did not hear back. | Our ruling Scott said the Paris Climate Agreement is bad for the United States because it fails to hold 'real polluters' such as China and India accountable. People who study the agreement agree that it lacks teeth to hold each country to its carbon dioxide reduction goals. But its rules apply equally to all nations. China and India are treated the same as the U.S. China emits almost twice as much carbon dioxide as the U.S., but per person, the ranking is flipped, and the U.S. emits twice as much as China. By both standards, India emits much less than either country. The Paris agreement lacks strict enforcement, but Scott's comparisons to China and India are misleading. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"107316-proof-34-d33538f12299baa3e5857f6fdaf1f523.jpg"
]
|
The Paris Climate Agreement is 'bad for America,' because it 'does nothing to hold real polluters, like Communist China and India, accountable. | Contradiction | President Joe Biden has been systematically undoing former President Donald Trump's policies on climate change. Case in point - Trump took the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement. On Biden's first day, he signed paperwork to bring the United States back in. Under the Paris agreement, about 200 nations promised to set goals to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. Each nation decides for itself what its goal will be. The hope is that cumulatively, those reductions would limit global temperature increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott, who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee, criticized Biden's move. 'We have to stop joining deals that are bad for America,' Scott said in a statement to the press. 'President Biden is throwing the U.S. back into the Paris Agreement just to appease his liberal friends. This deal does nothing to hold real polluters, like Communist China and India, accountable.' There's debate over how well the agreement's overall approach will meet the challenge of climate change. Here, we focus on Scott's claim that the agreement puts the U.S. at a disadvantage because it does nothing to hold 'real' polluters like China and India accountable. Limited enforcement Under the agreement, each country submits a set of greenhouse gas reduction targets called a Nationally Determined Contribution. Countries have been sending these to the United Nations since they launched the agreement in 2015, with new or updated goals due in 2020, and every five years after that. For example, in its 2016 plan, China said that by 2030, it would lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% compared with 2005 releases. So, while its emissions would rise as its economy grew, they wouldn't rise as much as they would have if everything worked the way it did in 2005. China said it would aim for carbon dioxide emissions to peak in about 2030. India set a more modest goal of cutting emissions by 33% to 35% per unit of GDP by 2030. Both China and India had additional goals on their list. Scott said the agreement has no way to hold nations accountable if they stray from meeting their goals. Benjamin Zycher, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a market-oriented think tank, said Scott has a point. 'The Nationally Determined Contributions are strictly voluntary,' Zycher said. 'There is no enforcement mechanism.' Zycher is no fan of the Paris agreement. But even those who think it holds promise agree that it lacks teeth. 'There are no penalties other than naming and shaming if these pledges are too weak or are not fulfilled,' said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. Countries are required to report their progress publicly. Law professor Daniel Bodansky at the Arizona State University College of Law said transparency matters, and those progress reports are not simply taken on faith. 'The agreement provides for both expert and peer review of these reports,' Bodansky said. Holding to international norms is a form of pressure, Bodansky argued. Zycher countered that China is autocratic and can ignore domestic and international pressure more easily than the United States, Canada and Europe. Unfair advantage? Gerrard said Scott's reference to China and India was misleading. 'It implies that China and India are subject to weaker requirements than the U.S.,' Gerrard said. 'That is incorrect.' The agreement's compliance rules might be weak, but they apply equally to all participating countries. The Biden administration will determine how ambitious the U.S. goals will be when it rejoins the agreement. At this point, we don't know what those will be. Gerrard and Bodansky both fault Scott for calling China and India the 'real polluters.' The actual rankings are more complicated. As this chart shows, by one measure, China releases more carbon dioxide than the U.S. By another, the U.S. tops China. 'The United States is the second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, and has higher per capita emissions than either China or India,' Bodansky said. 'It is misleading to point the finger at China and India and label them as the real polluters.' By the yardstick of carbon dioxide releases relative to the size of the economy, the latest numbers come from 2016 World Bank data. China was at the top with 0.5 kilograms per dollar of GDP, with India and the U.S. tied at 0.3 kilograms per dollar of GDP. We reached out to Scott's office and did not hear back. | Our ruling Scott said the Paris Climate Agreement is bad for the United States because it fails to hold 'real polluters' such as China and India accountable. People who study the agreement agree that it lacks teeth to hold each country to its carbon dioxide reduction goals. But its rules apply equally to all nations. China and India are treated the same as the U.S. China emits almost twice as much carbon dioxide as the U.S., but per person, the ranking is flipped, and the U.S. emits twice as much as China. By both standards, India emits much less than either country. The Paris agreement lacks strict enforcement, but Scott's comparisons to China and India are misleading. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"107316-proof-34-d33538f12299baa3e5857f6fdaf1f523.jpg"
]
|
'There are now 56 cargo freighters anchored off the coast of California from Oakland to Long Beach in what can only be considered a manufactured supply-chain halt. | Contradiction | A record-breaking number of cargo ships are anchored off the coast at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. But posts on social media are falsely claiming that these ships are deliberately being prevented from unloading their cargo. People have been sharing images of the cargo freighters online and speculating why the ships are unable to dock and unload. In the posts and in the comments sections, people are worried about nationwide shortages in the coming months. 'There are now 56 cargo freighters anchored off the coast of California from Oakland to Long Beach in what can only be considered a manufactured supply-chain halt,' one post reads. 'Reports have stated there are over 1000 holding and the number is rising,' another post claims. 'There [sic] are not being allowed to dock and unload.' 'Probably a good idea to make sure you have enough supplies to last several weeks or a couple of months should the inevitable finally happen,' a third post warns. 'They will sink the ships and crash the economy if it means bringing the people to their knees.' Facebook flagged this story as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) Our Research The ports off the coast of Southern California are some of the busiest in the world, accounting for almost half of the imports into the United States. These ports have seen abnormally high numbers of cargo ships at anchor or drift waiting to unload their cargo since late 2019, when the coronavirus pandemic began. On September 25, there were a record-breaking 161 vessels in port - the normal number of vessels in port before the pandemic was around 60, according to data from the Marine Exchange of Southern California, which operates the vessel traffic service for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. It's true that there is an abnormally high number of ships waiting to unload their cargo in Southern California. There are 140 total ships in port at the Los Angeles and Long Beach Ports, according to the Marine Exchange's most recent figures. Most of these vessels are container ships waiting for a spot to open up in the docks so they can unload. But this backup is not part of a 'manufactured supply chain halt' or deliberate attempt to stop shipments like some people are claiming online. Experts say that one of the biggest reasons for the pile-up in ships is a shift in consumer spending habits as folks spend more time at home. 'Consumers have shifted their spending from services to goods during the pandemic, and supply chains are struggling to keep pace,' said Jeffrey Michael, executive director of the Center for Business and Policy Research at University of the Pacific. 'The ports in Southern California are actually moving record levels of containers, but they haven't been able to keep up with increased demand. Shipping experts say that there is a peak customer order season that starts with back to school shopping in September and lasts through holidays in December. The ports can usually handle that surge in shipping containers coming to unload their cargo. But last year things were different due to COVID-related disruptions and labor shortages, according to Kip Louttit, executive director of the Marine Exchange of Southern California. 'We had a peak season that was greater than normal a year ago and they haven't been able to clear it,' Louttit said. That means that the ports were already backed up when this year's peak season arrived, and now more boats are coming in to deliver goods for this peak season, adding on to that back-up. What's more, the increased capacities of modern shipping containers has further compounded the back-up of ships waiting because it takes more time and labor to unload all of the cargo. 'The ships today are just huge, much bigger than they were 10 or 15 years ago. There's a lot more cargo per ship and they just haven't been able to catch up,' louttit said. 'When you have more containers, more ships, you have less capacity in the goods movement system.' As for the claim that the boats are being told they cannot unload their cargo, Louttit says that is not accurate. ''Allowed' would imply that there is some kind of entity saying you can't come in,' Louttit said. 'Nobody's saying that. The port is just too jammed. All the docks or for all the cranes are full and everybody is working at the port capacity that they can.' The only caveat, according to Louttit, has to do with the Covid safety protocols. 'What has happened in some cases with Covid is if the crew has COVID, the captain of the port writes an order to the ship that says you are not allowed to enter port,' Louttit says. 'You can either go drift, you can go anchor, but you have to do your quarantine.' But these cases are a minority and not responsible for the larger back-up of ships, he said. Experts say that supply-chain disruptions and some product shortages are to be expected due to the back-up, but do not think it is necessary for people to stock up on essential supplies. 'There could be shortages of some goods as a result of unprecedented demand for certain goods and a supply and distribution system that has been unable to expand fast enough to meet it as Covid recovers,' Michael said. 'I wouldn't recommend that people stock up so much as that they put in orders early and expect some delays in fulfillment and higher prices for some high-demand items.' Our Ruling Multiple posts on social media claim there are an abnormally high number of cargo ships anchored off of the California coast. The posts warn that this back-up of ships will lead to nationwide food and supply shortages. Some of the posts also claim that the ships are 'not being allowed to dock and unload' as part of a 'manufactured' effort to disrupt the supply chain. It is true that there is a record-breaking number of ships at anchor in Southern California waiting to unload their cargo. But experts say that the back-up is being caused by labor shortages, holiday buying surges and other COVID-19 related issues. It is false to claim that these vessels are being prevented from unloading their cargo as part of some effort to interrupt the national supply chain. Experts say that supply-chain disruptions and some product shortages are to be expected as the world continues to navigate a global pandemic, but do not think it is necessary for people to stock up on essential supplies. We rate this as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | Our Ruling Multiple posts on social media claim there are an abnormally high number of cargo ships anchored off of the California coast. The posts warn that this back-up of ships will lead to nationwide food and supply shortages. Some of the posts also claim that the ships are 'not being allowed to dock and unload' as part of a 'manufactured' effort to disrupt the supply chain. It is true that there is a record-breaking number of ships at anchor in Southern California waiting to unload their cargo. But experts say that the back-up is being caused by labor shortages, holiday buying surges and other COVID-19 related issues. It is false to claim that these vessels are being prevented from unloading their cargo as part of some effort to interrupt the national supply chain. Experts say that supply-chain disruptions and some product shortages are to be expected as the world continues to navigate a global pandemic, but do not think it is necessary for people to stock up on essential supplies. We rate this as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | [
"107318-proof-00-0acc9d3c3d15ece7bb1c49e995d70c5f.jpg"
]
|
'There are now 56 cargo freighters anchored off the coast of California from Oakland to Long Beach in what can only be considered a manufactured supply-chain halt. | Contradiction | A record-breaking number of cargo ships are anchored off the coast at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. But posts on social media are falsely claiming that these ships are deliberately being prevented from unloading their cargo. People have been sharing images of the cargo freighters online and speculating why the ships are unable to dock and unload. In the posts and in the comments sections, people are worried about nationwide shortages in the coming months. 'There are now 56 cargo freighters anchored off the coast of California from Oakland to Long Beach in what can only be considered a manufactured supply-chain halt,' one post reads. 'Reports have stated there are over 1000 holding and the number is rising,' another post claims. 'There [sic] are not being allowed to dock and unload.' 'Probably a good idea to make sure you have enough supplies to last several weeks or a couple of months should the inevitable finally happen,' a third post warns. 'They will sink the ships and crash the economy if it means bringing the people to their knees.' Facebook flagged this story as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) Our Research The ports off the coast of Southern California are some of the busiest in the world, accounting for almost half of the imports into the United States. These ports have seen abnormally high numbers of cargo ships at anchor or drift waiting to unload their cargo since late 2019, when the coronavirus pandemic began. On September 25, there were a record-breaking 161 vessels in port - the normal number of vessels in port before the pandemic was around 60, according to data from the Marine Exchange of Southern California, which operates the vessel traffic service for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. It's true that there is an abnormally high number of ships waiting to unload their cargo in Southern California. There are 140 total ships in port at the Los Angeles and Long Beach Ports, according to the Marine Exchange's most recent figures. Most of these vessels are container ships waiting for a spot to open up in the docks so they can unload. But this backup is not part of a 'manufactured supply chain halt' or deliberate attempt to stop shipments like some people are claiming online. Experts say that one of the biggest reasons for the pile-up in ships is a shift in consumer spending habits as folks spend more time at home. 'Consumers have shifted their spending from services to goods during the pandemic, and supply chains are struggling to keep pace,' said Jeffrey Michael, executive director of the Center for Business and Policy Research at University of the Pacific. 'The ports in Southern California are actually moving record levels of containers, but they haven't been able to keep up with increased demand. Shipping experts say that there is a peak customer order season that starts with back to school shopping in September and lasts through holidays in December. The ports can usually handle that surge in shipping containers coming to unload their cargo. But last year things were different due to COVID-related disruptions and labor shortages, according to Kip Louttit, executive director of the Marine Exchange of Southern California. 'We had a peak season that was greater than normal a year ago and they haven't been able to clear it,' Louttit said. That means that the ports were already backed up when this year's peak season arrived, and now more boats are coming in to deliver goods for this peak season, adding on to that back-up. What's more, the increased capacities of modern shipping containers has further compounded the back-up of ships waiting because it takes more time and labor to unload all of the cargo. 'The ships today are just huge, much bigger than they were 10 or 15 years ago. There's a lot more cargo per ship and they just haven't been able to catch up,' louttit said. 'When you have more containers, more ships, you have less capacity in the goods movement system.' As for the claim that the boats are being told they cannot unload their cargo, Louttit says that is not accurate. ''Allowed' would imply that there is some kind of entity saying you can't come in,' Louttit said. 'Nobody's saying that. The port is just too jammed. All the docks or for all the cranes are full and everybody is working at the port capacity that they can.' The only caveat, according to Louttit, has to do with the Covid safety protocols. 'What has happened in some cases with Covid is if the crew has COVID, the captain of the port writes an order to the ship that says you are not allowed to enter port,' Louttit says. 'You can either go drift, you can go anchor, but you have to do your quarantine.' But these cases are a minority and not responsible for the larger back-up of ships, he said. Experts say that supply-chain disruptions and some product shortages are to be expected due to the back-up, but do not think it is necessary for people to stock up on essential supplies. 'There could be shortages of some goods as a result of unprecedented demand for certain goods and a supply and distribution system that has been unable to expand fast enough to meet it as Covid recovers,' Michael said. 'I wouldn't recommend that people stock up so much as that they put in orders early and expect some delays in fulfillment and higher prices for some high-demand items.' Our Ruling Multiple posts on social media claim there are an abnormally high number of cargo ships anchored off of the California coast. The posts warn that this back-up of ships will lead to nationwide food and supply shortages. Some of the posts also claim that the ships are 'not being allowed to dock and unload' as part of a 'manufactured' effort to disrupt the supply chain. It is true that there is a record-breaking number of ships at anchor in Southern California waiting to unload their cargo. But experts say that the back-up is being caused by labor shortages, holiday buying surges and other COVID-19 related issues. It is false to claim that these vessels are being prevented from unloading their cargo as part of some effort to interrupt the national supply chain. Experts say that supply-chain disruptions and some product shortages are to be expected as the world continues to navigate a global pandemic, but do not think it is necessary for people to stock up on essential supplies. We rate this as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | Our Ruling Multiple posts on social media claim there are an abnormally high number of cargo ships anchored off of the California coast. The posts warn that this back-up of ships will lead to nationwide food and supply shortages. Some of the posts also claim that the ships are 'not being allowed to dock and unload' as part of a 'manufactured' effort to disrupt the supply chain. It is true that there is a record-breaking number of ships at anchor in Southern California waiting to unload their cargo. But experts say that the back-up is being caused by labor shortages, holiday buying surges and other COVID-19 related issues. It is false to claim that these vessels are being prevented from unloading their cargo as part of some effort to interrupt the national supply chain. Experts say that supply-chain disruptions and some product shortages are to be expected as the world continues to navigate a global pandemic, but do not think it is necessary for people to stock up on essential supplies. We rate this as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | [
"107318-proof-00-0acc9d3c3d15ece7bb1c49e995d70c5f.jpg"
]
|
'There are now 56 cargo freighters anchored off the coast of California from Oakland to Long Beach in what can only be considered a manufactured supply-chain halt. | Contradiction | A record-breaking number of cargo ships are anchored off the coast at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. But posts on social media are falsely claiming that these ships are deliberately being prevented from unloading their cargo. People have been sharing images of the cargo freighters online and speculating why the ships are unable to dock and unload. In the posts and in the comments sections, people are worried about nationwide shortages in the coming months. 'There are now 56 cargo freighters anchored off the coast of California from Oakland to Long Beach in what can only be considered a manufactured supply-chain halt,' one post reads. 'Reports have stated there are over 1000 holding and the number is rising,' another post claims. 'There [sic] are not being allowed to dock and unload.' 'Probably a good idea to make sure you have enough supplies to last several weeks or a couple of months should the inevitable finally happen,' a third post warns. 'They will sink the ships and crash the economy if it means bringing the people to their knees.' Facebook flagged this story as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) Our Research The ports off the coast of Southern California are some of the busiest in the world, accounting for almost half of the imports into the United States. These ports have seen abnormally high numbers of cargo ships at anchor or drift waiting to unload their cargo since late 2019, when the coronavirus pandemic began. On September 25, there were a record-breaking 161 vessels in port - the normal number of vessels in port before the pandemic was around 60, according to data from the Marine Exchange of Southern California, which operates the vessel traffic service for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. It's true that there is an abnormally high number of ships waiting to unload their cargo in Southern California. There are 140 total ships in port at the Los Angeles and Long Beach Ports, according to the Marine Exchange's most recent figures. Most of these vessels are container ships waiting for a spot to open up in the docks so they can unload. But this backup is not part of a 'manufactured supply chain halt' or deliberate attempt to stop shipments like some people are claiming online. Experts say that one of the biggest reasons for the pile-up in ships is a shift in consumer spending habits as folks spend more time at home. 'Consumers have shifted their spending from services to goods during the pandemic, and supply chains are struggling to keep pace,' said Jeffrey Michael, executive director of the Center for Business and Policy Research at University of the Pacific. 'The ports in Southern California are actually moving record levels of containers, but they haven't been able to keep up with increased demand. Shipping experts say that there is a peak customer order season that starts with back to school shopping in September and lasts through holidays in December. The ports can usually handle that surge in shipping containers coming to unload their cargo. But last year things were different due to COVID-related disruptions and labor shortages, according to Kip Louttit, executive director of the Marine Exchange of Southern California. 'We had a peak season that was greater than normal a year ago and they haven't been able to clear it,' Louttit said. That means that the ports were already backed up when this year's peak season arrived, and now more boats are coming in to deliver goods for this peak season, adding on to that back-up. What's more, the increased capacities of modern shipping containers has further compounded the back-up of ships waiting because it takes more time and labor to unload all of the cargo. 'The ships today are just huge, much bigger than they were 10 or 15 years ago. There's a lot more cargo per ship and they just haven't been able to catch up,' louttit said. 'When you have more containers, more ships, you have less capacity in the goods movement system.' As for the claim that the boats are being told they cannot unload their cargo, Louttit says that is not accurate. ''Allowed' would imply that there is some kind of entity saying you can't come in,' Louttit said. 'Nobody's saying that. The port is just too jammed. All the docks or for all the cranes are full and everybody is working at the port capacity that they can.' The only caveat, according to Louttit, has to do with the Covid safety protocols. 'What has happened in some cases with Covid is if the crew has COVID, the captain of the port writes an order to the ship that says you are not allowed to enter port,' Louttit says. 'You can either go drift, you can go anchor, but you have to do your quarantine.' But these cases are a minority and not responsible for the larger back-up of ships, he said. Experts say that supply-chain disruptions and some product shortages are to be expected due to the back-up, but do not think it is necessary for people to stock up on essential supplies. 'There could be shortages of some goods as a result of unprecedented demand for certain goods and a supply and distribution system that has been unable to expand fast enough to meet it as Covid recovers,' Michael said. 'I wouldn't recommend that people stock up so much as that they put in orders early and expect some delays in fulfillment and higher prices for some high-demand items.' Our Ruling Multiple posts on social media claim there are an abnormally high number of cargo ships anchored off of the California coast. The posts warn that this back-up of ships will lead to nationwide food and supply shortages. Some of the posts also claim that the ships are 'not being allowed to dock and unload' as part of a 'manufactured' effort to disrupt the supply chain. It is true that there is a record-breaking number of ships at anchor in Southern California waiting to unload their cargo. But experts say that the back-up is being caused by labor shortages, holiday buying surges and other COVID-19 related issues. It is false to claim that these vessels are being prevented from unloading their cargo as part of some effort to interrupt the national supply chain. Experts say that supply-chain disruptions and some product shortages are to be expected as the world continues to navigate a global pandemic, but do not think it is necessary for people to stock up on essential supplies. We rate this as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | Our Ruling Multiple posts on social media claim there are an abnormally high number of cargo ships anchored off of the California coast. The posts warn that this back-up of ships will lead to nationwide food and supply shortages. Some of the posts also claim that the ships are 'not being allowed to dock and unload' as part of a 'manufactured' effort to disrupt the supply chain. It is true that there is a record-breaking number of ships at anchor in Southern California waiting to unload their cargo. But experts say that the back-up is being caused by labor shortages, holiday buying surges and other COVID-19 related issues. It is false to claim that these vessels are being prevented from unloading their cargo as part of some effort to interrupt the national supply chain. Experts say that supply-chain disruptions and some product shortages are to be expected as the world continues to navigate a global pandemic, but do not think it is necessary for people to stock up on essential supplies. We rate this as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | [
"107318-proof-00-0acc9d3c3d15ece7bb1c49e995d70c5f.jpg"
]
|
'There are now 56 cargo freighters anchored off the coast of California from Oakland to Long Beach in what can only be considered a manufactured supply-chain halt. | Contradiction | A record-breaking number of cargo ships are anchored off the coast at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. But posts on social media are falsely claiming that these ships are deliberately being prevented from unloading their cargo. People have been sharing images of the cargo freighters online and speculating why the ships are unable to dock and unload. In the posts and in the comments sections, people are worried about nationwide shortages in the coming months. 'There are now 56 cargo freighters anchored off the coast of California from Oakland to Long Beach in what can only be considered a manufactured supply-chain halt,' one post reads. 'Reports have stated there are over 1000 holding and the number is rising,' another post claims. 'There [sic] are not being allowed to dock and unload.' 'Probably a good idea to make sure you have enough supplies to last several weeks or a couple of months should the inevitable finally happen,' a third post warns. 'They will sink the ships and crash the economy if it means bringing the people to their knees.' Facebook flagged this story as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) Our Research The ports off the coast of Southern California are some of the busiest in the world, accounting for almost half of the imports into the United States. These ports have seen abnormally high numbers of cargo ships at anchor or drift waiting to unload their cargo since late 2019, when the coronavirus pandemic began. On September 25, there were a record-breaking 161 vessels in port - the normal number of vessels in port before the pandemic was around 60, according to data from the Marine Exchange of Southern California, which operates the vessel traffic service for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. It's true that there is an abnormally high number of ships waiting to unload their cargo in Southern California. There are 140 total ships in port at the Los Angeles and Long Beach Ports, according to the Marine Exchange's most recent figures. Most of these vessels are container ships waiting for a spot to open up in the docks so they can unload. But this backup is not part of a 'manufactured supply chain halt' or deliberate attempt to stop shipments like some people are claiming online. Experts say that one of the biggest reasons for the pile-up in ships is a shift in consumer spending habits as folks spend more time at home. 'Consumers have shifted their spending from services to goods during the pandemic, and supply chains are struggling to keep pace,' said Jeffrey Michael, executive director of the Center for Business and Policy Research at University of the Pacific. 'The ports in Southern California are actually moving record levels of containers, but they haven't been able to keep up with increased demand. Shipping experts say that there is a peak customer order season that starts with back to school shopping in September and lasts through holidays in December. The ports can usually handle that surge in shipping containers coming to unload their cargo. But last year things were different due to COVID-related disruptions and labor shortages, according to Kip Louttit, executive director of the Marine Exchange of Southern California. 'We had a peak season that was greater than normal a year ago and they haven't been able to clear it,' Louttit said. That means that the ports were already backed up when this year's peak season arrived, and now more boats are coming in to deliver goods for this peak season, adding on to that back-up. What's more, the increased capacities of modern shipping containers has further compounded the back-up of ships waiting because it takes more time and labor to unload all of the cargo. 'The ships today are just huge, much bigger than they were 10 or 15 years ago. There's a lot more cargo per ship and they just haven't been able to catch up,' louttit said. 'When you have more containers, more ships, you have less capacity in the goods movement system.' As for the claim that the boats are being told they cannot unload their cargo, Louttit says that is not accurate. ''Allowed' would imply that there is some kind of entity saying you can't come in,' Louttit said. 'Nobody's saying that. The port is just too jammed. All the docks or for all the cranes are full and everybody is working at the port capacity that they can.' The only caveat, according to Louttit, has to do with the Covid safety protocols. 'What has happened in some cases with Covid is if the crew has COVID, the captain of the port writes an order to the ship that says you are not allowed to enter port,' Louttit says. 'You can either go drift, you can go anchor, but you have to do your quarantine.' But these cases are a minority and not responsible for the larger back-up of ships, he said. Experts say that supply-chain disruptions and some product shortages are to be expected due to the back-up, but do not think it is necessary for people to stock up on essential supplies. 'There could be shortages of some goods as a result of unprecedented demand for certain goods and a supply and distribution system that has been unable to expand fast enough to meet it as Covid recovers,' Michael said. 'I wouldn't recommend that people stock up so much as that they put in orders early and expect some delays in fulfillment and higher prices for some high-demand items.' Our Ruling Multiple posts on social media claim there are an abnormally high number of cargo ships anchored off of the California coast. The posts warn that this back-up of ships will lead to nationwide food and supply shortages. Some of the posts also claim that the ships are 'not being allowed to dock and unload' as part of a 'manufactured' effort to disrupt the supply chain. It is true that there is a record-breaking number of ships at anchor in Southern California waiting to unload their cargo. But experts say that the back-up is being caused by labor shortages, holiday buying surges and other COVID-19 related issues. It is false to claim that these vessels are being prevented from unloading their cargo as part of some effort to interrupt the national supply chain. Experts say that supply-chain disruptions and some product shortages are to be expected as the world continues to navigate a global pandemic, but do not think it is necessary for people to stock up on essential supplies. We rate this as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | Our Ruling Multiple posts on social media claim there are an abnormally high number of cargo ships anchored off of the California coast. The posts warn that this back-up of ships will lead to nationwide food and supply shortages. Some of the posts also claim that the ships are 'not being allowed to dock and unload' as part of a 'manufactured' effort to disrupt the supply chain. It is true that there is a record-breaking number of ships at anchor in Southern California waiting to unload their cargo. But experts say that the back-up is being caused by labor shortages, holiday buying surges and other COVID-19 related issues. It is false to claim that these vessels are being prevented from unloading their cargo as part of some effort to interrupt the national supply chain. Experts say that supply-chain disruptions and some product shortages are to be expected as the world continues to navigate a global pandemic, but do not think it is necessary for people to stock up on essential supplies. We rate this as Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. | [
"107318-proof-00-0acc9d3c3d15ece7bb1c49e995d70c5f.jpg"
]
|
Michigan used a mathematical 'key' to manipulate vote totals in 2020 election. | Contradiction | Antrim County, Michigan, the site of a human error that briefly produced inaccurate unofficial results on election night in November, remains the target of a misinformation effort that aims to sow doubt about the integrity of the 2020 election. A resident's lawsuit against the county, filed in late November, helped fuel a debunked conspiracy theory that tabulators made by Dominion Voting Systems switched votes on behalf of Joe Biden. Donald Trump seized upon an analysis filed in the suit that was rife with inaccurate information to advance his claims of a stolen election. A hand recount of every ballot cast in Antrim County affirmed the results and Trump's victory there. Now, a new filing in the case claims a more far-reaching conspiracy, one in which the state government purportedly deployed a predetermined 'key' to mathematically 'convert' records of registered voters into counted votes. The filing cites an analysis by Douglas Frank, who chairs the math and science department at a school in Cincinnati, that claims to have discovered that Michigan and other battleground states each used a unique key. The filing defines the alleged 'key' as a 'sixth degree polynomial' that 'unlocks the door and uncovers the ability to manipulate data and results.' Frank's analysis was filed as an exhibit in the case, and he explains his findings in a YouTube video that has received over 26,000 views. Frank says his work shows that 'elections are being decided at the state level.' How? 'Ballots are being harvested at the precinct level, regulated at the county level, and determined at the state level,' he claims. In an interview with MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, who has peddled disinformation about the election, Frank says he found algorithms were used in every state he's analyzed to regulate voter registrations and ballots and control the election. The filings were submitted by Matthew DePerno, the lawyer for the Antrim County resident, who is accusing the county of mishandling the results on a marijuana-related proposal that was also on the November ballot. They were shared widely by The Gateway Pundit, a conservative website that has published falsehoods about the election and former Michigan state Sen. Patrick Colbeck, who was recently asked by Dominion Voting Systems to retract claims of voter fraud. While the analysis is new, it boils down to a familiar falsehood: that Michigan's 2020 election was tainted by widespread misconduct and fraud. There is no evidence for that and a comprehensive series of audits validated election processes and affirmed the results. A 'key' that 'unlocks' election manipulation? In the filing, DePerno argues based on Frank's finding that the number of ballots counted from Antrim and other counties tracks so closely with the vote totals predicted by the purported key, that they could not have occurred naturally without manipulation by the state. They claim the correlation proves that an algorithm had access to voting databases to determine the election result. Neither DePerno nor Frank provides any evidence for their claim of a state-level conspiracy to manipulate local results, other than the statistical correlation between ballots they claim were cast in the election and what the key - whose derivation they don't explain - predicts. Gerrid Uzarski, elections director for Kent County, one of the counties examined by Frank, called the allegation 'very far-fetched.' And he questioned the analysis used to support the assertion. 'I'm not sure where he got the numbers from,' Uzarski said. 'I've looked for them myself. I have not been able to find the source.' Frank didn't respond to emailed questions about how the key was generated, but he said he stood by his findings, which he said are based on information 'directly extracted from the databases provided by the state.' PolitiFact Michigan looked at data from the Secretary of State's website and official county results and found problems with numbers Frank used and the conclusions he drew. Flawed data, flawed conclusions For his analysis, Frank said in the video, he compiled voter demographics, registrations and ballots in nine Michigan counties - Antrim, Barry, Charlevoix, Grand Traverse, Kent, Livingston, Macomb, Oakland and Wayne - and predicted the number of ballots cast using his key. In charts for each county, he breaks down the ballots cast by voters' age. Trump won six of the counties analyzed by Frank. Frank lists the Census Bureau's July 2019 population estimates as his source for the number of residents in the county. But the numbers listed in the court filing differ slightly from the census estimates. In a phone call, Frank said the numbers differed because he performed an 'interpolation' of the census data. For each county, Frank provides a breakdown of the voting age population and compares it to the number of registered voters in the county and concludes that the number of registered voters in each county is near or exceeds the size of the voting age population. Ahead of the election, many counties did have more registered voters on their rolls than voting age residents. That can happen if the rolls aren't updated to reflect people who have moved out of the county or died. But in order to cast a ballot, voters have to show up to their polling location or fill out and sign an application to request an absentee ballot. Election officials verify that the ballots are given to individuals legitimately registered in Michigan. Cases of voter impersonation are exceptionally rare. Frank then looks at what he claims is his database of registered voters from October 2020. His numbers track closely with voter registration numbers listed on the Secretary of State's website on Oct. 2, 2020. That suggests that his analysis disregards registered voters who were added after that date - which was one month before Election Day - and the ballots they cast. Indeed, Frank acknowledges that his analysis of turnout and ballots cast counts only those who he says were registered by October. He refers to the other ballots as 'unregistered ballots,' and alleges that these were 'injected' at the last minute. But voters in Michigan can register to vote right up through and on Election Day, and thousands took advantage of this right in the November 2020 election. Election officials check to make sure that every ballot cast belongs to a registered voter and that every voter only votes once. The exclusion of thousands of ballots cast in the November election could explain why the turnout rates he lists in the court filing are also inconsistent with those reported in each county's official election results. No evidence of alleged massive voter fraud scheme Uzarski said the type of fraud Frank alleged would be an insurmountable task given Michigan's highly decentralized election system. In Michigan, 1,520 city and township clerks process voter registrations, verify ballots and oversee the count on Election Day. Results are compiled by 83 county clerks and certified by county boards of canvassers who review ballots, poll books and the results. Only after the Board of State Canvassers certifies the results is the outcome considered final. It would be impossible to cook up thousands of ballots that were invalidly cast, Uzarski said. 'There is not room for any kind of injection of ballots or injection of ghost voters or people who didn't vote but people are voting for them.' David Becker, founder and executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, called the allegations in the pleading 'fantastical.' In an email to PolitiFact Michigan, Becker explained that such a conspiracy would have had to be carried out by thousands of people and leave behind a mountain of evidence: meddling with the voter file, extra ballots that couldn't be explained, voters who tried to vote but couldn't because someone else had cast their ballots and audits confirming tabulators were tampered. 'There is literally zero evidence of any conspiracy, involving thousands of people, in any state,' including Michigan, Becker wrote. | Our ruling In a YouTube video, Frank claims his analysis of Michigan's 2020 election results shows that the election outcome was decided at the state-level ahead of time using a mathematical 'key' to manipulate vote totals. Frank offers no evidence for his claim other than a statistical correlation to this key, whose derivation he doesn't explain. The figures he cites as the basis of his analysis are different from those in official records. Experts said the vote-manipulation effort Frank theorizes would involve a wide-ranging conspiracy that would not be possible under Michigan's decentralized election system. We rate his claim Pants On Fire. | []
|
Michigan used a mathematical 'key' to manipulate vote totals in 2020 election. | Contradiction | Antrim County, Michigan, the site of a human error that briefly produced inaccurate unofficial results on election night in November, remains the target of a misinformation effort that aims to sow doubt about the integrity of the 2020 election. A resident's lawsuit against the county, filed in late November, helped fuel a debunked conspiracy theory that tabulators made by Dominion Voting Systems switched votes on behalf of Joe Biden. Donald Trump seized upon an analysis filed in the suit that was rife with inaccurate information to advance his claims of a stolen election. A hand recount of every ballot cast in Antrim County affirmed the results and Trump's victory there. Now, a new filing in the case claims a more far-reaching conspiracy, one in which the state government purportedly deployed a predetermined 'key' to mathematically 'convert' records of registered voters into counted votes. The filing cites an analysis by Douglas Frank, who chairs the math and science department at a school in Cincinnati, that claims to have discovered that Michigan and other battleground states each used a unique key. The filing defines the alleged 'key' as a 'sixth degree polynomial' that 'unlocks the door and uncovers the ability to manipulate data and results.' Frank's analysis was filed as an exhibit in the case, and he explains his findings in a YouTube video that has received over 26,000 views. Frank says his work shows that 'elections are being decided at the state level.' How? 'Ballots are being harvested at the precinct level, regulated at the county level, and determined at the state level,' he claims. In an interview with MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, who has peddled disinformation about the election, Frank says he found algorithms were used in every state he's analyzed to regulate voter registrations and ballots and control the election. The filings were submitted by Matthew DePerno, the lawyer for the Antrim County resident, who is accusing the county of mishandling the results on a marijuana-related proposal that was also on the November ballot. They were shared widely by The Gateway Pundit, a conservative website that has published falsehoods about the election and former Michigan state Sen. Patrick Colbeck, who was recently asked by Dominion Voting Systems to retract claims of voter fraud. While the analysis is new, it boils down to a familiar falsehood: that Michigan's 2020 election was tainted by widespread misconduct and fraud. There is no evidence for that and a comprehensive series of audits validated election processes and affirmed the results. A 'key' that 'unlocks' election manipulation? In the filing, DePerno argues based on Frank's finding that the number of ballots counted from Antrim and other counties tracks so closely with the vote totals predicted by the purported key, that they could not have occurred naturally without manipulation by the state. They claim the correlation proves that an algorithm had access to voting databases to determine the election result. Neither DePerno nor Frank provides any evidence for their claim of a state-level conspiracy to manipulate local results, other than the statistical correlation between ballots they claim were cast in the election and what the key - whose derivation they don't explain - predicts. Gerrid Uzarski, elections director for Kent County, one of the counties examined by Frank, called the allegation 'very far-fetched.' And he questioned the analysis used to support the assertion. 'I'm not sure where he got the numbers from,' Uzarski said. 'I've looked for them myself. I have not been able to find the source.' Frank didn't respond to emailed questions about how the key was generated, but he said he stood by his findings, which he said are based on information 'directly extracted from the databases provided by the state.' PolitiFact Michigan looked at data from the Secretary of State's website and official county results and found problems with numbers Frank used and the conclusions he drew. Flawed data, flawed conclusions For his analysis, Frank said in the video, he compiled voter demographics, registrations and ballots in nine Michigan counties - Antrim, Barry, Charlevoix, Grand Traverse, Kent, Livingston, Macomb, Oakland and Wayne - and predicted the number of ballots cast using his key. In charts for each county, he breaks down the ballots cast by voters' age. Trump won six of the counties analyzed by Frank. Frank lists the Census Bureau's July 2019 population estimates as his source for the number of residents in the county. But the numbers listed in the court filing differ slightly from the census estimates. In a phone call, Frank said the numbers differed because he performed an 'interpolation' of the census data. For each county, Frank provides a breakdown of the voting age population and compares it to the number of registered voters in the county and concludes that the number of registered voters in each county is near or exceeds the size of the voting age population. Ahead of the election, many counties did have more registered voters on their rolls than voting age residents. That can happen if the rolls aren't updated to reflect people who have moved out of the county or died. But in order to cast a ballot, voters have to show up to their polling location or fill out and sign an application to request an absentee ballot. Election officials verify that the ballots are given to individuals legitimately registered in Michigan. Cases of voter impersonation are exceptionally rare. Frank then looks at what he claims is his database of registered voters from October 2020. His numbers track closely with voter registration numbers listed on the Secretary of State's website on Oct. 2, 2020. That suggests that his analysis disregards registered voters who were added after that date - which was one month before Election Day - and the ballots they cast. Indeed, Frank acknowledges that his analysis of turnout and ballots cast counts only those who he says were registered by October. He refers to the other ballots as 'unregistered ballots,' and alleges that these were 'injected' at the last minute. But voters in Michigan can register to vote right up through and on Election Day, and thousands took advantage of this right in the November 2020 election. Election officials check to make sure that every ballot cast belongs to a registered voter and that every voter only votes once. The exclusion of thousands of ballots cast in the November election could explain why the turnout rates he lists in the court filing are also inconsistent with those reported in each county's official election results. No evidence of alleged massive voter fraud scheme Uzarski said the type of fraud Frank alleged would be an insurmountable task given Michigan's highly decentralized election system. In Michigan, 1,520 city and township clerks process voter registrations, verify ballots and oversee the count on Election Day. Results are compiled by 83 county clerks and certified by county boards of canvassers who review ballots, poll books and the results. Only after the Board of State Canvassers certifies the results is the outcome considered final. It would be impossible to cook up thousands of ballots that were invalidly cast, Uzarski said. 'There is not room for any kind of injection of ballots or injection of ghost voters or people who didn't vote but people are voting for them.' David Becker, founder and executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, called the allegations in the pleading 'fantastical.' In an email to PolitiFact Michigan, Becker explained that such a conspiracy would have had to be carried out by thousands of people and leave behind a mountain of evidence: meddling with the voter file, extra ballots that couldn't be explained, voters who tried to vote but couldn't because someone else had cast their ballots and audits confirming tabulators were tampered. 'There is literally zero evidence of any conspiracy, involving thousands of people, in any state,' including Michigan, Becker wrote. | Our ruling In a YouTube video, Frank claims his analysis of Michigan's 2020 election results shows that the election outcome was decided at the state-level ahead of time using a mathematical 'key' to manipulate vote totals. Frank offers no evidence for his claim other than a statistical correlation to this key, whose derivation he doesn't explain. The figures he cites as the basis of his analysis are different from those in official records. Experts said the vote-manipulation effort Frank theorizes would involve a wide-ranging conspiracy that would not be possible under Michigan's decentralized election system. We rate his claim Pants On Fire. | []
|
'Judge Rules Over 200,000 Biden Votes Are Illegitimate In Wisconsin. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump spent the months leading up to the election sowing doubt about the security of the voting process. Following his loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has continued to flood Twitter with false claims about the election. Accordingly, many of his backers have amplified any lifeline they can find to show election fraud on a scale that would tip the election - even though election officials across the country have unanimously said no such fraud exists and lawsuits contending otherwise have failed at every turn. In that environment, social media posts misstating court rulings have found an eager audience. That included one Dec. 25, 2020 post that went viral again in early January. It said, 'FB WILL NOT ALLOW TO SHARE THE ARTICLE... Breaking: Judge Rules Over 200,000 Biden Votes Are Illegitimate In Wisconsin THIS IS A HISTORIC MOMENT TO SAVE THE COUNTRY!' This article 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). Aside from the initial sharing claim, the text is identical to another viral claim from a Dec. 22 Facebook post, and it matches wording from a Dec. 22 article from the Gateway Pundit. The conservative website regularly shares skewed and fabricated claims about the 2020 election. All the claims are flat wrong. Understanding 'indefinitely confined' voters At issue is a section of Wisconsin statute that allows voters to declare themselves as 'indefinitely confined.' They can then cast an absentee ballot without providing a photo ID, as would be required for in-person voting or a traditional absentee ballot. The number of people claiming this status in Wisconsin rose from 57,000 in the 2016 presidential election to about 215,000 in the November 2020 election. That's about 7% of the Wisconsin vote in 2020. Trump and other Republicans have attacked this method of voting as improper, though it's worth noting more Wisconsin voters claimed that status in counties won by Trump than in those won by Biden, according to an analysis by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. There's no way to know how those 'indefinitely confined' people specifically voted, however. The indefinitely confined status sparked an array of legal challenges after clerks in the heavily Democratic Milwaukee and Dane counties contended in spring that all voters could claim that status due to a COVID-19 stay-at-home order in place at the time. The Wisconsin Election Commission and an initial order from the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that was wrong, and the clerks rescinded their advice. A final ruling from the state Supreme Court released Dec. 14 affirmed that initial order and said it's up to each voter whether they meet the requirements for being 'indefinitely confined' - not clerks or anyone else. Later that same day, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of former Vice President Joe Biden and election officials in a lawsuit brought by Trump on the matter. The majority decision said 'ballots would not count' if voters falsely claimed they were indefinitely confined. But the court did not give license to throw out large numbers of ballots without making determinations about the status of each individual voter, as Trump had sought. That decision would have to be made on a case-by-case basis. Breaking down the claim With that context, let's take a closer look at the errant Facebook claim. For starters, it labels all the indefinitely confined votes as being 'Biden votes.' This is unknowable and unprovable since we don't know how individual people voted. But we already know these voters were concentrated slightly more in pro-Trump counties, and we know it's not reasonable to expect nearly every one of these voters to be from the same party. (The Gateway Pundit article where this claim originated repeats this in claiming indefinitely confined ballots were 'unquestionably votes for Joe Biden,' though it presents no arguments or evidence to support that.) More importantly, the claim's core claim is nonsense. It says a judge ruled all those votes were illegitimate, and that's simply not the case. The ruling specifically denied Trump's request to throw out all the votes. While the court said any ballots cast by people who falsely claimed that status wouldn't count, that's a determination that would have to be made on a case-by-case basis. The two people who posted claims in this vein on Facebook did not respond to requests for comment. The author of the Gateway Pundit article, Joe Hoff, defended his story in an email, reiterating without evidence that the court decision meant 'most' votes from indefinitely confined voters weren't legitimate. | Our ruling Several Facebook posts echoed an article's claims that a judge had ruled over 200,000 Biden votes in Wisconsin were illegitimate. There is no evidence all the ballots in question here backed Biden, and the description of the court ruling is simply wrong. The court expressly ruled against an attempt to throw out indefinitely confined votes en masse, saying votes were only invalid if the individual casting them falsely claimed that status. And that's a determination that has to be made on a case-by-case basis. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Judge Rules Over 200,000 Biden Votes Are Illegitimate In Wisconsin. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump spent the months leading up to the election sowing doubt about the security of the voting process. Following his loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has continued to flood Twitter with false claims about the election. Accordingly, many of his backers have amplified any lifeline they can find to show election fraud on a scale that would tip the election - even though election officials across the country have unanimously said no such fraud exists and lawsuits contending otherwise have failed at every turn. In that environment, social media posts misstating court rulings have found an eager audience. That included one Dec. 25, 2020 post that went viral again in early January. It said, 'FB WILL NOT ALLOW TO SHARE THE ARTICLE... Breaking: Judge Rules Over 200,000 Biden Votes Are Illegitimate In Wisconsin THIS IS A HISTORIC MOMENT TO SAVE THE COUNTRY!' This article 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). Aside from the initial sharing claim, the text is identical to another viral claim from a Dec. 22 Facebook post, and it matches wording from a Dec. 22 article from the Gateway Pundit. The conservative website regularly shares skewed and fabricated claims about the 2020 election. All the claims are flat wrong. Understanding 'indefinitely confined' voters At issue is a section of Wisconsin statute that allows voters to declare themselves as 'indefinitely confined.' They can then cast an absentee ballot without providing a photo ID, as would be required for in-person voting or a traditional absentee ballot. The number of people claiming this status in Wisconsin rose from 57,000 in the 2016 presidential election to about 215,000 in the November 2020 election. That's about 7% of the Wisconsin vote in 2020. Trump and other Republicans have attacked this method of voting as improper, though it's worth noting more Wisconsin voters claimed that status in counties won by Trump than in those won by Biden, according to an analysis by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. There's no way to know how those 'indefinitely confined' people specifically voted, however. The indefinitely confined status sparked an array of legal challenges after clerks in the heavily Democratic Milwaukee and Dane counties contended in spring that all voters could claim that status due to a COVID-19 stay-at-home order in place at the time. The Wisconsin Election Commission and an initial order from the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that was wrong, and the clerks rescinded their advice. A final ruling from the state Supreme Court released Dec. 14 affirmed that initial order and said it's up to each voter whether they meet the requirements for being 'indefinitely confined' - not clerks or anyone else. Later that same day, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of former Vice President Joe Biden and election officials in a lawsuit brought by Trump on the matter. The majority decision said 'ballots would not count' if voters falsely claimed they were indefinitely confined. But the court did not give license to throw out large numbers of ballots without making determinations about the status of each individual voter, as Trump had sought. That decision would have to be made on a case-by-case basis. Breaking down the claim With that context, let's take a closer look at the errant Facebook claim. For starters, it labels all the indefinitely confined votes as being 'Biden votes.' This is unknowable and unprovable since we don't know how individual people voted. But we already know these voters were concentrated slightly more in pro-Trump counties, and we know it's not reasonable to expect nearly every one of these voters to be from the same party. (The Gateway Pundit article where this claim originated repeats this in claiming indefinitely confined ballots were 'unquestionably votes for Joe Biden,' though it presents no arguments or evidence to support that.) More importantly, the claim's core claim is nonsense. It says a judge ruled all those votes were illegitimate, and that's simply not the case. The ruling specifically denied Trump's request to throw out all the votes. While the court said any ballots cast by people who falsely claimed that status wouldn't count, that's a determination that would have to be made on a case-by-case basis. The two people who posted claims in this vein on Facebook did not respond to requests for comment. The author of the Gateway Pundit article, Joe Hoff, defended his story in an email, reiterating without evidence that the court decision meant 'most' votes from indefinitely confined voters weren't legitimate. | Our ruling Several Facebook posts echoed an article's claims that a judge had ruled over 200,000 Biden votes in Wisconsin were illegitimate. There is no evidence all the ballots in question here backed Biden, and the description of the court ruling is simply wrong. The court expressly ruled against an attempt to throw out indefinitely confined votes en masse, saying votes were only invalid if the individual casting them falsely claimed that status. And that's a determination that has to be made on a case-by-case basis. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Judge Rules Over 200,000 Biden Votes Are Illegitimate In Wisconsin. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump spent the months leading up to the election sowing doubt about the security of the voting process. Following his loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has continued to flood Twitter with false claims about the election. Accordingly, many of his backers have amplified any lifeline they can find to show election fraud on a scale that would tip the election - even though election officials across the country have unanimously said no such fraud exists and lawsuits contending otherwise have failed at every turn. In that environment, social media posts misstating court rulings have found an eager audience. That included one Dec. 25, 2020 post that went viral again in early January. It said, 'FB WILL NOT ALLOW TO SHARE THE ARTICLE... Breaking: Judge Rules Over 200,000 Biden Votes Are Illegitimate In Wisconsin THIS IS A HISTORIC MOMENT TO SAVE THE COUNTRY!' This article 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). Aside from the initial sharing claim, the text is identical to another viral claim from a Dec. 22 Facebook post, and it matches wording from a Dec. 22 article from the Gateway Pundit. The conservative website regularly shares skewed and fabricated claims about the 2020 election. All the claims are flat wrong. Understanding 'indefinitely confined' voters At issue is a section of Wisconsin statute that allows voters to declare themselves as 'indefinitely confined.' They can then cast an absentee ballot without providing a photo ID, as would be required for in-person voting or a traditional absentee ballot. The number of people claiming this status in Wisconsin rose from 57,000 in the 2016 presidential election to about 215,000 in the November 2020 election. That's about 7% of the Wisconsin vote in 2020. Trump and other Republicans have attacked this method of voting as improper, though it's worth noting more Wisconsin voters claimed that status in counties won by Trump than in those won by Biden, according to an analysis by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. There's no way to know how those 'indefinitely confined' people specifically voted, however. The indefinitely confined status sparked an array of legal challenges after clerks in the heavily Democratic Milwaukee and Dane counties contended in spring that all voters could claim that status due to a COVID-19 stay-at-home order in place at the time. The Wisconsin Election Commission and an initial order from the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that was wrong, and the clerks rescinded their advice. A final ruling from the state Supreme Court released Dec. 14 affirmed that initial order and said it's up to each voter whether they meet the requirements for being 'indefinitely confined' - not clerks or anyone else. Later that same day, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of former Vice President Joe Biden and election officials in a lawsuit brought by Trump on the matter. The majority decision said 'ballots would not count' if voters falsely claimed they were indefinitely confined. But the court did not give license to throw out large numbers of ballots without making determinations about the status of each individual voter, as Trump had sought. That decision would have to be made on a case-by-case basis. Breaking down the claim With that context, let's take a closer look at the errant Facebook claim. For starters, it labels all the indefinitely confined votes as being 'Biden votes.' This is unknowable and unprovable since we don't know how individual people voted. But we already know these voters were concentrated slightly more in pro-Trump counties, and we know it's not reasonable to expect nearly every one of these voters to be from the same party. (The Gateway Pundit article where this claim originated repeats this in claiming indefinitely confined ballots were 'unquestionably votes for Joe Biden,' though it presents no arguments or evidence to support that.) More importantly, the claim's core claim is nonsense. It says a judge ruled all those votes were illegitimate, and that's simply not the case. The ruling specifically denied Trump's request to throw out all the votes. While the court said any ballots cast by people who falsely claimed that status wouldn't count, that's a determination that would have to be made on a case-by-case basis. The two people who posted claims in this vein on Facebook did not respond to requests for comment. The author of the Gateway Pundit article, Joe Hoff, defended his story in an email, reiterating without evidence that the court decision meant 'most' votes from indefinitely confined voters weren't legitimate. | Our ruling Several Facebook posts echoed an article's claims that a judge had ruled over 200,000 Biden votes in Wisconsin were illegitimate. There is no evidence all the ballots in question here backed Biden, and the description of the court ruling is simply wrong. The court expressly ruled against an attempt to throw out indefinitely confined votes en masse, saying votes were only invalid if the individual casting them falsely claimed that status. And that's a determination that has to be made on a case-by-case basis. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Says President Joe Biden fell asleep during a meeting with Israel's prime minister. | Contradiction | In August 2020, back when President Joe Biden was still the Democratic presidential nominee, a clip circulated on social media that appeared to show him asleep and snoring during an interview. Only that didn't happen. The video was edited to make it seem like he was sleeping, though he wasn't. Six months later, another false claim emerged that Biden was caught sleeping at his desk in the Oval Office. But that photo was doctored. Now, claims that Biden fell asleep during a recent meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett are spreading online. 'Watch: Joe Biden caught *sleeping* during high-level talks with foreign head of government,' the headline in one post said. 'Biden fell asleep meeting with Israel's prime minister,' read another. 'How can we trust he isn't asleep through everything else?' Both posts show the same image of Biden and Bennett seated next to each other. Bennett appears to be talking to Biden, while the president's eyes are cast downward at his folded hands. But if you do actually watch the footage of that meeting, as one of the Facebook posts implores, it's clear Biden is not sleeping. 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.) Watch this video posted by the Israeli prime minister's official YouTube account. Starting around the 7:25 mark, Biden can be seen clasping his hands and listening to Bennett. A few seconds later, his chin tilts downward and he appears as he does in the image that's spreading online. But his fingers are moving, and it's obvious that he's awake. And as soon as Bennett finishes talking, Biden begins to speak. We rate claims that he was sleeping False. | We rate claims that he was sleeping False. | []
|
After pushing through a red flag law in the New Mexico Senate, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham 'has had the firearms of her guards and household seized. | Contradiction | An inaccurate Facebook post goes after New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham over her support of a law that attempts to keep guns away from people who might be dangerous. 'In a move some would call 'stunningly ironic' Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) has had the firearms of her guards and household seized,' says a Feb. 9 Facebook post by the Farmington Tribune. 'This comes only days after pushing her party's 'red flag' law through the Senate.' We don't call this statement ironic. We call it false. There is no evidence that guns were seized from Lujan Grisham's home. And the state police officers who protect her remain armed, her spokesman Tripp Stelnicki told PolitiFact. The story 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 Farmington Tribune Facebook page doesn't shed much light on its intentions. Some news reports have characterized the Facebook page as satire, but nothing on the site states that. This false story was inspired by Lujan Grisham's support of the proposed Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Order Act that passed the state Senate on Feb. 7. It passed the House on Feb. 13. Lujan Grisham, who applauded its passage, is expected to sign the bill. About 17 states have similar 'red flag' or extreme risk laws. The laws allow police to petition a court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may be dangerous, or to block the person from obtaining a firearm. After a set amount of time, the firearm is either returned to the person or the court order is extended. RELATED: How Florida's red flag gun law works There is no evidence that guns were seized from Lujan Grisham's home or from her security detail after passage of the law. We rate this statement False. | There is no evidence that guns were seized from Lujan Grisham's home or from her security detail after passage of the law. We rate this statement False. | [
"107366-proof-25-4517ba4f77541249dca30663303d4e35.jpg"
]
|
NPR posted a story about the Capitol breach before it happened. | Contradiction | We've already fact-checked claims that the Capitol riot was staged and found that there's no evidence to support that allegation. Purported evidence spreading on social media that the event was orchestrated by the so-called Deep State is also wrong. 'NPR accidentally released an article at 9am about Trump supporters clash with police and Congress electoral count of votes being halted, HOURS before anything like this ever occurred,' reads a screenshot of a Parler post that's being shared on Facebook. It includes a picture of NPR's website with the headline 'Trump supporters storm U.S. Capitol, clash with police.' The date and timestamp are 'January 6, 2021' and '9:33 AM ET.' 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 of NPR's website is authentic. You can still see that headline, date and timestamp here. Ben Fishel, a spokesperson for the news organization, told PolitiFact that the original story was posted at 9:33 a.m. with a different headline: 'Diehard Trump supporters gather in nation's capital to protest election results.' An archived version of the story before it was updated at 3:08 p.m. Eastern Time confirms this. The URL also includes sequences of words that reflect the original headline and the fact that it was a developing story that was updated over the course of the day: 'Congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates' 'diehard-Trump-supporters-gather-in-the-nations-capital-to-protest-election-resul.' And featured prominently at the top of the article is this notice: 'Updated 3:08 p.m. ET.' Including timestamps for both the original publication time and the latest update 'is standard practice in a developing story,' Fishel said. 'I can confirm that NPR is neither clairvoyant nor were we part of a (false) conspiracy of people who staged the events of Wednesday January 6th.' We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
NPR posted a story about the Capitol breach before it happened. | Contradiction | We've already fact-checked claims that the Capitol riot was staged and found that there's no evidence to support that allegation. Purported evidence spreading on social media that the event was orchestrated by the so-called Deep State is also wrong. 'NPR accidentally released an article at 9am about Trump supporters clash with police and Congress electoral count of votes being halted, HOURS before anything like this ever occurred,' reads a screenshot of a Parler post that's being shared on Facebook. It includes a picture of NPR's website with the headline 'Trump supporters storm U.S. Capitol, clash with police.' The date and timestamp are 'January 6, 2021' and '9:33 AM ET.' 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 of NPR's website is authentic. You can still see that headline, date and timestamp here. Ben Fishel, a spokesperson for the news organization, told PolitiFact that the original story was posted at 9:33 a.m. with a different headline: 'Diehard Trump supporters gather in nation's capital to protest election results.' An archived version of the story before it was updated at 3:08 p.m. Eastern Time confirms this. The URL also includes sequences of words that reflect the original headline and the fact that it was a developing story that was updated over the course of the day: 'Congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates' 'diehard-Trump-supporters-gather-in-the-nations-capital-to-protest-election-resul.' And featured prominently at the top of the article is this notice: 'Updated 3:08 p.m. ET.' Including timestamps for both the original publication time and the latest update 'is standard practice in a developing story,' Fishel said. 'I can confirm that NPR is neither clairvoyant nor were we part of a (false) conspiracy of people who staged the events of Wednesday January 6th.' We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate this post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
'Trump is in White House! He promises to lock up Hillary!' | Contradiction | There's an echo chamber on social media platforms where news keeps breaking that former President Donald Trump has returned to power while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is continually being arrested, indicted, or executed. Just this week we checked claims that wrongly said Trump was photographed at the White House on Oct. 24 and that he had been reinstated. In July, we debunked a claim that the military was holding the White House for his return. Twice we've checked baseless allegations that Navy SEALs arrested Clinton, one of which came months after she had been hanged at Guantanamo Bay, per another inaccurate post. A new, also wrong post has Clinton alive and free but not for long, if Trump has anything to do with it. 'Breaking!' says the title of a video posted on Facebook on Oct. 27. 'Trump is in White House! He promises to lock up Hillary!' 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 video is about 17 minutes of audio of a woman discussing QAnon conspiracy theories. She says that Trump was photographed at the White House on Oct. 24, which we have already debunked. It was an old photo of Trump at the White House posted on Twitter on Oct. 25. RELATED VIDEO As for the former president promising to lock up Clinton, the woman talks about how Trump, as a presidential candidate, floated the idea of telling the attorney general to get a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton. In October 2020, he endorsed his supporters' calls to jail her. There is nothing in the video to support that Trump is now vowing to lock up Clinton, and certainly not from the White House. We rate this post Pants on Fire! | We rate this post Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says Amy Coney Barrett said that breastfeeding babies is child molestation. | Contradiction | As the Republican-controlled Senate moves ahead to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, false attacks and fake quotes attributed to the judge continue to be shared widely on social media. Multiple Facebook posts claim Barrett, a conservative judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, once called breastfeeding 'child molestation.' 'I have a 6 month old that I fed breast milk from a bottle not directly from the breast,' the quote reads, 'if you force your child to suck your nipples, You are molesting YOUR child, Making an infant suck your breast is a sexual Act and you should be in prison for CHILD MOLESTATION.' RELATED: What social media posts get wrong about Amy Coney Barrett's religious beliefs The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There's no evidence that Barrett said this, and the words appear to be lifted from an anonymous post that was recently shared on a Reddit sub thread called 'insane parents.' Barrett's background and biography has received considerable news coverage since she was announced as President Donald Trump's pick to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We found nothing to suggest, in recent clips or in a search of news archives, that Barrett shares these views on breastfeeding and no statements from her calling it 'molestation.' We rate this Pants on Fire! | We rate this Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says Amy Coney Barrett said that breastfeeding babies is child molestation. | Contradiction | As the Republican-controlled Senate moves ahead to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, false attacks and fake quotes attributed to the judge continue to be shared widely on social media. Multiple Facebook posts claim Barrett, a conservative judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, once called breastfeeding 'child molestation.' 'I have a 6 month old that I fed breast milk from a bottle not directly from the breast,' the quote reads, 'if you force your child to suck your nipples, You are molesting YOUR child, Making an infant suck your breast is a sexual Act and you should be in prison for CHILD MOLESTATION.' RELATED: What social media posts get wrong about Amy Coney Barrett's religious beliefs The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There's no evidence that Barrett said this, and the words appear to be lifted from an anonymous post that was recently shared on a Reddit sub thread called 'insane parents.' Barrett's background and biography has received considerable news coverage since she was announced as President Donald Trump's pick to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We found nothing to suggest, in recent clips or in a search of news archives, that Barrett shares these views on breastfeeding and no statements from her calling it 'molestation.' We rate this Pants on Fire! | We rate this Pants on Fire! | []
|
'I didn't say that' some of the medical equipment that governors are requesting, they don't actually need. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump argued with 'PBS NewsHour' reporter Yamiche Alcindor over what the president had said, or hadn't said, about New York's need for ventilators. Ventilators are a type of medical equipment considered vital for saving the lives of patients hit hardest by the virus. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has made urgent calls for more ventilators to cope with a rising number of hospitalizations in his state due to coronavirus. 'All the predictions say you could have an apex needing 140,000 beds and about 40,000 ventilators,' Cuomo told reporters March 27, citing estimates by Weill Cornell Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and McKinsey & Co. Anthony Fauci, a leading infectious-disease specialist who is on the White House's coronavirus task force, told CNN, 'There are a lot of different calculations. My experience, I tend to believe Gov. Cuomo.' The exchange between Trump and Alcindor came during a March 29 Rose Garden press conference. It unfolded this way: Alcindor: 'You've said repeatedly that you think that some of the equipment that governors are requesting, they don't actually need. You said New York might need -' Trump: 'I didn't say that.' Alcindor: '- might not need 30,000.' Trump: 'I didn't say that.' Alcindor: 'You said it on Sean Hannity's, Fox News.' Trump: 'I didn't say - come on. Come on.' The exchange continued, with Trump at one point telling Alcindor, 'Be nice. Don't be threatening.' He later cut her off before she was able to ask her second question, although another reporter subsequently handed her the microphone so that she could ask it. Here, we'll look at the substance of the dispute between Trump and Alcindor. Which of them was right about what he said during a March 26 phone interview on Hannity's show on Fox News? Alcindor was. When we looked at Trump's interview with Hannity, we found two portions in which Trump addressed this question. Here's the first: 'Gov. Cuomo and others that say we want, you know, 30,000 of them (ventilators). 30,000! All right. Think of this. You know, you go to hospitals, they'll have one in a hospital. And now, all of a sudden everybody's asking for these vast numbers.' Later, Hannity picked up on this theme. Hannity said he was 'kind of angry at Andrew Cuomo. I had a great - I had him on radio for 40 minutes, great conversation. I grew up in - I was born and raised in New York. And then it's, 'I need 30,000 ventilators.' And I'm like OK, it really - it was annoying me.' Trump subsequently echoed this sentiment. 'New York is a bigger deal. But it's going to go also. But I have a feeling that a lot of the numbers that are being said in some areas are just bigger than they're going to be. I don't believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators. You know, you're going to major hospitals sometimes, they'll have two ventilators. And now, all of a sudden, they're saying, can we order 30,000 ventilators?' So, contrary to Trump's repeated denials during the press conference, this passage clearly shows that the president told Hannity that he feels the numbers of ventilators being requested by governors, including Cuomo, are higher than what's needed. | Our ruling Trump told Alcindor that 'I didn't say that' some of the equipment that governors are requesting, they don't actually need. That's directly refuted by Trump's comments during Hannity's show, in which he said, 'I have a feeling that a lot of the numbers that are being said in some areas are just bigger than they're going to be. I don't believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators.' We rate the statement Pants on Fire. | [
"107427-proof-20-e5bc2f4ecfb69d3772f9397d1c15a60b.jpg"
]
|
'I didn't say that' some of the medical equipment that governors are requesting, they don't actually need. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump argued with 'PBS NewsHour' reporter Yamiche Alcindor over what the president had said, or hadn't said, about New York's need for ventilators. Ventilators are a type of medical equipment considered vital for saving the lives of patients hit hardest by the virus. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has made urgent calls for more ventilators to cope with a rising number of hospitalizations in his state due to coronavirus. 'All the predictions say you could have an apex needing 140,000 beds and about 40,000 ventilators,' Cuomo told reporters March 27, citing estimates by Weill Cornell Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and McKinsey & Co. Anthony Fauci, a leading infectious-disease specialist who is on the White House's coronavirus task force, told CNN, 'There are a lot of different calculations. My experience, I tend to believe Gov. Cuomo.' The exchange between Trump and Alcindor came during a March 29 Rose Garden press conference. It unfolded this way: Alcindor: 'You've said repeatedly that you think that some of the equipment that governors are requesting, they don't actually need. You said New York might need -' Trump: 'I didn't say that.' Alcindor: '- might not need 30,000.' Trump: 'I didn't say that.' Alcindor: 'You said it on Sean Hannity's, Fox News.' Trump: 'I didn't say - come on. Come on.' The exchange continued, with Trump at one point telling Alcindor, 'Be nice. Don't be threatening.' He later cut her off before she was able to ask her second question, although another reporter subsequently handed her the microphone so that she could ask it. Here, we'll look at the substance of the dispute between Trump and Alcindor. Which of them was right about what he said during a March 26 phone interview on Hannity's show on Fox News? Alcindor was. When we looked at Trump's interview with Hannity, we found two portions in which Trump addressed this question. Here's the first: 'Gov. Cuomo and others that say we want, you know, 30,000 of them (ventilators). 30,000! All right. Think of this. You know, you go to hospitals, they'll have one in a hospital. And now, all of a sudden everybody's asking for these vast numbers.' Later, Hannity picked up on this theme. Hannity said he was 'kind of angry at Andrew Cuomo. I had a great - I had him on radio for 40 minutes, great conversation. I grew up in - I was born and raised in New York. And then it's, 'I need 30,000 ventilators.' And I'm like OK, it really - it was annoying me.' Trump subsequently echoed this sentiment. 'New York is a bigger deal. But it's going to go also. But I have a feeling that a lot of the numbers that are being said in some areas are just bigger than they're going to be. I don't believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators. You know, you're going to major hospitals sometimes, they'll have two ventilators. And now, all of a sudden, they're saying, can we order 30,000 ventilators?' So, contrary to Trump's repeated denials during the press conference, this passage clearly shows that the president told Hannity that he feels the numbers of ventilators being requested by governors, including Cuomo, are higher than what's needed. | Our ruling Trump told Alcindor that 'I didn't say that' some of the equipment that governors are requesting, they don't actually need. That's directly refuted by Trump's comments during Hannity's show, in which he said, 'I have a feeling that a lot of the numbers that are being said in some areas are just bigger than they're going to be. I don't believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators.' We rate the statement Pants on Fire. | [
"107427-proof-20-e5bc2f4ecfb69d3772f9397d1c15a60b.jpg"
]
|
'If these (telecom and internet) companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States. | Contradiction | House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., warned telecommunication and internet companies not to hand over certain information sought by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. 'If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States,' McCarthy wrote on Twitter Aug. 31. 'If companies still choose to violate a federal law, a Republican majority will not forget and will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law.' The committee - which includes seven Democrats and two Republicans - has asked over 30 companies, including Google, AT&T and Verizon, to retain records for a list of individuals believed to be relevant to the assault investigation. There's no indication that McCarthy's name is on the list. That's the first step toward issuing subpoenas that could include the communications of sitting lawmakers. Republican leaders have railed against the committee since it was created, but our focus here is on McCarthy's assertion that the companies would break a federal law if they complied with a committee subpoena. PolitiFact and many other news organizations have asked McCarthy's office multiple times to name the law he has in mind. So far, there has been no response. Legal experts say they don't know of any law that would do what McCarthy says. The head of the House Republican Study Committee, the policy arm of House GOP leadership, laid out part of the GOP's legal argument in a letter to the committee. We asked legal experts to assess the key points in that letter as well. The Republican argument Study Committee chair Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., said that the Supreme Court has spelled out the limits of the congressional subpoena power. Banks cited the ruling in the case of Trump v. Mazars, when former President Donald Trump fought the release of his tax records by his accounting firm. 'A congressional subpoena is valid only if it is 'related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress and must serve a valid legislative purpose,'' Banks wrote Aug. 27. Banks said the committee is entitled only to information needed to pass laws and conduct oversight. He made other points, but the requirement for a legislative purpose was central to his case. The Jan. 6 committee's mandate The resolution creating the select committee gave it a broad investigative scope, and the option to suggest new laws. Under the resolution - which passed 220-190 on a party-line vote - the committee was told to look at how campaigns and online platforms, along with other entities, might have motivated the attackers. The resolution named several groups to put under the microscope, but in case it left any out, it expanded the committee's reach to 'other entities of the public and private sector as determined relevant by the Select Committee.' That last clause could sweep in members of Congress. As for a legislative purpose, the resolution said the committee could offer 'legislative recommendations as it may deem advisable.' So the committee's mandate under the resolution appears to address some of Banks' arguments about the limits of congressional subpoena authority. But McCarthy's argument is not about that. It's about the legal risk companies would face if they agree to turn over records under subpoena. And according to experts we spoke with, his argument is wrong. Outside legal views The law professors and a telecommunications lawyer we reached said someone could certainly challenge a committee subpoena in court, but there's no guarantee they would win. 'I suspect a court would give Congress great leeway in deciding what information the body needs for its investigation into the Capitol riot,' said University of Iowa law professor Andy Grewal. 'But it's certainly possible that the congressional subpoena could be narrowed' by the court. As for the legal hazard faced by the telecommunication and social media companies, the experts drew a blank. 'I don't see there being a penalty for compliance, even if the subpoena is later deemed unlawful,' said Ellen Goodman at Rutgers University Law School. David Alan Sklansky at Stanford Law School echoed that, saying, 'I don't know what McCarthy is talking about.' There are, however, two sets of legal standards under privacy law for getting access to telecommunications records. A request for 'metadata' - information about who sent a message or placed a call, and from where and when - is subject to less scrutiny than a request for 'content,' the emails and text messages themselves. 'Federal law does protect the privacy of non-content phone records in the hands of the carrier, but if the disclosure is 'required by law' there is no legal prohibition' against releasing it, said Albert Gidari, a retired lawyer who represented telecommunication companies on these legal matters for over two decades. Gidari said the process is more demanding for the content. A court-issued warrant or the individual's consent would be necessary for a company to be authorized to release the messages. But federal law, Gidari said, expressly protects the companies 'for complying with a subpoena or warrant compelling disclosure.' 'I am not aware of any law under which a company would forfeit its 'ability to operate in the United States' for complying with a subpoena to turn over private information,' he added. We reached out to several companies that the committee contacted. Most did not respond, but Google and Reddit said they are working with the committee. Facebook told other news organizations the same. The companies can't simply ignore a congressional subpoena. They could face a misdemeanor charge if they did. But they can seek to quash a subpoena and leave it to a court to decide. | Our ruling McCarthy said that telecommunications companies would violate federal law and risk 'losing their ability to operate in the United States' if they handed over records sought by the Jan. 6 investigation committee. McCarthy's office has been silent on what law the companies would be breaking. Law professors and a telecommunications lawyer who handled such matters said that there is no such law barring companies from turning over information sought through a proper subpoena or warrant, and that companies can't be penalized for complying with a subpoena. We rate this claim False. | [
"107440-proof-25-4e8914c3f3f0dfeadd2d3a7b34ce3312.jpg"
]
|
'If these (telecom and internet) companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States. | Contradiction | House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., warned telecommunication and internet companies not to hand over certain information sought by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. 'If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States,' McCarthy wrote on Twitter Aug. 31. 'If companies still choose to violate a federal law, a Republican majority will not forget and will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law.' The committee - which includes seven Democrats and two Republicans - has asked over 30 companies, including Google, AT&T and Verizon, to retain records for a list of individuals believed to be relevant to the assault investigation. There's no indication that McCarthy's name is on the list. That's the first step toward issuing subpoenas that could include the communications of sitting lawmakers. Republican leaders have railed against the committee since it was created, but our focus here is on McCarthy's assertion that the companies would break a federal law if they complied with a committee subpoena. PolitiFact and many other news organizations have asked McCarthy's office multiple times to name the law he has in mind. So far, there has been no response. Legal experts say they don't know of any law that would do what McCarthy says. The head of the House Republican Study Committee, the policy arm of House GOP leadership, laid out part of the GOP's legal argument in a letter to the committee. We asked legal experts to assess the key points in that letter as well. The Republican argument Study Committee chair Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., said that the Supreme Court has spelled out the limits of the congressional subpoena power. Banks cited the ruling in the case of Trump v. Mazars, when former President Donald Trump fought the release of his tax records by his accounting firm. 'A congressional subpoena is valid only if it is 'related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress and must serve a valid legislative purpose,'' Banks wrote Aug. 27. Banks said the committee is entitled only to information needed to pass laws and conduct oversight. He made other points, but the requirement for a legislative purpose was central to his case. The Jan. 6 committee's mandate The resolution creating the select committee gave it a broad investigative scope, and the option to suggest new laws. Under the resolution - which passed 220-190 on a party-line vote - the committee was told to look at how campaigns and online platforms, along with other entities, might have motivated the attackers. The resolution named several groups to put under the microscope, but in case it left any out, it expanded the committee's reach to 'other entities of the public and private sector as determined relevant by the Select Committee.' That last clause could sweep in members of Congress. As for a legislative purpose, the resolution said the committee could offer 'legislative recommendations as it may deem advisable.' So the committee's mandate under the resolution appears to address some of Banks' arguments about the limits of congressional subpoena authority. But McCarthy's argument is not about that. It's about the legal risk companies would face if they agree to turn over records under subpoena. And according to experts we spoke with, his argument is wrong. Outside legal views The law professors and a telecommunications lawyer we reached said someone could certainly challenge a committee subpoena in court, but there's no guarantee they would win. 'I suspect a court would give Congress great leeway in deciding what information the body needs for its investigation into the Capitol riot,' said University of Iowa law professor Andy Grewal. 'But it's certainly possible that the congressional subpoena could be narrowed' by the court. As for the legal hazard faced by the telecommunication and social media companies, the experts drew a blank. 'I don't see there being a penalty for compliance, even if the subpoena is later deemed unlawful,' said Ellen Goodman at Rutgers University Law School. David Alan Sklansky at Stanford Law School echoed that, saying, 'I don't know what McCarthy is talking about.' There are, however, two sets of legal standards under privacy law for getting access to telecommunications records. A request for 'metadata' - information about who sent a message or placed a call, and from where and when - is subject to less scrutiny than a request for 'content,' the emails and text messages themselves. 'Federal law does protect the privacy of non-content phone records in the hands of the carrier, but if the disclosure is 'required by law' there is no legal prohibition' against releasing it, said Albert Gidari, a retired lawyer who represented telecommunication companies on these legal matters for over two decades. Gidari said the process is more demanding for the content. A court-issued warrant or the individual's consent would be necessary for a company to be authorized to release the messages. But federal law, Gidari said, expressly protects the companies 'for complying with a subpoena or warrant compelling disclosure.' 'I am not aware of any law under which a company would forfeit its 'ability to operate in the United States' for complying with a subpoena to turn over private information,' he added. We reached out to several companies that the committee contacted. Most did not respond, but Google and Reddit said they are working with the committee. Facebook told other news organizations the same. The companies can't simply ignore a congressional subpoena. They could face a misdemeanor charge if they did. But they can seek to quash a subpoena and leave it to a court to decide. | Our ruling McCarthy said that telecommunications companies would violate federal law and risk 'losing their ability to operate in the United States' if they handed over records sought by the Jan. 6 investigation committee. McCarthy's office has been silent on what law the companies would be breaking. Law professors and a telecommunications lawyer who handled such matters said that there is no such law barring companies from turning over information sought through a proper subpoena or warrant, and that companies can't be penalized for complying with a subpoena. We rate this claim False. | [
"107440-proof-25-4e8914c3f3f0dfeadd2d3a7b34ce3312.jpg"
]
|
'If these (telecom and internet) companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States. | Contradiction | House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., warned telecommunication and internet companies not to hand over certain information sought by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. 'If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States,' McCarthy wrote on Twitter Aug. 31. 'If companies still choose to violate a federal law, a Republican majority will not forget and will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law.' The committee - which includes seven Democrats and two Republicans - has asked over 30 companies, including Google, AT&T and Verizon, to retain records for a list of individuals believed to be relevant to the assault investigation. There's no indication that McCarthy's name is on the list. That's the first step toward issuing subpoenas that could include the communications of sitting lawmakers. Republican leaders have railed against the committee since it was created, but our focus here is on McCarthy's assertion that the companies would break a federal law if they complied with a committee subpoena. PolitiFact and many other news organizations have asked McCarthy's office multiple times to name the law he has in mind. So far, there has been no response. Legal experts say they don't know of any law that would do what McCarthy says. The head of the House Republican Study Committee, the policy arm of House GOP leadership, laid out part of the GOP's legal argument in a letter to the committee. We asked legal experts to assess the key points in that letter as well. The Republican argument Study Committee chair Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., said that the Supreme Court has spelled out the limits of the congressional subpoena power. Banks cited the ruling in the case of Trump v. Mazars, when former President Donald Trump fought the release of his tax records by his accounting firm. 'A congressional subpoena is valid only if it is 'related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress and must serve a valid legislative purpose,'' Banks wrote Aug. 27. Banks said the committee is entitled only to information needed to pass laws and conduct oversight. He made other points, but the requirement for a legislative purpose was central to his case. The Jan. 6 committee's mandate The resolution creating the select committee gave it a broad investigative scope, and the option to suggest new laws. Under the resolution - which passed 220-190 on a party-line vote - the committee was told to look at how campaigns and online platforms, along with other entities, might have motivated the attackers. The resolution named several groups to put under the microscope, but in case it left any out, it expanded the committee's reach to 'other entities of the public and private sector as determined relevant by the Select Committee.' That last clause could sweep in members of Congress. As for a legislative purpose, the resolution said the committee could offer 'legislative recommendations as it may deem advisable.' So the committee's mandate under the resolution appears to address some of Banks' arguments about the limits of congressional subpoena authority. But McCarthy's argument is not about that. It's about the legal risk companies would face if they agree to turn over records under subpoena. And according to experts we spoke with, his argument is wrong. Outside legal views The law professors and a telecommunications lawyer we reached said someone could certainly challenge a committee subpoena in court, but there's no guarantee they would win. 'I suspect a court would give Congress great leeway in deciding what information the body needs for its investigation into the Capitol riot,' said University of Iowa law professor Andy Grewal. 'But it's certainly possible that the congressional subpoena could be narrowed' by the court. As for the legal hazard faced by the telecommunication and social media companies, the experts drew a blank. 'I don't see there being a penalty for compliance, even if the subpoena is later deemed unlawful,' said Ellen Goodman at Rutgers University Law School. David Alan Sklansky at Stanford Law School echoed that, saying, 'I don't know what McCarthy is talking about.' There are, however, two sets of legal standards under privacy law for getting access to telecommunications records. A request for 'metadata' - information about who sent a message or placed a call, and from where and when - is subject to less scrutiny than a request for 'content,' the emails and text messages themselves. 'Federal law does protect the privacy of non-content phone records in the hands of the carrier, but if the disclosure is 'required by law' there is no legal prohibition' against releasing it, said Albert Gidari, a retired lawyer who represented telecommunication companies on these legal matters for over two decades. Gidari said the process is more demanding for the content. A court-issued warrant or the individual's consent would be necessary for a company to be authorized to release the messages. But federal law, Gidari said, expressly protects the companies 'for complying with a subpoena or warrant compelling disclosure.' 'I am not aware of any law under which a company would forfeit its 'ability to operate in the United States' for complying with a subpoena to turn over private information,' he added. We reached out to several companies that the committee contacted. Most did not respond, but Google and Reddit said they are working with the committee. Facebook told other news organizations the same. The companies can't simply ignore a congressional subpoena. They could face a misdemeanor charge if they did. But they can seek to quash a subpoena and leave it to a court to decide. | Our ruling McCarthy said that telecommunications companies would violate federal law and risk 'losing their ability to operate in the United States' if they handed over records sought by the Jan. 6 investigation committee. McCarthy's office has been silent on what law the companies would be breaking. Law professors and a telecommunications lawyer who handled such matters said that there is no such law barring companies from turning over information sought through a proper subpoena or warrant, and that companies can't be penalized for complying with a subpoena. We rate this claim False. | [
"107440-proof-25-4e8914c3f3f0dfeadd2d3a7b34ce3312.jpg"
]
|
Says LeBron James said, 'We're at the point where a girl can't even stab her friends anymore. | Contradiction | Many celebrities and notable figures spoke out after news broke that 16-year-old Ma'Khia Bryant had been fatally shot by police in Columbus, Ohio. But one statement supposedly issued by Los Angeles basketball star LeBron James is completely fabricated. 'We're at the point where a girl can't even stab her friends anymore,' reads the quote attributed to James in a viral Facebook post. The statement appears to reference a knife that video showed Bryant was holding during part of the altercation. The person who shared the post wrote in the caption: 'He's such a POS.' Others also believed that the quote was authentic. 'Does he even realize how asinine that sounds??!!' one person commented. James never said it. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Facebook post shares the quote as if it were real but it actually derives from a satirical website called The Glorious American, which describes itself as, 'Satire for the right. And the wrong.' James did say something about the incident. In a now-deleted tweet, James shared the image of the officer involved in the fatal shooting, and wrote 'YOU'RE NEXT #ACCOUNTABILITY,' along with an hourglass emoji. Hours later, James said he was angry when he published the original tweet. 'Gathering all the facts and educating does though! My anger still is here for what happened that lil girl. My sympathy for her family and may justice prevail!' ANGER does any of us any good and that includes myself! Gathering all the facts and educating does though! My anger still is here for what happened that lil girl. My sympathy for her family and may justice prevail! 🙏🏾✊🏾🤎👑- LeBron James (@KingJames) April 21, 2021 I'm so damn tired of seeing Black people killed by police. I took the tweet down because its being used to create more hate -This isn't about one officer. it's about the entire system and they always use our words to create more racism. I am so desperate for more ACCOUNTABILITY- LeBron James (@KingJames) April 21, 2021 | Our ruling A Facebook post claims LeBron James said 'we're at the point where a girl can't even stab her friends anymore.' The quote was fabricated by a satirical website and then reshared without any indication it was intended as satire. We rate this post Pants on Fire! | []
|
Says Kamala Harris 'said she believed that Joe Biden committed sexual assault against various women. | Contradiction | Fox News host Tucker Carlson mischaracterized Sen. Kamala Harris' past comments on the women who in 2019 accused Joe Biden of inappropriate touching. 'How can someone who said she believed that Joe Biden committed sexual assault against various women serve as his running mate?' Carlson said during an Aug. 11 TV segment. Harris, whom Biden recently selected as his running mate, said in April 2019 that she believed four women who described moments where Biden made them uncomfortable with inappropriate touching or kissing. But those women had not claimed that Biden sexually assaulted them. Sexual assault refers to 'sexual contact or behavior that occurs without explicit consent of the victim,' according to RAINN, a nonprofit anti-sexual violence organization. The Biden campaign declined to comment on Carlson's claim. Fox News did not respond to our requests for comment. What Harris was addressing Harris talked about the women's stories, which were shared over a few days as Biden mulled whether to launch a White House bid, during an April 2, 2019, presidential campaign event. 'I believe them, and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it,' Harris said at the event, which took place in Nevada. Asked if Biden should enter the race for president, Harris said he would 'have to make that decision for himself.' Biden announced his candidacy weeks later, on April 25, 2019. Sen. Kamala Harris on Joe Biden accusers: 'I believe them and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it.' https://t.co/wJJXCADAHs pic.twitter.com/9FJ05g2t21- The Hill (@thehill) April 3, 2019 Lucy Flores, a former Democratic state lawmaker from Nevada, made the first of the four accusations in an essay in the Cut. She described how before a campaign rally in 2014, Biden put his hands on her shoulders, smelled her hair and kissed the back of her head. 'Even if his behavior wasn't violent or sexual, it was demeaning and disrespectful,' Flores wrote, adding that it made her 'feel uneasy, gross, and confused.' She told a few of her staffers what happened, she said, but she didn't make a public complaint. In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper days later, Flores said the incident left her 'shocked' and feeling 'powerless,' but she added that the action didn't amount to sexual assault. 'Never do I claim that this rises to the level of a sexual assault or anything of that nature,' Flores said. 'What I am saying is that it's completely inappropriate.' Another woman, Amy Lappos, said around the same time that Biden had touched her inappropriately during a 2009 fundraiser in Connecticut for Rep. Jim Himes, a Democrat. 'It wasn't sexual, but he did grab me by the head,' Lappos told the Hartford Courant. 'He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth.' Two additional women, Caitlyn Caruso and D.J. Hill, shared similar experiences with the New York Times. Caruso said Biden placed his hand on her thigh and hugged her 'just a little bit too long' during an event on sexual assault at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Hill, a writer, said that Biden shifted his hand down her back and toward her waist while she and her husband were posing for a photo with him during a 2012 fundraiser in Minneapolis. When asked by CBS News' Tanya Rivero if the gesture struck her as sexual, Hill said, 'I can't say that that's the case. I would call it extremely uncomfortable.' Biden responded to Flores' allegations by saying he had offered 'countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort' during his many years as a public figure. 'And not once - never - did I believe I acted inappropriately,' he said. 'If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully,' Biden said. 'But it was never my intention.' The former vice president addressed the allegations again in a two-minute video statement released on Twitter after the other allegations emerged. He said he believes politics is about personal connections but pledged to be 'respectful of people's personal space.' 'Social norms have begun to change,' Biden said. 'They've shifted. And the boundaries of protecting personal space have been reset. And I get it. I get it. I hear what they're saying. I understand it. And I'll be much more mindful. That's my responsibility.' Social norms are changing. I understand that, and I've heard what these women are saying. Politics to me has always been about making connections, but I will be more mindful about respecting personal space in the future. That's my responsibility and I will meet it. pic.twitter.com/Ya2mf5ODts- Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) April 3, 2019 Biden was later accused in March of sexual assault by Tara Reade, a former aide who worked for him when he was a U.S. senator. Reade said the assault occurred in 1983. RELATED: Tara Reade has accused Joe Biden of sexual assault. Here's what we know Biden and his campaign have denied Reade's allegations. And Harris, speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle in April, stood by the candidate who would later pick her as his running mate. 'I can only speak to the Joe Biden I know. He's been a lifelong fighter in terms of stopping violence against women,' Harris said, adding that Reade 'has a right to tell her story. And I believe that, and I believe Joe Biden believes that, too.' When the New York Times examined Reade's sexual assault allegation in April, its reporters spoke to seven women who had publicly complained about behavior from Biden that made them uncomfortable - including the four who spoke out before Harris' comment. The report said: 'No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.' | Our ruling Carlson said Harris 'said she believed that Joe Biden committed sexual assault against various women.' Harris said she believed four women who, in 2019, alleged that Biden had inappropriately touched them in public or semi-public settings and made them uncomfortable. The women had not accused Biden of sexual assault. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"107453-proof-21-526d698b95c573221349fc084742aa7a.jpg"
]
|
Says Kamala Harris 'said she believed that Joe Biden committed sexual assault against various women. | Contradiction | Fox News host Tucker Carlson mischaracterized Sen. Kamala Harris' past comments on the women who in 2019 accused Joe Biden of inappropriate touching. 'How can someone who said she believed that Joe Biden committed sexual assault against various women serve as his running mate?' Carlson said during an Aug. 11 TV segment. Harris, whom Biden recently selected as his running mate, said in April 2019 that she believed four women who described moments where Biden made them uncomfortable with inappropriate touching or kissing. But those women had not claimed that Biden sexually assaulted them. Sexual assault refers to 'sexual contact or behavior that occurs without explicit consent of the victim,' according to RAINN, a nonprofit anti-sexual violence organization. The Biden campaign declined to comment on Carlson's claim. Fox News did not respond to our requests for comment. What Harris was addressing Harris talked about the women's stories, which were shared over a few days as Biden mulled whether to launch a White House bid, during an April 2, 2019, presidential campaign event. 'I believe them, and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it,' Harris said at the event, which took place in Nevada. Asked if Biden should enter the race for president, Harris said he would 'have to make that decision for himself.' Biden announced his candidacy weeks later, on April 25, 2019. Sen. Kamala Harris on Joe Biden accusers: 'I believe them and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it.' https://t.co/wJJXCADAHs pic.twitter.com/9FJ05g2t21- The Hill (@thehill) April 3, 2019 Lucy Flores, a former Democratic state lawmaker from Nevada, made the first of the four accusations in an essay in the Cut. She described how before a campaign rally in 2014, Biden put his hands on her shoulders, smelled her hair and kissed the back of her head. 'Even if his behavior wasn't violent or sexual, it was demeaning and disrespectful,' Flores wrote, adding that it made her 'feel uneasy, gross, and confused.' She told a few of her staffers what happened, she said, but she didn't make a public complaint. In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper days later, Flores said the incident left her 'shocked' and feeling 'powerless,' but she added that the action didn't amount to sexual assault. 'Never do I claim that this rises to the level of a sexual assault or anything of that nature,' Flores said. 'What I am saying is that it's completely inappropriate.' Another woman, Amy Lappos, said around the same time that Biden had touched her inappropriately during a 2009 fundraiser in Connecticut for Rep. Jim Himes, a Democrat. 'It wasn't sexual, but he did grab me by the head,' Lappos told the Hartford Courant. 'He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth.' Two additional women, Caitlyn Caruso and D.J. Hill, shared similar experiences with the New York Times. Caruso said Biden placed his hand on her thigh and hugged her 'just a little bit too long' during an event on sexual assault at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Hill, a writer, said that Biden shifted his hand down her back and toward her waist while she and her husband were posing for a photo with him during a 2012 fundraiser in Minneapolis. When asked by CBS News' Tanya Rivero if the gesture struck her as sexual, Hill said, 'I can't say that that's the case. I would call it extremely uncomfortable.' Biden responded to Flores' allegations by saying he had offered 'countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort' during his many years as a public figure. 'And not once - never - did I believe I acted inappropriately,' he said. 'If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully,' Biden said. 'But it was never my intention.' The former vice president addressed the allegations again in a two-minute video statement released on Twitter after the other allegations emerged. He said he believes politics is about personal connections but pledged to be 'respectful of people's personal space.' 'Social norms have begun to change,' Biden said. 'They've shifted. And the boundaries of protecting personal space have been reset. And I get it. I get it. I hear what they're saying. I understand it. And I'll be much more mindful. That's my responsibility.' Social norms are changing. I understand that, and I've heard what these women are saying. Politics to me has always been about making connections, but I will be more mindful about respecting personal space in the future. That's my responsibility and I will meet it. pic.twitter.com/Ya2mf5ODts- Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) April 3, 2019 Biden was later accused in March of sexual assault by Tara Reade, a former aide who worked for him when he was a U.S. senator. Reade said the assault occurred in 1983. RELATED: Tara Reade has accused Joe Biden of sexual assault. Here's what we know Biden and his campaign have denied Reade's allegations. And Harris, speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle in April, stood by the candidate who would later pick her as his running mate. 'I can only speak to the Joe Biden I know. He's been a lifelong fighter in terms of stopping violence against women,' Harris said, adding that Reade 'has a right to tell her story. And I believe that, and I believe Joe Biden believes that, too.' When the New York Times examined Reade's sexual assault allegation in April, its reporters spoke to seven women who had publicly complained about behavior from Biden that made them uncomfortable - including the four who spoke out before Harris' comment. The report said: 'No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.' | Our ruling Carlson said Harris 'said she believed that Joe Biden committed sexual assault against various women.' Harris said she believed four women who, in 2019, alleged that Biden had inappropriately touched them in public or semi-public settings and made them uncomfortable. The women had not accused Biden of sexual assault. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"107453-proof-21-526d698b95c573221349fc084742aa7a.jpg"
]
|
Says Kamala Harris 'said she believed that Joe Biden committed sexual assault against various women. | Contradiction | Fox News host Tucker Carlson mischaracterized Sen. Kamala Harris' past comments on the women who in 2019 accused Joe Biden of inappropriate touching. 'How can someone who said she believed that Joe Biden committed sexual assault against various women serve as his running mate?' Carlson said during an Aug. 11 TV segment. Harris, whom Biden recently selected as his running mate, said in April 2019 that she believed four women who described moments where Biden made them uncomfortable with inappropriate touching or kissing. But those women had not claimed that Biden sexually assaulted them. Sexual assault refers to 'sexual contact or behavior that occurs without explicit consent of the victim,' according to RAINN, a nonprofit anti-sexual violence organization. The Biden campaign declined to comment on Carlson's claim. Fox News did not respond to our requests for comment. What Harris was addressing Harris talked about the women's stories, which were shared over a few days as Biden mulled whether to launch a White House bid, during an April 2, 2019, presidential campaign event. 'I believe them, and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it,' Harris said at the event, which took place in Nevada. Asked if Biden should enter the race for president, Harris said he would 'have to make that decision for himself.' Biden announced his candidacy weeks later, on April 25, 2019. Sen. Kamala Harris on Joe Biden accusers: 'I believe them and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it.' https://t.co/wJJXCADAHs pic.twitter.com/9FJ05g2t21- The Hill (@thehill) April 3, 2019 Lucy Flores, a former Democratic state lawmaker from Nevada, made the first of the four accusations in an essay in the Cut. She described how before a campaign rally in 2014, Biden put his hands on her shoulders, smelled her hair and kissed the back of her head. 'Even if his behavior wasn't violent or sexual, it was demeaning and disrespectful,' Flores wrote, adding that it made her 'feel uneasy, gross, and confused.' She told a few of her staffers what happened, she said, but she didn't make a public complaint. In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper days later, Flores said the incident left her 'shocked' and feeling 'powerless,' but she added that the action didn't amount to sexual assault. 'Never do I claim that this rises to the level of a sexual assault or anything of that nature,' Flores said. 'What I am saying is that it's completely inappropriate.' Another woman, Amy Lappos, said around the same time that Biden had touched her inappropriately during a 2009 fundraiser in Connecticut for Rep. Jim Himes, a Democrat. 'It wasn't sexual, but he did grab me by the head,' Lappos told the Hartford Courant. 'He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth.' Two additional women, Caitlyn Caruso and D.J. Hill, shared similar experiences with the New York Times. Caruso said Biden placed his hand on her thigh and hugged her 'just a little bit too long' during an event on sexual assault at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Hill, a writer, said that Biden shifted his hand down her back and toward her waist while she and her husband were posing for a photo with him during a 2012 fundraiser in Minneapolis. When asked by CBS News' Tanya Rivero if the gesture struck her as sexual, Hill said, 'I can't say that that's the case. I would call it extremely uncomfortable.' Biden responded to Flores' allegations by saying he had offered 'countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort' during his many years as a public figure. 'And not once - never - did I believe I acted inappropriately,' he said. 'If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully,' Biden said. 'But it was never my intention.' The former vice president addressed the allegations again in a two-minute video statement released on Twitter after the other allegations emerged. He said he believes politics is about personal connections but pledged to be 'respectful of people's personal space.' 'Social norms have begun to change,' Biden said. 'They've shifted. And the boundaries of protecting personal space have been reset. And I get it. I get it. I hear what they're saying. I understand it. And I'll be much more mindful. That's my responsibility.' Social norms are changing. I understand that, and I've heard what these women are saying. Politics to me has always been about making connections, but I will be more mindful about respecting personal space in the future. That's my responsibility and I will meet it. pic.twitter.com/Ya2mf5ODts- Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) April 3, 2019 Biden was later accused in March of sexual assault by Tara Reade, a former aide who worked for him when he was a U.S. senator. Reade said the assault occurred in 1983. RELATED: Tara Reade has accused Joe Biden of sexual assault. Here's what we know Biden and his campaign have denied Reade's allegations. And Harris, speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle in April, stood by the candidate who would later pick her as his running mate. 'I can only speak to the Joe Biden I know. He's been a lifelong fighter in terms of stopping violence against women,' Harris said, adding that Reade 'has a right to tell her story. And I believe that, and I believe Joe Biden believes that, too.' When the New York Times examined Reade's sexual assault allegation in April, its reporters spoke to seven women who had publicly complained about behavior from Biden that made them uncomfortable - including the four who spoke out before Harris' comment. The report said: 'No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.' | Our ruling Carlson said Harris 'said she believed that Joe Biden committed sexual assault against various women.' Harris said she believed four women who, in 2019, alleged that Biden had inappropriately touched them in public or semi-public settings and made them uncomfortable. The women had not accused Biden of sexual assault. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"107453-proof-21-526d698b95c573221349fc084742aa7a.jpg"
]
|
A man's injuries from falling after police officers shoved him in Buffalo, N.Y. were staged. | Contradiction | Two police officers in Buffalo, N.Y., have pleaded not guilty to assault charges in connection with an elderly protester who was critically injured after a video showed them shoving him. Facebook posts have cast doubt on the altercation. One shows an image of the man, 75-year-old Martin Gugino, with his head on the ground. An arrow pointing to his ear says, ''Blood' coming from the front of ear.' An arrow pointing to his mask says, 'Tube running from under mask.' An arrow pointing to the back of his head says, 'No blood on sidewalk or back of head.' Another Facebook post shows four stills from the video, the same image featured in the other Facebook post, and a photo with tubing, batteries and a fluids bag. 'The incident in Buffalo is fake!!!' this post says. 'This guy has been arrested many times before. He was antagonizing the cops. The cop pushed him away from him and the guy purposely fell! Look at this fake blood he hooked himself up with!! My friend in Buffalo said the hotels in Buffalo are filled with Antifa and they plan a big attack in Buffalo and Cheektowaga. ! Pray!' 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.) They're also baseless. We found no indication this incident is 'fake.' In a statement published by Reuters, Erie County District Attorney John Flynn said that the officers 'pushed' Gugino outside of City Hall, 'causing him to fall and hit his head on the sidewalk.' Flynn also said that Gugino was in critical condition at the Erie County Medical Center, where he was treated for a head injury, loss of consciousness and bleeding from the right ear. You can watch the video of the incident here. It was taken by a reporter for WBFO, a local radio station. In the footage, Gugino is seen approaching a line of officers with a phone in his right hand and a helmet in his left. As he stands face-to-face with two officers, he looks like he's talking to them for a few seconds as a third officer tells him to move. One of the officers then shoves Gugino with a baton and the other pushes him with his hand. Gugino stumbles backward and falls on his back. Blood starts seeping out of his ear and the phone falls from his hand as he lies motionless on the ground. 'He's bleeding out of his ear,' someone says repeatedly. Though the image in the Facebook posts claims no blood spreads to the sidewalk or the back of his head, around the 14-second mark it's visibly pooling there. This Reuters photo shows a different angle of the blood pooling at his head. While the video rolls, we see officers walking past Gugino as he lies on the pavement. The incident is under both internal affairs and criminal investigations, and the two officers facing charges have been suspended without pay. More than 50 members of their unit have since resigned from that team but are still working for the department. We reached out to the Buffalo Police Department about the claims in the posts. Capt. Jeff Rinaldo said he couldn't comment under a state law that lets police departments shield disciplinary records. He referred us to the Erie County district attorney's office, which is investigating the incident. A spokesperson for the Erie County district attorney's office said they couldn't comment because it's 'under investigation for prosecution.' A spokesperson for the City of Buffalo did not immediately respond to our voicemails. Police initially said that Gugino tripped and fell. John Evans, president of the Buffalo police union, told the Buffalo News that the officers were following orders to clear Niagara Square of people protesting the May death of George Floyd, who died in police custody in Minneapolis after an officer pressed his knee to Floyd's neck. 'It doesn't specify clear the square of men, 50 and under or 15 to 40,' Evans said. 'They were simply doing their job. I don't know how much contact was made. He did slip, in my estimation. He fell backwards.' Prosecutors disagree. The district attorney has stated clearly that his office believes officers pushed Gugino and caused him to fall and hit his head. Kelly Zarcone, Gugino's lawyer, told PolitiFact that he's now out of the intensive care unit but still hospitalized. On June 9, President Donald Trump amplified the conspiracy theory about Gugino when he tweeted: 'Buffalo protester shoved by police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out equipment. @OANN I watched, he fell harder than he was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?' The Trump campaign didn't respond to PolitiFact's requests for comment. But there's no evidence Trump's claims - or the allegations in the Facebook posts - are true. 'Martin has always been a PEACEFUL protester because he cares about today's society,' Zarcone said. 'No one from law enforcement has even suggested anything otherwise so we are at a loss to understand why the president of the United States would make such a dark, dangerous and untrue accusations against him.' We rate these Facebook posts False. | We rate these Facebook posts False. | []
|
A man's injuries from falling after police officers shoved him in Buffalo, N.Y. were staged. | Contradiction | Two police officers in Buffalo, N.Y., have pleaded not guilty to assault charges in connection with an elderly protester who was critically injured after a video showed them shoving him. Facebook posts have cast doubt on the altercation. One shows an image of the man, 75-year-old Martin Gugino, with his head on the ground. An arrow pointing to his ear says, ''Blood' coming from the front of ear.' An arrow pointing to his mask says, 'Tube running from under mask.' An arrow pointing to the back of his head says, 'No blood on sidewalk or back of head.' Another Facebook post shows four stills from the video, the same image featured in the other Facebook post, and a photo with tubing, batteries and a fluids bag. 'The incident in Buffalo is fake!!!' this post says. 'This guy has been arrested many times before. He was antagonizing the cops. The cop pushed him away from him and the guy purposely fell! Look at this fake blood he hooked himself up with!! My friend in Buffalo said the hotels in Buffalo are filled with Antifa and they plan a big attack in Buffalo and Cheektowaga. ! Pray!' 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.) They're also baseless. We found no indication this incident is 'fake.' In a statement published by Reuters, Erie County District Attorney John Flynn said that the officers 'pushed' Gugino outside of City Hall, 'causing him to fall and hit his head on the sidewalk.' Flynn also said that Gugino was in critical condition at the Erie County Medical Center, where he was treated for a head injury, loss of consciousness and bleeding from the right ear. You can watch the video of the incident here. It was taken by a reporter for WBFO, a local radio station. In the footage, Gugino is seen approaching a line of officers with a phone in his right hand and a helmet in his left. As he stands face-to-face with two officers, he looks like he's talking to them for a few seconds as a third officer tells him to move. One of the officers then shoves Gugino with a baton and the other pushes him with his hand. Gugino stumbles backward and falls on his back. Blood starts seeping out of his ear and the phone falls from his hand as he lies motionless on the ground. 'He's bleeding out of his ear,' someone says repeatedly. Though the image in the Facebook posts claims no blood spreads to the sidewalk or the back of his head, around the 14-second mark it's visibly pooling there. This Reuters photo shows a different angle of the blood pooling at his head. While the video rolls, we see officers walking past Gugino as he lies on the pavement. The incident is under both internal affairs and criminal investigations, and the two officers facing charges have been suspended without pay. More than 50 members of their unit have since resigned from that team but are still working for the department. We reached out to the Buffalo Police Department about the claims in the posts. Capt. Jeff Rinaldo said he couldn't comment under a state law that lets police departments shield disciplinary records. He referred us to the Erie County district attorney's office, which is investigating the incident. A spokesperson for the Erie County district attorney's office said they couldn't comment because it's 'under investigation for prosecution.' A spokesperson for the City of Buffalo did not immediately respond to our voicemails. Police initially said that Gugino tripped and fell. John Evans, president of the Buffalo police union, told the Buffalo News that the officers were following orders to clear Niagara Square of people protesting the May death of George Floyd, who died in police custody in Minneapolis after an officer pressed his knee to Floyd's neck. 'It doesn't specify clear the square of men, 50 and under or 15 to 40,' Evans said. 'They were simply doing their job. I don't know how much contact was made. He did slip, in my estimation. He fell backwards.' Prosecutors disagree. The district attorney has stated clearly that his office believes officers pushed Gugino and caused him to fall and hit his head. Kelly Zarcone, Gugino's lawyer, told PolitiFact that he's now out of the intensive care unit but still hospitalized. On June 9, President Donald Trump amplified the conspiracy theory about Gugino when he tweeted: 'Buffalo protester shoved by police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out equipment. @OANN I watched, he fell harder than he was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?' The Trump campaign didn't respond to PolitiFact's requests for comment. But there's no evidence Trump's claims - or the allegations in the Facebook posts - are true. 'Martin has always been a PEACEFUL protester because he cares about today's society,' Zarcone said. 'No one from law enforcement has even suggested anything otherwise so we are at a loss to understand why the president of the United States would make such a dark, dangerous and untrue accusations against him.' We rate these Facebook posts False. | We rate these Facebook posts False. | []
|
Prominent Democrats were born in April 1948, 'nine months after' a UFO crashed near Roswell, N.M. | Contradiction | Social media has proven to be fertile ground for political humor and insults. But sometimes users play loose with the facts to land their punchline. That's what happened in an image posted on Facebook in April 2019, which features a long-winded set-up for a joke that casts several prominent Democratic politicians as the descendants of aliens and livestock. The image in the post recalls the tale of a purported UFO crash and alien landing during the summer of 1947 'on a sheep and mule ranch' near Roswell, New Mexico, and refers to longstanding theories that the U.S. Air Force and other federal agencies tried to bury the incident. Then it pivots to this contention: 'However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were born: Albert A. Gore, Jr. Hillary Rodham John F. Kerry William J. Clinton Howard Dean Nancy Pelosi Dianne Feinstein Charles E. Schumer Barbara Boxer 'See what happens when aliens breed with sheep and jackasses?' the post reads. The post earned some LOLs from the commenters. But at PolitiFact, we check verifiable facts, not jokes and insults, so we couldn't resist taking a closer look at the birthdays and the enduring claims about an alien landing. Aliens or no aliens, it would be a curious occurrence indeed if nine prominent Democratic leaders, including four presidential nominees, had all been born within 30 days of each other. But they weren't. Most of the people on this list weren't born in 1948. And none of them were born in April. PolitiFact used two sources to check each person's birthday. Here's what we found: Albert A. Gore, Jr.: March 31, 1948 Hillary Rodham: Oct. 26, 1947 John F. Kerry: Dec. 11, 1943 William J. Clinton: Aug. 19, 1946 Howard Dean: Nov. 17, 1948 Nancy Pelosi: March 26, 1940 Dianne Feinstein: June 22, 1933 Charles E. Schumer: Nov. 23, 1950 Barbara Boxer: Nov. 11, 1940 Gore, the former vice president and 2000 Democratic presidential nominee, would have fit the bill if he had been born a day later. Farthest off the mark is Feinstein, California's senior senator, who was born in 1933 and will turn 87 this summer. The 1947 Roswell incident The setup of the joke refers to witnesses who claim a UFO 'with five aliens aboard' crashed just outside Roswell. It points to longstanding suspicions that the U.S. government engaged in a massive cover-up of an alien landing that occurred there. It turns out there was a government cover-up that lasted nearly half a century, but it had nothing to do with aliens. On an unknown date between mid-June and early July, a rancher named Mac Brazel drove out on his lands - about 80 miles outside of Roswell - and found unfamiliar debris, including tinfoil, rubber strips, sticks and heavy paper. Brazel brought his findings to local officials at the nearby Roswell Army Air Field. Military officials initially described the debris field as the remains of a 'flying disk.' When news outlets began to pick up the story, U.S. Army officials quickly explained that the debris was not from a flying saucer, but from a weather balloon. Photos of the remaining wreckage were provided as proof. But then, in 1994, the U.S. Air Force changed its story again, releasing a report that admitted the 'weather balloon' story had been fake. The report said the debris found near Roswell was consistent with a balloon device from a once top-secret operation known as Project Mogul that sought to determine via sound waves whether the Soviet Union was testing nuclear weapons. In a subsequent report titled 'The Roswell Report, Case Closed,' released in 1997, the Air Force asserted there was no evidence that a life form of any kind was found in the Roswell area that could be connected to the UFO sightings reported. Even so, to this day, the Roswell UFO conspiracies remain popular - and so do jokes about aliens landing there. | Our ruling An image posted on Facebook refers to theories about a UFO crash and alien landing near Roswell to skewer various prominent Democrats born 'nine months later' in April 1948. None of the Democrats listed in the post were born in April 1948. In fact, most were born at least a year before the Roswell incident occurred. The reported Roswell UFO sightings in 1947 have been explained as a case of the military using a false explanation for the debris found, in order to protect a top-secret U.S. operation to spy on the Soviets. We rate this claim False. | [
"107474-proof-22-c94b0d7042156caffd34e662f9f7dd5e.jpg"
]
|
Prominent Democrats were born in April 1948, 'nine months after' a UFO crashed near Roswell, N.M. | Contradiction | Social media has proven to be fertile ground for political humor and insults. But sometimes users play loose with the facts to land their punchline. That's what happened in an image posted on Facebook in April 2019, which features a long-winded set-up for a joke that casts several prominent Democratic politicians as the descendants of aliens and livestock. The image in the post recalls the tale of a purported UFO crash and alien landing during the summer of 1947 'on a sheep and mule ranch' near Roswell, New Mexico, and refers to longstanding theories that the U.S. Air Force and other federal agencies tried to bury the incident. Then it pivots to this contention: 'However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were born: Albert A. Gore, Jr. Hillary Rodham John F. Kerry William J. Clinton Howard Dean Nancy Pelosi Dianne Feinstein Charles E. Schumer Barbara Boxer 'See what happens when aliens breed with sheep and jackasses?' the post reads. The post earned some LOLs from the commenters. But at PolitiFact, we check verifiable facts, not jokes and insults, so we couldn't resist taking a closer look at the birthdays and the enduring claims about an alien landing. Aliens or no aliens, it would be a curious occurrence indeed if nine prominent Democratic leaders, including four presidential nominees, had all been born within 30 days of each other. But they weren't. Most of the people on this list weren't born in 1948. And none of them were born in April. PolitiFact used two sources to check each person's birthday. Here's what we found: Albert A. Gore, Jr.: March 31, 1948 Hillary Rodham: Oct. 26, 1947 John F. Kerry: Dec. 11, 1943 William J. Clinton: Aug. 19, 1946 Howard Dean: Nov. 17, 1948 Nancy Pelosi: March 26, 1940 Dianne Feinstein: June 22, 1933 Charles E. Schumer: Nov. 23, 1950 Barbara Boxer: Nov. 11, 1940 Gore, the former vice president and 2000 Democratic presidential nominee, would have fit the bill if he had been born a day later. Farthest off the mark is Feinstein, California's senior senator, who was born in 1933 and will turn 87 this summer. The 1947 Roswell incident The setup of the joke refers to witnesses who claim a UFO 'with five aliens aboard' crashed just outside Roswell. It points to longstanding suspicions that the U.S. government engaged in a massive cover-up of an alien landing that occurred there. It turns out there was a government cover-up that lasted nearly half a century, but it had nothing to do with aliens. On an unknown date between mid-June and early July, a rancher named Mac Brazel drove out on his lands - about 80 miles outside of Roswell - and found unfamiliar debris, including tinfoil, rubber strips, sticks and heavy paper. Brazel brought his findings to local officials at the nearby Roswell Army Air Field. Military officials initially described the debris field as the remains of a 'flying disk.' When news outlets began to pick up the story, U.S. Army officials quickly explained that the debris was not from a flying saucer, but from a weather balloon. Photos of the remaining wreckage were provided as proof. But then, in 1994, the U.S. Air Force changed its story again, releasing a report that admitted the 'weather balloon' story had been fake. The report said the debris found near Roswell was consistent with a balloon device from a once top-secret operation known as Project Mogul that sought to determine via sound waves whether the Soviet Union was testing nuclear weapons. In a subsequent report titled 'The Roswell Report, Case Closed,' released in 1997, the Air Force asserted there was no evidence that a life form of any kind was found in the Roswell area that could be connected to the UFO sightings reported. Even so, to this day, the Roswell UFO conspiracies remain popular - and so do jokes about aliens landing there. | Our ruling An image posted on Facebook refers to theories about a UFO crash and alien landing near Roswell to skewer various prominent Democrats born 'nine months later' in April 1948. None of the Democrats listed in the post were born in April 1948. In fact, most were born at least a year before the Roswell incident occurred. The reported Roswell UFO sightings in 1947 have been explained as a case of the military using a false explanation for the debris found, in order to protect a top-secret U.S. operation to spy on the Soviets. We rate this claim False. | [
"107474-proof-22-c94b0d7042156caffd34e662f9f7dd5e.jpg"
]
|
Prominent Democrats were born in April 1948, 'nine months after' a UFO crashed near Roswell, N.M. | Contradiction | Social media has proven to be fertile ground for political humor and insults. But sometimes users play loose with the facts to land their punchline. That's what happened in an image posted on Facebook in April 2019, which features a long-winded set-up for a joke that casts several prominent Democratic politicians as the descendants of aliens and livestock. The image in the post recalls the tale of a purported UFO crash and alien landing during the summer of 1947 'on a sheep and mule ranch' near Roswell, New Mexico, and refers to longstanding theories that the U.S. Air Force and other federal agencies tried to bury the incident. Then it pivots to this contention: 'However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were born: Albert A. Gore, Jr. Hillary Rodham John F. Kerry William J. Clinton Howard Dean Nancy Pelosi Dianne Feinstein Charles E. Schumer Barbara Boxer 'See what happens when aliens breed with sheep and jackasses?' the post reads. The post earned some LOLs from the commenters. But at PolitiFact, we check verifiable facts, not jokes and insults, so we couldn't resist taking a closer look at the birthdays and the enduring claims about an alien landing. Aliens or no aliens, it would be a curious occurrence indeed if nine prominent Democratic leaders, including four presidential nominees, had all been born within 30 days of each other. But they weren't. Most of the people on this list weren't born in 1948. And none of them were born in April. PolitiFact used two sources to check each person's birthday. Here's what we found: Albert A. Gore, Jr.: March 31, 1948 Hillary Rodham: Oct. 26, 1947 John F. Kerry: Dec. 11, 1943 William J. Clinton: Aug. 19, 1946 Howard Dean: Nov. 17, 1948 Nancy Pelosi: March 26, 1940 Dianne Feinstein: June 22, 1933 Charles E. Schumer: Nov. 23, 1950 Barbara Boxer: Nov. 11, 1940 Gore, the former vice president and 2000 Democratic presidential nominee, would have fit the bill if he had been born a day later. Farthest off the mark is Feinstein, California's senior senator, who was born in 1933 and will turn 87 this summer. The 1947 Roswell incident The setup of the joke refers to witnesses who claim a UFO 'with five aliens aboard' crashed just outside Roswell. It points to longstanding suspicions that the U.S. government engaged in a massive cover-up of an alien landing that occurred there. It turns out there was a government cover-up that lasted nearly half a century, but it had nothing to do with aliens. On an unknown date between mid-June and early July, a rancher named Mac Brazel drove out on his lands - about 80 miles outside of Roswell - and found unfamiliar debris, including tinfoil, rubber strips, sticks and heavy paper. Brazel brought his findings to local officials at the nearby Roswell Army Air Field. Military officials initially described the debris field as the remains of a 'flying disk.' When news outlets began to pick up the story, U.S. Army officials quickly explained that the debris was not from a flying saucer, but from a weather balloon. Photos of the remaining wreckage were provided as proof. But then, in 1994, the U.S. Air Force changed its story again, releasing a report that admitted the 'weather balloon' story had been fake. The report said the debris found near Roswell was consistent with a balloon device from a once top-secret operation known as Project Mogul that sought to determine via sound waves whether the Soviet Union was testing nuclear weapons. In a subsequent report titled 'The Roswell Report, Case Closed,' released in 1997, the Air Force asserted there was no evidence that a life form of any kind was found in the Roswell area that could be connected to the UFO sightings reported. Even so, to this day, the Roswell UFO conspiracies remain popular - and so do jokes about aliens landing there. | Our ruling An image posted on Facebook refers to theories about a UFO crash and alien landing near Roswell to skewer various prominent Democrats born 'nine months later' in April 1948. None of the Democrats listed in the post were born in April 1948. In fact, most were born at least a year before the Roswell incident occurred. The reported Roswell UFO sightings in 1947 have been explained as a case of the military using a false explanation for the debris found, in order to protect a top-secret U.S. operation to spy on the Soviets. We rate this claim False. | [
"107474-proof-22-c94b0d7042156caffd34e662f9f7dd5e.jpg"
]
|
More mail-in ballots were counted in Lancaster County, Pa., than were returned. | Contradiction | An image of a TV graphic that's circulating on social media is being used to cast doubt on the integrity of the election results in Lancaster County, Pa., but the station told us that it was a mistake. The graphic shows three numbers. The first - 108,539 - is described as 'mail in ballot requests.' The second - 89,681 - is described as 'mail in ballots returned' and the third - 142,584 - is described as 'mail in ballots counted.' 'Anyone see a problem with this?' one person who shared the image said. There is an obvious problem: the number of mail-in ballots the graphic says were counted exceeds the number of mail-in ballots that voters returned. The CBS affiliate in Harrisburg, Pa., which ran the graphic, told PolitiFact that the numbers in the graphic were incorrect. A producer for the station told fact-checker Lead Stories that the graphic 'pulled together both mail-in and in-person ballot numbers and for a while that screen showed the wrong number.' 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.) When we checked the Pennsylvania Department of State's election website on Nov. 5, Lancaster County had reported that 107,949 absentee and mail-in ballots had been issued to voters, 91,188 had been cast, and 90,198 had been counted. The Lancaster County elections board website showed that, in all, 273,527 ballots had been cast by mail or in person. The majority of those votes went to President Donald Trump, who leads Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden with 156,938 votes to Biden's 112,536. We rate the claim that more mail-in ballots were counted in Lancaster County that were cast False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate the claim that more mail-in ballots were counted in Lancaster County that were cast False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
More mail-in ballots were counted in Lancaster County, Pa., than were returned. | Contradiction | An image of a TV graphic that's circulating on social media is being used to cast doubt on the integrity of the election results in Lancaster County, Pa., but the station told us that it was a mistake. The graphic shows three numbers. The first - 108,539 - is described as 'mail in ballot requests.' The second - 89,681 - is described as 'mail in ballots returned' and the third - 142,584 - is described as 'mail in ballots counted.' 'Anyone see a problem with this?' one person who shared the image said. There is an obvious problem: the number of mail-in ballots the graphic says were counted exceeds the number of mail-in ballots that voters returned. The CBS affiliate in Harrisburg, Pa., which ran the graphic, told PolitiFact that the numbers in the graphic were incorrect. A producer for the station told fact-checker Lead Stories that the graphic 'pulled together both mail-in and in-person ballot numbers and for a while that screen showed the wrong number.' 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.) When we checked the Pennsylvania Department of State's election website on Nov. 5, Lancaster County had reported that 107,949 absentee and mail-in ballots had been issued to voters, 91,188 had been cast, and 90,198 had been counted. The Lancaster County elections board website showed that, in all, 273,527 ballots had been cast by mail or in person. The majority of those votes went to President Donald Trump, who leads Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden with 156,938 votes to Biden's 112,536. We rate the claim that more mail-in ballots were counted in Lancaster County that were cast False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate the claim that more mail-in ballots were counted in Lancaster County that were cast False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
More mail-in ballots were counted in Lancaster County, Pa., than were returned. | Contradiction | An image of a TV graphic that's circulating on social media is being used to cast doubt on the integrity of the election results in Lancaster County, Pa., but the station told us that it was a mistake. The graphic shows three numbers. The first - 108,539 - is described as 'mail in ballot requests.' The second - 89,681 - is described as 'mail in ballots returned' and the third - 142,584 - is described as 'mail in ballots counted.' 'Anyone see a problem with this?' one person who shared the image said. There is an obvious problem: the number of mail-in ballots the graphic says were counted exceeds the number of mail-in ballots that voters returned. The CBS affiliate in Harrisburg, Pa., which ran the graphic, told PolitiFact that the numbers in the graphic were incorrect. A producer for the station told fact-checker Lead Stories that the graphic 'pulled together both mail-in and in-person ballot numbers and for a while that screen showed the wrong number.' 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.) When we checked the Pennsylvania Department of State's election website on Nov. 5, Lancaster County had reported that 107,949 absentee and mail-in ballots had been issued to voters, 91,188 had been cast, and 90,198 had been counted. The Lancaster County elections board website showed that, in all, 273,527 ballots had been cast by mail or in person. The majority of those votes went to President Donald Trump, who leads Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden with 156,938 votes to Biden's 112,536. We rate the claim that more mail-in ballots were counted in Lancaster County that were cast False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | We rate the claim that more mail-in ballots were counted in Lancaster County that were cast False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Says the Make-A-Wish Foundation will grant wishes only to fully vaccinated children. | Contradiction | Since its founding in 1980, the Make-A-Wish Foundation has granted over 315,000 wishes for children with critical illnesses. Amid lockdown orders and travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, thousands of those wishes had to be delayed. Now, as vaccine access continues to expand, the nonprofit announced a vaccination policy for resuming certain wishes that involve longer travel and more people. The policy was misrepresented on social media. 'Make-A-Wish Foundation will only grant wishes to fully vaccinated children,' reads a screenshot of a headline that was shared in a June 26 Instagram post. 'The Make-A-Wish Foundations' CEO Richard Davis in a recent video announced that wishes will only be granted to terminally ill children who have received the COVID-19 vaccine,' the subhead under the headline says. This isn't accurate. The policy says children and their families need to be fully vaccinated if the wish involves air travel or large gatherings. It does not apply to every child and every wish, and it also does not apply to any child who has received an end-of-life prognosis, the organization said. 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 distortion appears to stem from the Davis video reference in the claim. Some interpreted Davis as saying that the foundation was refusing to grant wishes for unvaccinated children altogether. 'This is literally a new low for humanity. Terminally ill children will not be granted a wish.. from the make a wish foundation... unless.. you guessed it.. they're fully vaccinated,' one Twitter post said. In the video, Davis says the vaccination policy applies only to wishes involving air travel and large gatherings, which are set to resume in mid-September for the first time since a March 2020 pause. The decision was made with the help of pediatricians and other medical professionals to protect the health of the children, whose conditions often make them more vulnerable to the virus. The organization issued a statement on its website on June 28 saying, 'Make-A-Wish has not, does not and will not deny wishes to children who are not vaccinated.' The organization said it offers other options that do not involve flying or big crowds for families with children who aren't yet eligible for the vaccines, or who are choosing not to get the shot. These include shopping sprees, staycations, wishes for pets, room redecorations and spending time with celebrities. | Our ruling An Instagram post claims that the Make-A-Wish Foundation will grant wishes only to fully vaccinated children. This is wrong. The nonprofit organization recently announced a policy that requires families and children to be fully vaccinated only for wishes that involve air travel and large gatherings. The new policy is based on the guidance of medical experts to protect the health of the children, whose conditions often make them more vulnerable to viruses. It doesn't apply to any child who has received an end-of-life prognosis. We rate this False. | []
|
Says the Make-A-Wish Foundation will grant wishes only to fully vaccinated children. | Contradiction | Since its founding in 1980, the Make-A-Wish Foundation has granted over 315,000 wishes for children with critical illnesses. Amid lockdown orders and travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, thousands of those wishes had to be delayed. Now, as vaccine access continues to expand, the nonprofit announced a vaccination policy for resuming certain wishes that involve longer travel and more people. The policy was misrepresented on social media. 'Make-A-Wish Foundation will only grant wishes to fully vaccinated children,' reads a screenshot of a headline that was shared in a June 26 Instagram post. 'The Make-A-Wish Foundations' CEO Richard Davis in a recent video announced that wishes will only be granted to terminally ill children who have received the COVID-19 vaccine,' the subhead under the headline says. This isn't accurate. The policy says children and their families need to be fully vaccinated if the wish involves air travel or large gatherings. It does not apply to every child and every wish, and it also does not apply to any child who has received an end-of-life prognosis, the organization said. 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 distortion appears to stem from the Davis video reference in the claim. Some interpreted Davis as saying that the foundation was refusing to grant wishes for unvaccinated children altogether. 'This is literally a new low for humanity. Terminally ill children will not be granted a wish.. from the make a wish foundation... unless.. you guessed it.. they're fully vaccinated,' one Twitter post said. In the video, Davis says the vaccination policy applies only to wishes involving air travel and large gatherings, which are set to resume in mid-September for the first time since a March 2020 pause. The decision was made with the help of pediatricians and other medical professionals to protect the health of the children, whose conditions often make them more vulnerable to the virus. The organization issued a statement on its website on June 28 saying, 'Make-A-Wish has not, does not and will not deny wishes to children who are not vaccinated.' The organization said it offers other options that do not involve flying or big crowds for families with children who aren't yet eligible for the vaccines, or who are choosing not to get the shot. These include shopping sprees, staycations, wishes for pets, room redecorations and spending time with celebrities. | Our ruling An Instagram post claims that the Make-A-Wish Foundation will grant wishes only to fully vaccinated children. This is wrong. The nonprofit organization recently announced a policy that requires families and children to be fully vaccinated only for wishes that involve air travel and large gatherings. The new policy is based on the guidance of medical experts to protect the health of the children, whose conditions often make them more vulnerable to viruses. It doesn't apply to any child who has received an end-of-life prognosis. We rate this False. | []
|
Viral immunologist says COVID-19 vaccines' 'spike protein' means people are being inoculated 'with a toxin. | Contradiction | A university expert claimed on talk radio that he has new evidence that COVID-19 vaccines produce a 'toxin.' The credentials of Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, include research funding from the Canadian government and the Canadian Cancer Society, as well as dozens of publications in research journals. But experts told PolitiFact that, despite a document Bridle cites, there is no evidence to back his claim that what is known as the vaccines' spike protein produces a toxin that could cause heart problems and neurological damage. 'There is no data that the spike is a toxin,' said Dr. Drew Weissman, a vaccine expert and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. 'The document he cites is an anti-vaxxer product with no real scientific data supporting its claims.' Bridle's interview sparks social media burst Bridle began a Canadian talk show interview with a dramatic warning: 'I'll forewarn you and your listeners that the story I'm about to tell is a bit of a scary one.' Describing himself as 'very much pro-vaccine,' Bridle said he had assembled scientific information that he intends to make public, but 'your listeners are going to be the first to hear the public release of this conclusion.' He claimed the information shows that the spike protein produced by the vaccines, which is intended to prevent the coronavirus from infecting the body, does not remain in the shoulder muscle but gets into the blood - and can lead to clotting, bleeding, heart problems and neurological damage. 'In short, the conclusion is, we made a big mistake,' Bridle said. 'We didn't realize it until now. We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen. We never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin, and was a pathogenic protein. So, by vaccinating people, we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin. Some people, this gets into circulation, and when that happens in some people, they can cause damage, especially in the cardiovascular system. And I have many other legitimate questions about the long-term safety, therefore, of this vaccine.' The interview led to claims widely shared on websites and social media, including posts that linked to an article from the website of the Hal Turner Radio Show, which uses internet and radio broadcasts to float conspiracy theories and hate speech. The article carried this headline: 'Doctor on COVID Vax: 'We Screwed-Up. We didn't realize the Spike Protein is a TOXIN' Does this mean everyone vaccinated is manufacturing their own Spike Protein Toxins in their own bodies?' 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.) Explaining 'spike proteins' COVID-19 mRNA (messenger RNA) vaccines use the human body's natural immune response to its advantage. The shot contains the recipe for making the molecule known as the spike protein, which the COVID-19 virus uses to bind to cells. Once the cell receives these instructions, it creates the protein and displays it on its surface. The immune system then spots the unknown protein and makes antibodies to fight it. The technology in the vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna stems from research that began in the early 1990s, said Weissman. He and his colleague Katalin Karikó, a senior vice president of BioNTech, are credited with the breakthrough discovery that enabled these vaccines to be safe and highly effective. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which calls the spike protein harmless, says: 'Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn't belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19. At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to protect against future infection.' Bridle's evidence seen lacking PolitiFact emailed Bridle on June 3 asking for the evidence to back his statement, and received an automated reply from him. The reply said that the radio interview led to 'vicious attacks,' including a website that emerged May 28 bearing his name. Bridle's email said that he believes the website - which anonymously critiques Bridle's claims - to be libeling him. Also in the email, Bridle cited a document that he said supports what he said in the interview, and that he would be writing a more comprehensive public report. The document claims that 'recent studies suggest that the spike protein produced in response to vaccination' could result 'in damage to various tissues and organs. This risk, no matter how theoretical, must be investigated prior to the vaccination of children and adolescents.' On that point, the document links to one Journal of Respiration article published Dec. 31, days after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave emergency use authorization to the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. The article describes how the spike protein in the coronavirus affects lung cells and says that because the spike protein will be administered in vaccines, 'it is critical to understand the biological effects of this protein on human cells to ensure that it does not promote long-term adverse health consequences.' Weissman said Bridle's conclusion that the vaccines are toxic is off-base, especially given that the vaccines do not deliver spike protein to the lungs. 'Reports of spike protein trouble are interesting and important for coronavirus infection, but they do not mean that the vaccines themselves are going to cause similar problems,' said a May 4 commentary in Science Translational Medicine, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The commentary notes that 'the spike protein is not released to wander freely through the bloodstream,' and says the fact that the vaccines 'are aimed at the spike means that they're protective in more ways than we even realized.' Despite the widespread administration of the vaccine, Dr. Walter Orenstein, professor and associate director of Emory University's Emory Vaccine Center, said he is 'not aware of any data to support the allegations' made by Bridle. 'It would be nice to have any direct evidence if this were true,' said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 'We are at nearly 300 million doses given (in the United States) and a robust surveillance system in a population that is certainly not shy about reporting problems' about vaccines to public health authorities, Offit said. | Our ruling A post widely shared on social media claims a viral immunologist said COVID-19 vaccines' spike protein means people are being inoculated 'with a toxin.' Experts say there is no evidence that the spike protein produced by the vaccines is a toxin that could cause heart problems and neurological damage. The Canadian viral immunologist who made the claim has not produced evidence to back it up. We rate the claim False. | [
"107520-proof-06-453f8b35b0cade85cdd07df85e46b892.jpg"
]
|
Viral immunologist says COVID-19 vaccines' 'spike protein' means people are being inoculated 'with a toxin. | Contradiction | A university expert claimed on talk radio that he has new evidence that COVID-19 vaccines produce a 'toxin.' The credentials of Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, include research funding from the Canadian government and the Canadian Cancer Society, as well as dozens of publications in research journals. But experts told PolitiFact that, despite a document Bridle cites, there is no evidence to back his claim that what is known as the vaccines' spike protein produces a toxin that could cause heart problems and neurological damage. 'There is no data that the spike is a toxin,' said Dr. Drew Weissman, a vaccine expert and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. 'The document he cites is an anti-vaxxer product with no real scientific data supporting its claims.' Bridle's interview sparks social media burst Bridle began a Canadian talk show interview with a dramatic warning: 'I'll forewarn you and your listeners that the story I'm about to tell is a bit of a scary one.' Describing himself as 'very much pro-vaccine,' Bridle said he had assembled scientific information that he intends to make public, but 'your listeners are going to be the first to hear the public release of this conclusion.' He claimed the information shows that the spike protein produced by the vaccines, which is intended to prevent the coronavirus from infecting the body, does not remain in the shoulder muscle but gets into the blood - and can lead to clotting, bleeding, heart problems and neurological damage. 'In short, the conclusion is, we made a big mistake,' Bridle said. 'We didn't realize it until now. We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen. We never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin, and was a pathogenic protein. So, by vaccinating people, we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin. Some people, this gets into circulation, and when that happens in some people, they can cause damage, especially in the cardiovascular system. And I have many other legitimate questions about the long-term safety, therefore, of this vaccine.' The interview led to claims widely shared on websites and social media, including posts that linked to an article from the website of the Hal Turner Radio Show, which uses internet and radio broadcasts to float conspiracy theories and hate speech. The article carried this headline: 'Doctor on COVID Vax: 'We Screwed-Up. We didn't realize the Spike Protein is a TOXIN' Does this mean everyone vaccinated is manufacturing their own Spike Protein Toxins in their own bodies?' 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.) Explaining 'spike proteins' COVID-19 mRNA (messenger RNA) vaccines use the human body's natural immune response to its advantage. The shot contains the recipe for making the molecule known as the spike protein, which the COVID-19 virus uses to bind to cells. Once the cell receives these instructions, it creates the protein and displays it on its surface. The immune system then spots the unknown protein and makes antibodies to fight it. The technology in the vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna stems from research that began in the early 1990s, said Weissman. He and his colleague Katalin Karikó, a senior vice president of BioNTech, are credited with the breakthrough discovery that enabled these vaccines to be safe and highly effective. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which calls the spike protein harmless, says: 'Our immune systems recognize that the protein doesn't belong there and begin building an immune response and making antibodies, like what happens in natural infection against COVID-19. At the end of the process, our bodies have learned how to protect against future infection.' Bridle's evidence seen lacking PolitiFact emailed Bridle on June 3 asking for the evidence to back his statement, and received an automated reply from him. The reply said that the radio interview led to 'vicious attacks,' including a website that emerged May 28 bearing his name. Bridle's email said that he believes the website - which anonymously critiques Bridle's claims - to be libeling him. Also in the email, Bridle cited a document that he said supports what he said in the interview, and that he would be writing a more comprehensive public report. The document claims that 'recent studies suggest that the spike protein produced in response to vaccination' could result 'in damage to various tissues and organs. This risk, no matter how theoretical, must be investigated prior to the vaccination of children and adolescents.' On that point, the document links to one Journal of Respiration article published Dec. 31, days after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave emergency use authorization to the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. The article describes how the spike protein in the coronavirus affects lung cells and says that because the spike protein will be administered in vaccines, 'it is critical to understand the biological effects of this protein on human cells to ensure that it does not promote long-term adverse health consequences.' Weissman said Bridle's conclusion that the vaccines are toxic is off-base, especially given that the vaccines do not deliver spike protein to the lungs. 'Reports of spike protein trouble are interesting and important for coronavirus infection, but they do not mean that the vaccines themselves are going to cause similar problems,' said a May 4 commentary in Science Translational Medicine, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The commentary notes that 'the spike protein is not released to wander freely through the bloodstream,' and says the fact that the vaccines 'are aimed at the spike means that they're protective in more ways than we even realized.' Despite the widespread administration of the vaccine, Dr. Walter Orenstein, professor and associate director of Emory University's Emory Vaccine Center, said he is 'not aware of any data to support the allegations' made by Bridle. 'It would be nice to have any direct evidence if this were true,' said Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. 'We are at nearly 300 million doses given (in the United States) and a robust surveillance system in a population that is certainly not shy about reporting problems' about vaccines to public health authorities, Offit said. | Our ruling A post widely shared on social media claims a viral immunologist said COVID-19 vaccines' spike protein means people are being inoculated 'with a toxin.' Experts say there is no evidence that the spike protein produced by the vaccines is a toxin that could cause heart problems and neurological damage. The Canadian viral immunologist who made the claim has not produced evidence to back it up. We rate the claim False. | [
"107520-proof-06-453f8b35b0cade85cdd07df85e46b892.jpg"
]
|
Says Burisma admitted in a Ukrainian court to paying Joe Biden $900,000. | Contradiction | The widely discredited allegation that a Ukrainian gas company paid nearly $1 million in lobbying fees to President Joe Biden is like the proverbial cat with nine lives: It just keeps coming back. A Facebook post that was published March 16 claims that an associate of Burisma Holdings Ltd. - where Biden's son Hunter held a directorship from 2014 to 2019 - presented the allegation as fact during an unspecified Ukrainian court hearing. The post says: 'I guess its no biggie that in a Ukrainian Court today Burisima (sic) admitted to giving Sleepy JOE a lump sum of 900K. Fact checkers???' 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've extensively fact-checked claims in the past concerning the Bidens' ties to Burisma. However, because this claim about payments to Joe Biden has resurfaced with a new setting - this time allegedly in a Ukrainian court of law - we decided it was worth another look. We found no evidence that any such statement was made in court or any new evidence that Joe Biden got money from Burisma. The claim echoes unsubstantiated allegations circulated more than a year ago by Rudy Giuliani, former President Donald Trump's private lawyer, in an effort to discredit Biden's anti-corruption efforts when he was vice president. During Trump's reelection campaign, Trump and Giuliani repeatedly misrepresented Biden's efforts to oust a Ukrainian prosecutor accused of corruption, insisting that they were an attempt to shield Hunter Biden from prosecution - another claim we fact-checked and found unsubstantiated. On top of that, Giuliani on Oct. 10, 2019, told Fox News' Sean Hannity that Burisma paid Joe Biden $900,000 in consulting fees when he was vice president. Giuliani was parroting claims made in a press conference by Ukranian lawmaker Andriy Derkach. Derkach, according to the New York Post, said Burisma transferred the sum to Rosemont Seneca Partners, an investment firm co-founded by Hunter Biden. But he offered no evidence that Joe Biden got any money, the Post said. In a September 2020 investigative report on Bidens' relationship with Burisma, the GOP-led Senate finance and homeland security committees referred to Derkach's claim as 'foreign-sourced disinformation.' Ukraine's Interior Ministry reaffirmed in a Feb. 26 news release that authorities concluded there was no evidence of criminal acts by the Bidens. PolitiFact found no evidence that would indicate otherwise. In searching news archives, we found no mention of a Ukrainian court hearing where this debunked claim may have resurfaced. We rate this claim False. Caryn Baird contributed to this report. | We rate this claim False. Caryn Baird contributed to this report. | [
"107547-proof-01-acfb9101692a64cec9e0ff0ac30487bf.jpg"
]
|
'Joe Suffers Brain Fart! Biden Visits Elementary School, Asks The Children If They're High Schoolers (VIDEO). | Contradiction | A Facebook headline on an article from the website Conservative Brief suggests President Joe Biden made an embarrassing gaffe on a visit to a classroom, mistaking elementary students for high schoolers. On Facebook, the headline appears as: 'Joe Suffers Brain Fart! Biden Visits Elementary School, Asks The Children If They're High Schoolers (VIDEO).' On the website, the headline appears without that first sentence. But the added words on the version that appears on social media give a misleading impression of what happened in the classroom. As video of the visit makes clear, Biden was joking. | The story 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.) On the website, the article appears under a label that says: 'OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.' That context is not reflected in the Facebook post. The article says: 'Joe Biden and Jill Biden visited an elementary school in Yorktown, Virginia on Monday - and it went about as well as one might expect. Biden walked into a classroom full of masked children sitting at desks behind massive plastic partitions. The sight alone of children being fully masked and behind these jail-like plexiglass barriers is enough to enrage most Americans. 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 'But then Biden made matters worse when he asked the clearly young children if they were teenagers in high school.' This distorts what happened. In a video shared on Twitter by The Hill, Biden can be heard telling students at Yorktown Elementary School, 'you guys are impressive.' 'This is the 9th grade, right?' Biden quips as people in the room laugh. 'Oh! It seemed like 9th grade because you're so smart.' President Biden: 'You guys are impressive.'@POTUS and @FLOTUS visit an elementary school in Virginia pic.twitter.com/Ohs38tcBW6- The Hill (@thehill) May 3, 2021 The headline is misleading. Biden was joking, and even the young children in the audience appeared to understand that. We rate this False. | []
|
'President Trump has banned welfare for illegal immigrants which will save $57.4 billion a year. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump has been consistent and forceful in his argument that immigration represents a burden on the American taxpayer and the economy. His administration has sought to crack down on illegal immigration and curtail legal immigration, most recently by ordering a 60-day halt on issuance of green cards to people outside the United States. But a Facebook post crediting him with saving billions by denying welfare to 'illegal immigrants' is inaccurate. 'President Trump has banned welfare for illegal immigrants which will save $57.4 billion a year,' said the April 9 Facebook post. 'Do you support Trump on this?? I damn sure do!!' 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 are several wrong premises with the post: Immigrants living in the country illegally and those who arrive on non-immigrant visas (such as students and tourists) are generally not eligible for federal public benefits, even though some pay income taxes and contribute to Social Security. This was the case before Trump became president. The Trump administration issued a rule in August 2019 that broadened the government's ability to deny visas and permanent-resident status to immigrants who get public benefits or those who may need assistance after their arrival. The rule targets people who are seeking legal admission and those who are here and applying for permanent residency. The Facebook post doesn't specify where the $57.4 billion figure comes from, but the post mirrors a headline on a Breitbart story. That story, however, was about legal immigration. Here's a more detailed explanation of the inaccuracies. Generally, immigrants living illegally in the United States are ineligible for federal public benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly called food stamps), regular Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. These restrictions are not the result of Trump's presidency. They may be eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, Emergency Medicaid to cover emergency medical needs, and other emergency assistance, such as short-term non-cash, in-kind emergency disaster relief (which includes things like crisis counseling, shelter, food and water.) For decades, even immigrants who came to the United States legally have been restricted from public assistance for a period. A 1996 law barred immigrants from federal 'means tested' public benefits for five years. (There are some exemptions; this story has more details.) Additionally, public-charge rules say that immigrants can be turned away if they are likely to depend on public-assistance programs; this type of restriction has been in place for more than 100 years. The Trump administration in August 2019 broadened the interpretation of these rules to make them stricter. But that did not ban welfare for immigrants here illegally. Immigration experts told PolitiFact that under the new rule, immigration officials will be able to deny immigrants visas if they are deemed 'more likely than not' to use public benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps or housing vouchers. Immigrants who are in the United States legally on temporary visas and have relied on such benefits in the past could also have more difficulty getting a green card. The Facebook post claimed that the purported ban would save Americans $57.4 billion a year. An August 2018 Breitbart headline said, 'Trump's welfare ban for immigrants would be $57.4B tax cut for Americans.' The story centered on Trump's plan for a public-charge rule and immigrants who would 'resettle permanently' in the United States. That Breitbart story linked to a 2016 post on its website headlined, 'National Academies: Immigrants cost state and local taxpayers $57.4 billion per year.' A study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine estimated that the annual fiscal cost of first-generation immigrants and their dependents, averaged across 2011-2013, was $57.4 billion. The figure referred to state and local expenses, not federal costs or benefits, and the main cost was education, said Francine D. Blau, a Cornell University economics professor who chaired the panel of researchers studying the economic and fiscal consequences of immigration. 'We find that much of this cost is related to the cost of educating both immigrant children and U.S. citizen children of immigrants (we attribute the entire cost of education to the parents of school age children),' Blau said via email. 'The cost is smaller if we recognize the public-good aspect of education, that is, the broader social benefits in having a more educated populace.' The $57.4 billion also included costs of general public services such as police, fire, parks and recreation. It also did not apply only to immigrants in the country illegally. The study relied on data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, which did not allow researchers to differentiate between immigrants here legally and illegally, Blau said. | Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'President Trump has banned welfare for illegal immigrants which will save $57.4 billion a year.' Trump has not done that. Immigrants here illegally were already ineligible for most federal assistance programs. Trump's administration issued a public-charge rule that would deny legal admission to people who are likely to depend on public benefits and which would make getting lawful permanent residency more difficult for people who are already in the country and used public assistance. The source of the $57.4 billion figure is unclear. A study estimated a $57.4 billion annual cost to state and local governments for first generation immigrants and their dependents. Schooling costs accounted for the bulk of that cost. The post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | []
|
'President Trump has banned welfare for illegal immigrants which will save $57.4 billion a year. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump has been consistent and forceful in his argument that immigration represents a burden on the American taxpayer and the economy. His administration has sought to crack down on illegal immigration and curtail legal immigration, most recently by ordering a 60-day halt on issuance of green cards to people outside the United States. But a Facebook post crediting him with saving billions by denying welfare to 'illegal immigrants' is inaccurate. 'President Trump has banned welfare for illegal immigrants which will save $57.4 billion a year,' said the April 9 Facebook post. 'Do you support Trump on this?? I damn sure do!!' 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 are several wrong premises with the post: Immigrants living in the country illegally and those who arrive on non-immigrant visas (such as students and tourists) are generally not eligible for federal public benefits, even though some pay income taxes and contribute to Social Security. This was the case before Trump became president. The Trump administration issued a rule in August 2019 that broadened the government's ability to deny visas and permanent-resident status to immigrants who get public benefits or those who may need assistance after their arrival. The rule targets people who are seeking legal admission and those who are here and applying for permanent residency. The Facebook post doesn't specify where the $57.4 billion figure comes from, but the post mirrors a headline on a Breitbart story. That story, however, was about legal immigration. Here's a more detailed explanation of the inaccuracies. Generally, immigrants living illegally in the United States are ineligible for federal public benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly called food stamps), regular Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. These restrictions are not the result of Trump's presidency. They may be eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, Emergency Medicaid to cover emergency medical needs, and other emergency assistance, such as short-term non-cash, in-kind emergency disaster relief (which includes things like crisis counseling, shelter, food and water.) For decades, even immigrants who came to the United States legally have been restricted from public assistance for a period. A 1996 law barred immigrants from federal 'means tested' public benefits for five years. (There are some exemptions; this story has more details.) Additionally, public-charge rules say that immigrants can be turned away if they are likely to depend on public-assistance programs; this type of restriction has been in place for more than 100 years. The Trump administration in August 2019 broadened the interpretation of these rules to make them stricter. But that did not ban welfare for immigrants here illegally. Immigration experts told PolitiFact that under the new rule, immigration officials will be able to deny immigrants visas if they are deemed 'more likely than not' to use public benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps or housing vouchers. Immigrants who are in the United States legally on temporary visas and have relied on such benefits in the past could also have more difficulty getting a green card. The Facebook post claimed that the purported ban would save Americans $57.4 billion a year. An August 2018 Breitbart headline said, 'Trump's welfare ban for immigrants would be $57.4B tax cut for Americans.' The story centered on Trump's plan for a public-charge rule and immigrants who would 'resettle permanently' in the United States. That Breitbart story linked to a 2016 post on its website headlined, 'National Academies: Immigrants cost state and local taxpayers $57.4 billion per year.' A study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine estimated that the annual fiscal cost of first-generation immigrants and their dependents, averaged across 2011-2013, was $57.4 billion. The figure referred to state and local expenses, not federal costs or benefits, and the main cost was education, said Francine D. Blau, a Cornell University economics professor who chaired the panel of researchers studying the economic and fiscal consequences of immigration. 'We find that much of this cost is related to the cost of educating both immigrant children and U.S. citizen children of immigrants (we attribute the entire cost of education to the parents of school age children),' Blau said via email. 'The cost is smaller if we recognize the public-good aspect of education, that is, the broader social benefits in having a more educated populace.' The $57.4 billion also included costs of general public services such as police, fire, parks and recreation. It also did not apply only to immigrants in the country illegally. The study relied on data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, which did not allow researchers to differentiate between immigrants here legally and illegally, Blau said. | Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'President Trump has banned welfare for illegal immigrants which will save $57.4 billion a year.' Trump has not done that. Immigrants here illegally were already ineligible for most federal assistance programs. Trump's administration issued a public-charge rule that would deny legal admission to people who are likely to depend on public benefits and which would make getting lawful permanent residency more difficult for people who are already in the country and used public assistance. The source of the $57.4 billion figure is unclear. A study estimated a $57.4 billion annual cost to state and local governments for first generation immigrants and their dependents. Schooling costs accounted for the bulk of that cost. The post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | []
|
'President Trump has banned welfare for illegal immigrants which will save $57.4 billion a year. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump has been consistent and forceful in his argument that immigration represents a burden on the American taxpayer and the economy. His administration has sought to crack down on illegal immigration and curtail legal immigration, most recently by ordering a 60-day halt on issuance of green cards to people outside the United States. But a Facebook post crediting him with saving billions by denying welfare to 'illegal immigrants' is inaccurate. 'President Trump has banned welfare for illegal immigrants which will save $57.4 billion a year,' said the April 9 Facebook post. 'Do you support Trump on this?? I damn sure do!!' 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 are several wrong premises with the post: Immigrants living in the country illegally and those who arrive on non-immigrant visas (such as students and tourists) are generally not eligible for federal public benefits, even though some pay income taxes and contribute to Social Security. This was the case before Trump became president. The Trump administration issued a rule in August 2019 that broadened the government's ability to deny visas and permanent-resident status to immigrants who get public benefits or those who may need assistance after their arrival. The rule targets people who are seeking legal admission and those who are here and applying for permanent residency. The Facebook post doesn't specify where the $57.4 billion figure comes from, but the post mirrors a headline on a Breitbart story. That story, however, was about legal immigration. Here's a more detailed explanation of the inaccuracies. Generally, immigrants living illegally in the United States are ineligible for federal public benefits such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly called food stamps), regular Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. These restrictions are not the result of Trump's presidency. They may be eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, Emergency Medicaid to cover emergency medical needs, and other emergency assistance, such as short-term non-cash, in-kind emergency disaster relief (which includes things like crisis counseling, shelter, food and water.) For decades, even immigrants who came to the United States legally have been restricted from public assistance for a period. A 1996 law barred immigrants from federal 'means tested' public benefits for five years. (There are some exemptions; this story has more details.) Additionally, public-charge rules say that immigrants can be turned away if they are likely to depend on public-assistance programs; this type of restriction has been in place for more than 100 years. The Trump administration in August 2019 broadened the interpretation of these rules to make them stricter. But that did not ban welfare for immigrants here illegally. Immigration experts told PolitiFact that under the new rule, immigration officials will be able to deny immigrants visas if they are deemed 'more likely than not' to use public benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps or housing vouchers. Immigrants who are in the United States legally on temporary visas and have relied on such benefits in the past could also have more difficulty getting a green card. The Facebook post claimed that the purported ban would save Americans $57.4 billion a year. An August 2018 Breitbart headline said, 'Trump's welfare ban for immigrants would be $57.4B tax cut for Americans.' The story centered on Trump's plan for a public-charge rule and immigrants who would 'resettle permanently' in the United States. That Breitbart story linked to a 2016 post on its website headlined, 'National Academies: Immigrants cost state and local taxpayers $57.4 billion per year.' A study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine estimated that the annual fiscal cost of first-generation immigrants and their dependents, averaged across 2011-2013, was $57.4 billion. The figure referred to state and local expenses, not federal costs or benefits, and the main cost was education, said Francine D. Blau, a Cornell University economics professor who chaired the panel of researchers studying the economic and fiscal consequences of immigration. 'We find that much of this cost is related to the cost of educating both immigrant children and U.S. citizen children of immigrants (we attribute the entire cost of education to the parents of school age children),' Blau said via email. 'The cost is smaller if we recognize the public-good aspect of education, that is, the broader social benefits in having a more educated populace.' The $57.4 billion also included costs of general public services such as police, fire, parks and recreation. It also did not apply only to immigrants in the country illegally. The study relied on data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, which did not allow researchers to differentiate between immigrants here legally and illegally, Blau said. | Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'President Trump has banned welfare for illegal immigrants which will save $57.4 billion a year.' Trump has not done that. Immigrants here illegally were already ineligible for most federal assistance programs. Trump's administration issued a public-charge rule that would deny legal admission to people who are likely to depend on public benefits and which would make getting lawful permanent residency more difficult for people who are already in the country and used public assistance. The source of the $57.4 billion figure is unclear. A study estimated a $57.4 billion annual cost to state and local governments for first generation immigrants and their dependents. Schooling costs accounted for the bulk of that cost. The post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | []
|
Says 'Dr. Fauci lied about masks in March. | Contradiction | At 9:33 on the morning of Dec. 27, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., tweeted a verse from the Bible that urged people to rise above the faults they see in others. 'Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience,' Rubio wrote. 'Forgiving one another if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do.' By 10:45 a.m., Rubio struck a different tone. 'Dr. Fauci lied about masks in March,' Rubio tweeted. 'Dr. Fauci has been distorting the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity.' Dr. Fauci lied about masks in March Dr. Fauci has been distorting the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity It isn't just him Many in elite bubbles believe the American public doesn't know 'what's good for them' so they need to be tricked into 'doing the right thing'- Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) December 27, 2020 Lying involves the intent to deceive, and the claim that Anthony Fauci, head of infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health, lied about masks is familiar ground for fact-checkers. It doesn't hold up. We have looked at what Fauci has said at different points during the pandemic, and his guidance has changed. The question is: Why? Top government agencies such as the NIH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shifted their policies on masks based on new findings about the novel coronavirus. It wasn't until April 3 that the CDC urged everyone to wear one. Before then, the message on masks was primarily about preserving a limited supply for health care workers, who were at especially high risk of exposure. What Fauci said in March interviews Rubio's tweet specifically referred to what Fauci said in March. That month, Fauci gave two high-profile interviews. In the first one, which occurred days before the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, Fauci pushed back against the idea of everyone in the U.S. needing to wear masks. It is worth reading Fauci's exact words from his March 8 interview on CBS's '60 Minutes.': FAUCI: The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else. Now, when you see people and look at the films in China and South Korea, whatever, and everybody's wearing a mask. Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks. HOST: You're sure of this, because people are listening really closely to this. FAUCI: Right. Now people should not be walk- there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face. HOST: And you can get some schmutz sort of staying inside there. FAUCI: Of course, but when you think 'masks,' you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people - when you look at the films of countries, and you see 85% of the people wearing masks, that's fine. That's fine. I'm not against it. If you want to do it, that's fine. HOST: But it can lead to a shortage. FAUCI: Exactly, that's the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it. Fauci's critics have focused on his words 'there's no reason to be walking around with a mask.' But in the same interview, he also said that it was 'fine' to wear a mask, although it wouldn't offer perfect protection. And he said the main point was to preserve masks for those who were already ill and people providing care. On March 27, Fauci spoke to a San Francisco NBC affiliate. He said given the shortage of masks, the general public ranked last behind doctors and nurses, and people who are infected. 'When we say you don't need to wear a mask, what we're really saying is make sure you prioritize it first for the people who need the mask,' Fauci said. 'In a perfect world, if you had all the masks you wanted, then you could get some degree of protection, but make sure you prioritize it well.' Guidance changed over the course of the month March was a pivotal month for understanding the disease. On March 1, the country had seen eight deaths. On March 31, the figure stood at more than 4,300. When public officials talked about masks, they were talking about high-quality, hospital grade masks. In February and March, when the spread of the virus was still limited in the U.S., the mask shortage was a top concern. On March 2, the FDA and CDC were saying 'There is no added health benefit to the general American public to wear a respiratory protective device, such as an N95 respirator. The immediate health risk from COVID-19 is considered low.' On an emergency basis, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration relaxed the rules on the sort of masks hospitals could use, citing tight supplies of the high-grade masks. The shortage was nationwide, and became more acute as the virus spread. On March 23, a bipartisan group of physician lawmakers in Utah called on businesses to donate N95 masks for use by health workers. On March 29, President Donald Trump and the coronavirus task force briefed the press on steps underway to increase the supply of masks to doctors, nurses and all care providers. By this time, COVID-19s had spread widely across the country, and public-health officials were rethinking their guidance as they learned more about the transmission of the virus by asymptomatic carriers. On April 3, Trump announced, 'From recent studies, we know that the transmission from individuals without symptoms is playing a more significant role in the spread of the virus than previously understood. 'In light of these studies, the CDC is advising the use of non-medical cloth face covering as an additional voluntary public health measure,' Trump said. 'I want to emphasize that the CDC is not recommending the use of medical-grade or surgical-grade masks, and we want that to be used for our great medical people that are working so hard.' We reached out to Rubio's office and did not get a formal response, but his deputy chief of staff posted a non-responsive tweet. | Our ruling Rubio said that Fauci lied about masks in March. This is incorrect in several ways. Fauci did say, 'there is no reason to be walking around with a mask,' but to call that lying takes Fauci's words out of context. The country faced a shortage of high-quality masks, and Fauci also said in his interviews that masks should be preserved for sick people and health care workers. In addition, researchers did not know at the time that people without symptoms were spreading the virus. Once that was understood, wearing masks - even simple cloth masks - took on new importance for preventing community transmission. Lying means there was an intent to deceive. Fauci's words in March about masks mirrored the widely held belief across government agencies at that time about the nature of the novel coronavirus and the best ways to control it. We rate this claim False. RELATED: Lies infected America in 2020. The very worst were not just damaging, but deadly. The 2020 Lie of the Year: Coronavirus downplay and denial | [
"107580-proof-00-34bec12f7775456ffd8adfeaa9d5bce8.jpg"
]
|
Says 'Dr. Fauci lied about masks in March. | Contradiction | At 9:33 on the morning of Dec. 27, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., tweeted a verse from the Bible that urged people to rise above the faults they see in others. 'Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience,' Rubio wrote. 'Forgiving one another if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do.' By 10:45 a.m., Rubio struck a different tone. 'Dr. Fauci lied about masks in March,' Rubio tweeted. 'Dr. Fauci has been distorting the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity.' Dr. Fauci lied about masks in March Dr. Fauci has been distorting the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity It isn't just him Many in elite bubbles believe the American public doesn't know 'what's good for them' so they need to be tricked into 'doing the right thing'- Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) December 27, 2020 Lying involves the intent to deceive, and the claim that Anthony Fauci, head of infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health, lied about masks is familiar ground for fact-checkers. It doesn't hold up. We have looked at what Fauci has said at different points during the pandemic, and his guidance has changed. The question is: Why? Top government agencies such as the NIH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shifted their policies on masks based on new findings about the novel coronavirus. It wasn't until April 3 that the CDC urged everyone to wear one. Before then, the message on masks was primarily about preserving a limited supply for health care workers, who were at especially high risk of exposure. What Fauci said in March interviews Rubio's tweet specifically referred to what Fauci said in March. That month, Fauci gave two high-profile interviews. In the first one, which occurred days before the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, Fauci pushed back against the idea of everyone in the U.S. needing to wear masks. It is worth reading Fauci's exact words from his March 8 interview on CBS's '60 Minutes.': FAUCI: The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else. Now, when you see people and look at the films in China and South Korea, whatever, and everybody's wearing a mask. Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks. HOST: You're sure of this, because people are listening really closely to this. FAUCI: Right. Now people should not be walk- there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face. HOST: And you can get some schmutz sort of staying inside there. FAUCI: Of course, but when you think 'masks,' you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people - when you look at the films of countries, and you see 85% of the people wearing masks, that's fine. That's fine. I'm not against it. If you want to do it, that's fine. HOST: But it can lead to a shortage. FAUCI: Exactly, that's the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it. Fauci's critics have focused on his words 'there's no reason to be walking around with a mask.' But in the same interview, he also said that it was 'fine' to wear a mask, although it wouldn't offer perfect protection. And he said the main point was to preserve masks for those who were already ill and people providing care. On March 27, Fauci spoke to a San Francisco NBC affiliate. He said given the shortage of masks, the general public ranked last behind doctors and nurses, and people who are infected. 'When we say you don't need to wear a mask, what we're really saying is make sure you prioritize it first for the people who need the mask,' Fauci said. 'In a perfect world, if you had all the masks you wanted, then you could get some degree of protection, but make sure you prioritize it well.' Guidance changed over the course of the month March was a pivotal month for understanding the disease. On March 1, the country had seen eight deaths. On March 31, the figure stood at more than 4,300. When public officials talked about masks, they were talking about high-quality, hospital grade masks. In February and March, when the spread of the virus was still limited in the U.S., the mask shortage was a top concern. On March 2, the FDA and CDC were saying 'There is no added health benefit to the general American public to wear a respiratory protective device, such as an N95 respirator. The immediate health risk from COVID-19 is considered low.' On an emergency basis, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration relaxed the rules on the sort of masks hospitals could use, citing tight supplies of the high-grade masks. The shortage was nationwide, and became more acute as the virus spread. On March 23, a bipartisan group of physician lawmakers in Utah called on businesses to donate N95 masks for use by health workers. On March 29, President Donald Trump and the coronavirus task force briefed the press on steps underway to increase the supply of masks to doctors, nurses and all care providers. By this time, COVID-19s had spread widely across the country, and public-health officials were rethinking their guidance as they learned more about the transmission of the virus by asymptomatic carriers. On April 3, Trump announced, 'From recent studies, we know that the transmission from individuals without symptoms is playing a more significant role in the spread of the virus than previously understood. 'In light of these studies, the CDC is advising the use of non-medical cloth face covering as an additional voluntary public health measure,' Trump said. 'I want to emphasize that the CDC is not recommending the use of medical-grade or surgical-grade masks, and we want that to be used for our great medical people that are working so hard.' We reached out to Rubio's office and did not get a formal response, but his deputy chief of staff posted a non-responsive tweet. | Our ruling Rubio said that Fauci lied about masks in March. This is incorrect in several ways. Fauci did say, 'there is no reason to be walking around with a mask,' but to call that lying takes Fauci's words out of context. The country faced a shortage of high-quality masks, and Fauci also said in his interviews that masks should be preserved for sick people and health care workers. In addition, researchers did not know at the time that people without symptoms were spreading the virus. Once that was understood, wearing masks - even simple cloth masks - took on new importance for preventing community transmission. Lying means there was an intent to deceive. Fauci's words in March about masks mirrored the widely held belief across government agencies at that time about the nature of the novel coronavirus and the best ways to control it. We rate this claim False. RELATED: Lies infected America in 2020. The very worst were not just damaging, but deadly. The 2020 Lie of the Year: Coronavirus downplay and denial | [
"107580-proof-00-34bec12f7775456ffd8adfeaa9d5bce8.jpg"
]
|
Says 'Dr. Fauci lied about masks in March. | Contradiction | At 9:33 on the morning of Dec. 27, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., tweeted a verse from the Bible that urged people to rise above the faults they see in others. 'Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience,' Rubio wrote. 'Forgiving one another if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do.' By 10:45 a.m., Rubio struck a different tone. 'Dr. Fauci lied about masks in March,' Rubio tweeted. 'Dr. Fauci has been distorting the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity.' Dr. Fauci lied about masks in March Dr. Fauci has been distorting the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity It isn't just him Many in elite bubbles believe the American public doesn't know 'what's good for them' so they need to be tricked into 'doing the right thing'- Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) December 27, 2020 Lying involves the intent to deceive, and the claim that Anthony Fauci, head of infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health, lied about masks is familiar ground for fact-checkers. It doesn't hold up. We have looked at what Fauci has said at different points during the pandemic, and his guidance has changed. The question is: Why? Top government agencies such as the NIH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shifted their policies on masks based on new findings about the novel coronavirus. It wasn't until April 3 that the CDC urged everyone to wear one. Before then, the message on masks was primarily about preserving a limited supply for health care workers, who were at especially high risk of exposure. What Fauci said in March interviews Rubio's tweet specifically referred to what Fauci said in March. That month, Fauci gave two high-profile interviews. In the first one, which occurred days before the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, Fauci pushed back against the idea of everyone in the U.S. needing to wear masks. It is worth reading Fauci's exact words from his March 8 interview on CBS's '60 Minutes.': FAUCI: The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else. Now, when you see people and look at the films in China and South Korea, whatever, and everybody's wearing a mask. Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks. HOST: You're sure of this, because people are listening really closely to this. FAUCI: Right. Now people should not be walk- there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face. HOST: And you can get some schmutz sort of staying inside there. FAUCI: Of course, but when you think 'masks,' you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people - when you look at the films of countries, and you see 85% of the people wearing masks, that's fine. That's fine. I'm not against it. If you want to do it, that's fine. HOST: But it can lead to a shortage. FAUCI: Exactly, that's the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it. Fauci's critics have focused on his words 'there's no reason to be walking around with a mask.' But in the same interview, he also said that it was 'fine' to wear a mask, although it wouldn't offer perfect protection. And he said the main point was to preserve masks for those who were already ill and people providing care. On March 27, Fauci spoke to a San Francisco NBC affiliate. He said given the shortage of masks, the general public ranked last behind doctors and nurses, and people who are infected. 'When we say you don't need to wear a mask, what we're really saying is make sure you prioritize it first for the people who need the mask,' Fauci said. 'In a perfect world, if you had all the masks you wanted, then you could get some degree of protection, but make sure you prioritize it well.' Guidance changed over the course of the month March was a pivotal month for understanding the disease. On March 1, the country had seen eight deaths. On March 31, the figure stood at more than 4,300. When public officials talked about masks, they were talking about high-quality, hospital grade masks. In February and March, when the spread of the virus was still limited in the U.S., the mask shortage was a top concern. On March 2, the FDA and CDC were saying 'There is no added health benefit to the general American public to wear a respiratory protective device, such as an N95 respirator. The immediate health risk from COVID-19 is considered low.' On an emergency basis, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration relaxed the rules on the sort of masks hospitals could use, citing tight supplies of the high-grade masks. The shortage was nationwide, and became more acute as the virus spread. On March 23, a bipartisan group of physician lawmakers in Utah called on businesses to donate N95 masks for use by health workers. On March 29, President Donald Trump and the coronavirus task force briefed the press on steps underway to increase the supply of masks to doctors, nurses and all care providers. By this time, COVID-19s had spread widely across the country, and public-health officials were rethinking their guidance as they learned more about the transmission of the virus by asymptomatic carriers. On April 3, Trump announced, 'From recent studies, we know that the transmission from individuals without symptoms is playing a more significant role in the spread of the virus than previously understood. 'In light of these studies, the CDC is advising the use of non-medical cloth face covering as an additional voluntary public health measure,' Trump said. 'I want to emphasize that the CDC is not recommending the use of medical-grade or surgical-grade masks, and we want that to be used for our great medical people that are working so hard.' We reached out to Rubio's office and did not get a formal response, but his deputy chief of staff posted a non-responsive tweet. | Our ruling Rubio said that Fauci lied about masks in March. This is incorrect in several ways. Fauci did say, 'there is no reason to be walking around with a mask,' but to call that lying takes Fauci's words out of context. The country faced a shortage of high-quality masks, and Fauci also said in his interviews that masks should be preserved for sick people and health care workers. In addition, researchers did not know at the time that people without symptoms were spreading the virus. Once that was understood, wearing masks - even simple cloth masks - took on new importance for preventing community transmission. Lying means there was an intent to deceive. Fauci's words in March about masks mirrored the widely held belief across government agencies at that time about the nature of the novel coronavirus and the best ways to control it. We rate this claim False. RELATED: Lies infected America in 2020. The very worst were not just damaging, but deadly. The 2020 Lie of the Year: Coronavirus downplay and denial | [
"107580-proof-00-34bec12f7775456ffd8adfeaa9d5bce8.jpg"
]
|
'Military tribunals start Jan. 20, 2021. | Contradiction | On Jan. 20, President Joe Biden was sworn into office. His inauguration, though lacking the typical pomp, was peaceful and went off as planned. But some social media posts warned of something darker. 'MILITARY TRIBUNALS START JAN. 20, 2021,' said one widely shared Jan. 19 Facebook post said. 'Jan. 20 is not an inauguration, rather a military trial that will be broadcast worldwide. The fences are facing inward as the white house and DC is now a prison encircling the swamp and the inauguration site, which is the military courtroom. Trump, Flynn and others said all crimes and evidence will be shown worldwide, they will all pay for their crimes and it will be done in full accordance of the law. So the Capitol building is now a military prison and court that will broadcast all crimes and arrests.' 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.) Of course, Jan. 20 was an inauguration. There was no military tribunal. After taking the oath of office, Biden signed 17 executive orders, memorandums and proclamations in the Oval Office. Among the new president's actions was an order to rejoin the Paris climate accord. Vice President Kamala Harris swore in U.S. Sens. Rev. Raphael Warnock, Jon Ossoff and Alex Padilla. And that night, an Inauguration Day special starring singers like Bruce Springsteen that was hosted by Tom Hanks aired on several networks. Followers of QAnon, a vast and baseless conspiracy theory with many tentacles, have preached about the military tribunals where a cabal of pedophiles then-President Donald was supposedly fighting would finally be punished. But after Trump boarded Air Force One for Florida and no tribunals materialized, some QAnon adherents started to grapple with the falsehoods they had come to believe. The events widely broadcast on Jan. 20 were a presidential inauguration ceremony and a musical special, not a tribunal. We rate the claim Pants on Fire! | We rate the claim Pants on Fire! | []
|
'Military tribunals start Jan. 20, 2021. | Contradiction | On Jan. 20, President Joe Biden was sworn into office. His inauguration, though lacking the typical pomp, was peaceful and went off as planned. But some social media posts warned of something darker. 'MILITARY TRIBUNALS START JAN. 20, 2021,' said one widely shared Jan. 19 Facebook post said. 'Jan. 20 is not an inauguration, rather a military trial that will be broadcast worldwide. The fences are facing inward as the white house and DC is now a prison encircling the swamp and the inauguration site, which is the military courtroom. Trump, Flynn and others said all crimes and evidence will be shown worldwide, they will all pay for their crimes and it will be done in full accordance of the law. So the Capitol building is now a military prison and court that will broadcast all crimes and arrests.' 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.) Of course, Jan. 20 was an inauguration. There was no military tribunal. After taking the oath of office, Biden signed 17 executive orders, memorandums and proclamations in the Oval Office. Among the new president's actions was an order to rejoin the Paris climate accord. Vice President Kamala Harris swore in U.S. Sens. Rev. Raphael Warnock, Jon Ossoff and Alex Padilla. And that night, an Inauguration Day special starring singers like Bruce Springsteen that was hosted by Tom Hanks aired on several networks. Followers of QAnon, a vast and baseless conspiracy theory with many tentacles, have preached about the military tribunals where a cabal of pedophiles then-President Donald was supposedly fighting would finally be punished. But after Trump boarded Air Force One for Florida and no tribunals materialized, some QAnon adherents started to grapple with the falsehoods they had come to believe. The events widely broadcast on Jan. 20 were a presidential inauguration ceremony and a musical special, not a tribunal. We rate the claim Pants on Fire! | We rate the claim Pants on Fire! | []
|
With federal stimulus money for schools, 'no distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remain closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months. | Contradiction | As public school students in Milwaukee and Madison return to the classroom for the first time in more than a year, administrators across the state are still trying to figure out how to spend federal stimulus money earmarked for schools. How the money is allotted to schools across the state has become a hot topic -- especially among Republicans, who think more money should be given to schools that were quick to return to an in-person teaching model last fall. U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin took to Twitter to criticize what he called a 'shotgun approach' for directing stimulus money to schools. 'No distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remained closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months,' he tweeted April 8, 2021. So Johnson claims Wisconsin didn't allocate more money to schools that were already back in person over those still choosing to make use of virtual schools. Is it true? Lawmakers put in charge of 10% of funding Johnson's office did not return multiple requests for more information. But Johnson did include a link to a news report in the tweet, so we have some additional context. The link was to an April 7, 2021 story from the Wisconsin State Journal about the $2.4 billion in federal stimulus aid allocated to the state under the three stimulus plans passed since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. Let's look deeper at the story, and the issue as a whole. The story notes that 90 percent of the money is being allocated to schools based on the number of low-income students in each district. In that sense, Johnson has a point -- the formula is not based on how much time schools spent in the classroom, or in remote learning. But the state does not have discretion in how to split up that money. How it is spent is governed by the federal stimulus measures that passed, two under Republican Donald Trump and one under Democrat Joe Biden. Chris Bucher, communications specialist for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, said that portion of the funding was allocated using the Title I formula, which takes into account the percentage of children from low-income families, based on Census data. States were only given discretion on how to distribute the remaining 10 percent, which amounts to about $65.5 million in Wisconsin. And that is where Johnson's claim is off. The state Department of Public Instruction developed a plan for the funding, which went to the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee for approval. That committee, like the Legislature, is controlled by Republicans. Gov. Tony Evers could veto the spending decision, but the committee could still override his veto. For its part, the finance committee added a component to the DPI plan that requires the total number of in-person instructional hours provided during the 2020-21 school year be taken into account when the money is distributed. That would favor districts that went back in person early over others that didn't, such as Milwaukee Public Schools and Madison Metropolitan School District. District-by-district allocations for the in-person schooling-based funding have not yet been decided, according to an April 5, 2021 summary from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. To comply with the new formula, the department is planning to collect data on the number of in-person days of school at the end of the school year, Bucher said. Our rating Johnson claimed that when distributing federal money, 'No distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remain closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months.' But lawmakers in Wisconsin did put some restrictions on money sent to school districts based on how many days of in-person schooling took place during the 2020-21 school year. Federal funds, however, were not distributed in that way. We rate Johnson's claim Mostly False. | Our rating Johnson claimed that when distributing federal money, 'No distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remain closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months.' But lawmakers in Wisconsin did put some restrictions on money sent to school districts based on how many days of in-person schooling took place during the 2020-21 school year. Federal funds, however, were not distributed in that way. We rate Johnson's claim Mostly False. | [
"107582-proof-14-52c835f56baa1ec75e50a76b4a059d7a.jpg"
]
|
With federal stimulus money for schools, 'no distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remain closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months. | Contradiction | As public school students in Milwaukee and Madison return to the classroom for the first time in more than a year, administrators across the state are still trying to figure out how to spend federal stimulus money earmarked for schools. How the money is allotted to schools across the state has become a hot topic -- especially among Republicans, who think more money should be given to schools that were quick to return to an in-person teaching model last fall. U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin took to Twitter to criticize what he called a 'shotgun approach' for directing stimulus money to schools. 'No distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remained closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months,' he tweeted April 8, 2021. So Johnson claims Wisconsin didn't allocate more money to schools that were already back in person over those still choosing to make use of virtual schools. Is it true? Lawmakers put in charge of 10% of funding Johnson's office did not return multiple requests for more information. But Johnson did include a link to a news report in the tweet, so we have some additional context. The link was to an April 7, 2021 story from the Wisconsin State Journal about the $2.4 billion in federal stimulus aid allocated to the state under the three stimulus plans passed since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. Let's look deeper at the story, and the issue as a whole. The story notes that 90 percent of the money is being allocated to schools based on the number of low-income students in each district. In that sense, Johnson has a point -- the formula is not based on how much time schools spent in the classroom, or in remote learning. But the state does not have discretion in how to split up that money. How it is spent is governed by the federal stimulus measures that passed, two under Republican Donald Trump and one under Democrat Joe Biden. Chris Bucher, communications specialist for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, said that portion of the funding was allocated using the Title I formula, which takes into account the percentage of children from low-income families, based on Census data. States were only given discretion on how to distribute the remaining 10 percent, which amounts to about $65.5 million in Wisconsin. And that is where Johnson's claim is off. The state Department of Public Instruction developed a plan for the funding, which went to the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee for approval. That committee, like the Legislature, is controlled by Republicans. Gov. Tony Evers could veto the spending decision, but the committee could still override his veto. For its part, the finance committee added a component to the DPI plan that requires the total number of in-person instructional hours provided during the 2020-21 school year be taken into account when the money is distributed. That would favor districts that went back in person early over others that didn't, such as Milwaukee Public Schools and Madison Metropolitan School District. District-by-district allocations for the in-person schooling-based funding have not yet been decided, according to an April 5, 2021 summary from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. To comply with the new formula, the department is planning to collect data on the number of in-person days of school at the end of the school year, Bucher said. Our rating Johnson claimed that when distributing federal money, 'No distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remain closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months.' But lawmakers in Wisconsin did put some restrictions on money sent to school districts based on how many days of in-person schooling took place during the 2020-21 school year. Federal funds, however, were not distributed in that way. We rate Johnson's claim Mostly False. | Our rating Johnson claimed that when distributing federal money, 'No distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remain closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months.' But lawmakers in Wisconsin did put some restrictions on money sent to school districts based on how many days of in-person schooling took place during the 2020-21 school year. Federal funds, however, were not distributed in that way. We rate Johnson's claim Mostly False. | [
"107582-proof-14-52c835f56baa1ec75e50a76b4a059d7a.jpg"
]
|
With federal stimulus money for schools, 'no distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remain closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months. | Contradiction | As public school students in Milwaukee and Madison return to the classroom for the first time in more than a year, administrators across the state are still trying to figure out how to spend federal stimulus money earmarked for schools. How the money is allotted to schools across the state has become a hot topic -- especially among Republicans, who think more money should be given to schools that were quick to return to an in-person teaching model last fall. U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin took to Twitter to criticize what he called a 'shotgun approach' for directing stimulus money to schools. 'No distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remained closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months,' he tweeted April 8, 2021. So Johnson claims Wisconsin didn't allocate more money to schools that were already back in person over those still choosing to make use of virtual schools. Is it true? Lawmakers put in charge of 10% of funding Johnson's office did not return multiple requests for more information. But Johnson did include a link to a news report in the tweet, so we have some additional context. The link was to an April 7, 2021 story from the Wisconsin State Journal about the $2.4 billion in federal stimulus aid allocated to the state under the three stimulus plans passed since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. Let's look deeper at the story, and the issue as a whole. The story notes that 90 percent of the money is being allocated to schools based on the number of low-income students in each district. In that sense, Johnson has a point -- the formula is not based on how much time schools spent in the classroom, or in remote learning. But the state does not have discretion in how to split up that money. How it is spent is governed by the federal stimulus measures that passed, two under Republican Donald Trump and one under Democrat Joe Biden. Chris Bucher, communications specialist for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, said that portion of the funding was allocated using the Title I formula, which takes into account the percentage of children from low-income families, based on Census data. States were only given discretion on how to distribute the remaining 10 percent, which amounts to about $65.5 million in Wisconsin. And that is where Johnson's claim is off. The state Department of Public Instruction developed a plan for the funding, which went to the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee for approval. That committee, like the Legislature, is controlled by Republicans. Gov. Tony Evers could veto the spending decision, but the committee could still override his veto. For its part, the finance committee added a component to the DPI plan that requires the total number of in-person instructional hours provided during the 2020-21 school year be taken into account when the money is distributed. That would favor districts that went back in person early over others that didn't, such as Milwaukee Public Schools and Madison Metropolitan School District. District-by-district allocations for the in-person schooling-based funding have not yet been decided, according to an April 5, 2021 summary from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. To comply with the new formula, the department is planning to collect data on the number of in-person days of school at the end of the school year, Bucher said. Our rating Johnson claimed that when distributing federal money, 'No distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remain closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months.' But lawmakers in Wisconsin did put some restrictions on money sent to school districts based on how many days of in-person schooling took place during the 2020-21 school year. Federal funds, however, were not distributed in that way. We rate Johnson's claim Mostly False. | Our rating Johnson claimed that when distributing federal money, 'No distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remain closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months.' But lawmakers in Wisconsin did put some restrictions on money sent to school districts based on how many days of in-person schooling took place during the 2020-21 school year. Federal funds, however, were not distributed in that way. We rate Johnson's claim Mostly False. | [
"107582-proof-14-52c835f56baa1ec75e50a76b4a059d7a.jpg"
]
|
With federal stimulus money for schools, 'no distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remain closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months. | Contradiction | As public school students in Milwaukee and Madison return to the classroom for the first time in more than a year, administrators across the state are still trying to figure out how to spend federal stimulus money earmarked for schools. How the money is allotted to schools across the state has become a hot topic -- especially among Republicans, who think more money should be given to schools that were quick to return to an in-person teaching model last fall. U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin took to Twitter to criticize what he called a 'shotgun approach' for directing stimulus money to schools. 'No distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remained closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months,' he tweeted April 8, 2021. So Johnson claims Wisconsin didn't allocate more money to schools that were already back in person over those still choosing to make use of virtual schools. Is it true? Lawmakers put in charge of 10% of funding Johnson's office did not return multiple requests for more information. But Johnson did include a link to a news report in the tweet, so we have some additional context. The link was to an April 7, 2021 story from the Wisconsin State Journal about the $2.4 billion in federal stimulus aid allocated to the state under the three stimulus plans passed since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. Let's look deeper at the story, and the issue as a whole. The story notes that 90 percent of the money is being allocated to schools based on the number of low-income students in each district. In that sense, Johnson has a point -- the formula is not based on how much time schools spent in the classroom, or in remote learning. But the state does not have discretion in how to split up that money. How it is spent is governed by the federal stimulus measures that passed, two under Republican Donald Trump and one under Democrat Joe Biden. Chris Bucher, communications specialist for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, said that portion of the funding was allocated using the Title I formula, which takes into account the percentage of children from low-income families, based on Census data. States were only given discretion on how to distribute the remaining 10 percent, which amounts to about $65.5 million in Wisconsin. And that is where Johnson's claim is off. The state Department of Public Instruction developed a plan for the funding, which went to the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee for approval. That committee, like the Legislature, is controlled by Republicans. Gov. Tony Evers could veto the spending decision, but the committee could still override his veto. For its part, the finance committee added a component to the DPI plan that requires the total number of in-person instructional hours provided during the 2020-21 school year be taken into account when the money is distributed. That would favor districts that went back in person early over others that didn't, such as Milwaukee Public Schools and Madison Metropolitan School District. District-by-district allocations for the in-person schooling-based funding have not yet been decided, according to an April 5, 2021 summary from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. To comply with the new formula, the department is planning to collect data on the number of in-person days of school at the end of the school year, Bucher said. Our rating Johnson claimed that when distributing federal money, 'No distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remain closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months.' But lawmakers in Wisconsin did put some restrictions on money sent to school districts based on how many days of in-person schooling took place during the 2020-21 school year. Federal funds, however, were not distributed in that way. We rate Johnson's claim Mostly False. | Our rating Johnson claimed that when distributing federal money, 'No distinctions are being made between Wisconsin schools that remain closed to in-person learning, and those that have been re-opened for months.' But lawmakers in Wisconsin did put some restrictions on money sent to school districts based on how many days of in-person schooling took place during the 2020-21 school year. Federal funds, however, were not distributed in that way. We rate Johnson's claim Mostly False. | [
"107582-proof-14-52c835f56baa1ec75e50a76b4a059d7a.jpg"
]
|
'When asked about court-packing, Biden's staff immediately escorts the camera out. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump's campaign is using a snippet of video to show a moment when Joe Biden ostensibly stumbled when asked about court packing. The message is that Biden's stumble was his staff's cue to hustle reporters away. In reality, the full video shows that Biden gave a lengthy answer, and then Biden's staff began moving members of the press to attend the next campaign event. The deceptive clip is now part of Trump's rallies, appearing most recently at his Oct. 28 rally in Arizona. It started when Francis Brennan, the Trump campaign's director of strategic response, tweeted the video excerpt. The campaign shared it that day on the Team Trump Facebook page and on Trump's YouTube account. 'MUST WATCH: When asked about court-packing, Biden's staff immediately escorts the camera out,' read the headline of the YouTube video posted to Trump's YouTube page. The video clip is from Biden's Oct. 26 appearance in Pennsylvania. It shows him talking with a small semi-circle of people. The clip begins with Biden's signature pivot, 'Here's the deal.' 'One of the reasons that is important,' Biden continues. 'Keep in mind, although they are going to vote on ...' At this point, Biden pauses. Members of the press are in motion, moving and shifting away from where Biden is speaking with supporters. According to the Trump campaign, Biden's staff were moving the press to protect him as he began to stumble. But the full video, as streamed by ABC News and others, shows a different sequence. In the full video, Biden answers the question In the ABC News video, a supporter asks Biden about court packing by Republicans (see minute 4:50). Biden gives a long answer about forming a commission to explore options in federal judicial appointments, which are lifetime appointments. 'I'm not a big fan of court packing,' Biden said. 'I'm going to listen to all of the ideas.' Biden said his commission would include conservative, liberal and middle-of-the-road scholars and would have six months to give him a list of options. After Biden finished, he joked with a nearby reporter and started talking about the courts again (which is where the Trump clip picks up). The video shows that Biden is going on at even greater length with a single reporter as other reporters Biden started to move away. (See 6:45 in the video.). Members of the media were directed down a path to a more open area where a lectern had been set up. Biden later went to the lectern to take more questions. Asked about his plans for the Supreme Court, he repeated the answer he'd given earlier. | Our ruling The Trump campaign said that Biden staff hustled reporters away to cut off his stumbling answer to a question. The full video shows a different scene. Biden had already given a long answer to a question about court packing and seemed to be following up with one reporter for even more comments. The Trump video plucks one moment out of context. We rate this claim False. | [
"107627-proof-31-7ee4ef92ff0fcb00d7763592495f0454.jpg"
]
|
'When asked about court-packing, Biden's staff immediately escorts the camera out. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump's campaign is using a snippet of video to show a moment when Joe Biden ostensibly stumbled when asked about court packing. The message is that Biden's stumble was his staff's cue to hustle reporters away. In reality, the full video shows that Biden gave a lengthy answer, and then Biden's staff began moving members of the press to attend the next campaign event. The deceptive clip is now part of Trump's rallies, appearing most recently at his Oct. 28 rally in Arizona. It started when Francis Brennan, the Trump campaign's director of strategic response, tweeted the video excerpt. The campaign shared it that day on the Team Trump Facebook page and on Trump's YouTube account. 'MUST WATCH: When asked about court-packing, Biden's staff immediately escorts the camera out,' read the headline of the YouTube video posted to Trump's YouTube page. The video clip is from Biden's Oct. 26 appearance in Pennsylvania. It shows him talking with a small semi-circle of people. The clip begins with Biden's signature pivot, 'Here's the deal.' 'One of the reasons that is important,' Biden continues. 'Keep in mind, although they are going to vote on ...' At this point, Biden pauses. Members of the press are in motion, moving and shifting away from where Biden is speaking with supporters. According to the Trump campaign, Biden's staff were moving the press to protect him as he began to stumble. But the full video, as streamed by ABC News and others, shows a different sequence. In the full video, Biden answers the question In the ABC News video, a supporter asks Biden about court packing by Republicans (see minute 4:50). Biden gives a long answer about forming a commission to explore options in federal judicial appointments, which are lifetime appointments. 'I'm not a big fan of court packing,' Biden said. 'I'm going to listen to all of the ideas.' Biden said his commission would include conservative, liberal and middle-of-the-road scholars and would have six months to give him a list of options. After Biden finished, he joked with a nearby reporter and started talking about the courts again (which is where the Trump clip picks up). The video shows that Biden is going on at even greater length with a single reporter as other reporters Biden started to move away. (See 6:45 in the video.). Members of the media were directed down a path to a more open area where a lectern had been set up. Biden later went to the lectern to take more questions. Asked about his plans for the Supreme Court, he repeated the answer he'd given earlier. | Our ruling The Trump campaign said that Biden staff hustled reporters away to cut off his stumbling answer to a question. The full video shows a different scene. Biden had already given a long answer to a question about court packing and seemed to be following up with one reporter for even more comments. The Trump video plucks one moment out of context. We rate this claim False. | [
"107627-proof-31-7ee4ef92ff0fcb00d7763592495f0454.jpg"
]
|
The coronavirus is 'simply the common cold. | Contradiction | If the current coronavirus were really the same as the common cold, why would it be causing some people to die, stock markets to reel and stadiums to go empty? And yet, claims likening coronavirus to the common cold persist, including in a Facebook post that says: 'The coronavirus: The Democrats are using it to promote fear. The Chinese are using it to control protestors. And all along it's simply the common cold.' Gesundheit, but we've been here before. The 2019 coronavirus belongs to a family of viruses that includes the common cold, but the two are not the same. This Facebook post is wrong. 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.) Posts pointing fingers Since the outbreak of the new coronavirus disease, officially known as COVID-19, in Wuhan, China, in December, we've fact-checked several false claims that aim to downplay the severity of the virus and to blame the media, politicians or pharmaceutical companies for drawing attention to it. One such claim came from conservative radio talk show host and recent Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh, who said the coronavirus is the common cold. Our rating was False. As we reported: There are seven types of coronaviruses that can infect humans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some of those viruses, which are named for their crown-like structure, can cause colds. Most strains of the coronavirus are relatively mild and take the form of respiratory diseases such as the common cold. But more serious strains have emerged over the last two decades, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, which spread across the globe in 2003. According to the CDC, the 2019 coronavirus is a 'beta coronavirus' similar to SARS and the Middle East respiratory syndrome, or MERS, which was first identified in 2012. All three viruses have their origins in bats, and all three can induce symptoms such as fever, cough and shortness of breath - similar to some common colds. More severe cases can cause pneumonia, kidney failure and death, according to the World Health Organization. A CDC fact-sheet describing common human coronaviruses said most people contract some type of coronavirus during their lives and that the more common strains 'usually cause mild to moderate upper-respiratory-tract illnesses, like the common cold.' But the same fact sheet also knocked down the idea that the 2019 coronavirus was the exact same as the more common strains. 'This information applies to common human coronaviruses and should not be confused with Coronavirus Disease-2019,' it said. The majority of viruses that cause the common cold are rhinoviruses, according to the CDC. Cases range from mild to moderate in severity, and many adults get two or three colds per year. Children are more likely to get them. In contrast, cases of the coronavirus have ranged from mild to severe, including illness resulting in death. Older people and those with preexisting medical conditions are more likely to suffer complications from COVID-19, while children are not. The virus has an estimated 3.4% mortality rate. In short, the 2019 coronavirus is a novel strain that was unknown before December 2019. It is different and can be much more dangerous than the common cold. Despite the differences, prevention for both the 2019 coronavirus and the common cold are relatively similar: wash your hands, avoid touching your face and stay away from people who are sick. We rate the Facebook statement False. | Our rating was False. As we reported: There are seven types of coronaviruses that can infect humans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some of those viruses, which are named for their crown-like structure, can cause colds. Featured Fact-check Tweets stated on November 9, 2021 in a tweet 'Bill Gates just admitted that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines don't work well.' By Samantha Putterman • November 17, 2021 Most strains of the coronavirus are relatively mild and take the form of respiratory diseases such as the common cold. But more serious strains have emerged over the last two decades, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, which spread across the globe in 2003. According to the CDC, the 2019 coronavirus is a 'beta coronavirus' similar to SARS and the Middle East respiratory syndrome, or MERS, which was first identified in 2012. All three viruses have their origins in bats, and all three can induce symptoms such as fever, cough and shortness of breath - similar to some common colds. More severe cases can cause pneumonia, kidney failure and death, according to the World Health Organization. A CDC fact-sheet describing common human coronaviruses said most people contract some type of coronavirus during their lives and that the more common strains 'usually cause mild to moderate upper-respiratory-tract illnesses, like the common cold.' But the same fact sheet also knocked down the idea that the 2019 coronavirus was the exact same as the more common strains. 'This information applies to common human coronaviruses and should not be confused with Coronavirus Disease-2019,' it said. The majority of viruses that cause the common cold are rhinoviruses, according to the CDC. Cases range from mild to moderate in severity, and many adults get two or three colds per year. Children are more likely to get them. In contrast, cases of the coronavirus have ranged from mild to severe, including illness resulting in death. Older people and those with preexisting medical conditions are more likely to suffer complications from COVID-19, while children are not. The virus has an estimated 3.4% mortality rate. In short, the 2019 coronavirus is a novel strain that was unknown before December 2019. It is different and can be much more dangerous than the common cold. Despite the differences, prevention for both the 2019 coronavirus and the common cold are relatively similar: wash your hands, avoid touching your face and stay away from people who are sick. We rate the Facebook statement False. | [
"107638-proof-29-e0b5d66834479e5da8eeb6e700d608d5.jpg"
]
|
The coronavirus is 'simply the common cold. | Contradiction | If the current coronavirus were really the same as the common cold, why would it be causing some people to die, stock markets to reel and stadiums to go empty? And yet, claims likening coronavirus to the common cold persist, including in a Facebook post that says: 'The coronavirus: The Democrats are using it to promote fear. The Chinese are using it to control protestors. And all along it's simply the common cold.' Gesundheit, but we've been here before. The 2019 coronavirus belongs to a family of viruses that includes the common cold, but the two are not the same. This Facebook post is wrong. 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.) Posts pointing fingers Since the outbreak of the new coronavirus disease, officially known as COVID-19, in Wuhan, China, in December, we've fact-checked several false claims that aim to downplay the severity of the virus and to blame the media, politicians or pharmaceutical companies for drawing attention to it. One such claim came from conservative radio talk show host and recent Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh, who said the coronavirus is the common cold. Our rating was False. As we reported: There are seven types of coronaviruses that can infect humans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some of those viruses, which are named for their crown-like structure, can cause colds. Most strains of the coronavirus are relatively mild and take the form of respiratory diseases such as the common cold. But more serious strains have emerged over the last two decades, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, which spread across the globe in 2003. According to the CDC, the 2019 coronavirus is a 'beta coronavirus' similar to SARS and the Middle East respiratory syndrome, or MERS, which was first identified in 2012. All three viruses have their origins in bats, and all three can induce symptoms such as fever, cough and shortness of breath - similar to some common colds. More severe cases can cause pneumonia, kidney failure and death, according to the World Health Organization. A CDC fact-sheet describing common human coronaviruses said most people contract some type of coronavirus during their lives and that the more common strains 'usually cause mild to moderate upper-respiratory-tract illnesses, like the common cold.' But the same fact sheet also knocked down the idea that the 2019 coronavirus was the exact same as the more common strains. 'This information applies to common human coronaviruses and should not be confused with Coronavirus Disease-2019,' it said. The majority of viruses that cause the common cold are rhinoviruses, according to the CDC. Cases range from mild to moderate in severity, and many adults get two or three colds per year. Children are more likely to get them. In contrast, cases of the coronavirus have ranged from mild to severe, including illness resulting in death. Older people and those with preexisting medical conditions are more likely to suffer complications from COVID-19, while children are not. The virus has an estimated 3.4% mortality rate. In short, the 2019 coronavirus is a novel strain that was unknown before December 2019. It is different and can be much more dangerous than the common cold. Despite the differences, prevention for both the 2019 coronavirus and the common cold are relatively similar: wash your hands, avoid touching your face and stay away from people who are sick. We rate the Facebook statement False. | Our rating was False. As we reported: There are seven types of coronaviruses that can infect humans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some of those viruses, which are named for their crown-like structure, can cause colds. Featured Fact-check Tweets stated on November 9, 2021 in a tweet 'Bill Gates just admitted that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines don't work well.' By Samantha Putterman • November 17, 2021 Most strains of the coronavirus are relatively mild and take the form of respiratory diseases such as the common cold. But more serious strains have emerged over the last two decades, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, which spread across the globe in 2003. According to the CDC, the 2019 coronavirus is a 'beta coronavirus' similar to SARS and the Middle East respiratory syndrome, or MERS, which was first identified in 2012. All three viruses have their origins in bats, and all three can induce symptoms such as fever, cough and shortness of breath - similar to some common colds. More severe cases can cause pneumonia, kidney failure and death, according to the World Health Organization. A CDC fact-sheet describing common human coronaviruses said most people contract some type of coronavirus during their lives and that the more common strains 'usually cause mild to moderate upper-respiratory-tract illnesses, like the common cold.' But the same fact sheet also knocked down the idea that the 2019 coronavirus was the exact same as the more common strains. 'This information applies to common human coronaviruses and should not be confused with Coronavirus Disease-2019,' it said. The majority of viruses that cause the common cold are rhinoviruses, according to the CDC. Cases range from mild to moderate in severity, and many adults get two or three colds per year. Children are more likely to get them. In contrast, cases of the coronavirus have ranged from mild to severe, including illness resulting in death. Older people and those with preexisting medical conditions are more likely to suffer complications from COVID-19, while children are not. The virus has an estimated 3.4% mortality rate. In short, the 2019 coronavirus is a novel strain that was unknown before December 2019. It is different and can be much more dangerous than the common cold. Despite the differences, prevention for both the 2019 coronavirus and the common cold are relatively similar: wash your hands, avoid touching your face and stay away from people who are sick. We rate the Facebook statement False. | [
"107638-proof-29-e0b5d66834479e5da8eeb6e700d608d5.jpg"
]
|
The coronavirus is 'simply the common cold. | Contradiction | If the current coronavirus were really the same as the common cold, why would it be causing some people to die, stock markets to reel and stadiums to go empty? And yet, claims likening coronavirus to the common cold persist, including in a Facebook post that says: 'The coronavirus: The Democrats are using it to promote fear. The Chinese are using it to control protestors. And all along it's simply the common cold.' Gesundheit, but we've been here before. The 2019 coronavirus belongs to a family of viruses that includes the common cold, but the two are not the same. This Facebook post is wrong. 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.) Posts pointing fingers Since the outbreak of the new coronavirus disease, officially known as COVID-19, in Wuhan, China, in December, we've fact-checked several false claims that aim to downplay the severity of the virus and to blame the media, politicians or pharmaceutical companies for drawing attention to it. One such claim came from conservative radio talk show host and recent Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Rush Limbaugh, who said the coronavirus is the common cold. Our rating was False. As we reported: There are seven types of coronaviruses that can infect humans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some of those viruses, which are named for their crown-like structure, can cause colds. Most strains of the coronavirus are relatively mild and take the form of respiratory diseases such as the common cold. But more serious strains have emerged over the last two decades, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, which spread across the globe in 2003. According to the CDC, the 2019 coronavirus is a 'beta coronavirus' similar to SARS and the Middle East respiratory syndrome, or MERS, which was first identified in 2012. All three viruses have their origins in bats, and all three can induce symptoms such as fever, cough and shortness of breath - similar to some common colds. More severe cases can cause pneumonia, kidney failure and death, according to the World Health Organization. A CDC fact-sheet describing common human coronaviruses said most people contract some type of coronavirus during their lives and that the more common strains 'usually cause mild to moderate upper-respiratory-tract illnesses, like the common cold.' But the same fact sheet also knocked down the idea that the 2019 coronavirus was the exact same as the more common strains. 'This information applies to common human coronaviruses and should not be confused with Coronavirus Disease-2019,' it said. The majority of viruses that cause the common cold are rhinoviruses, according to the CDC. Cases range from mild to moderate in severity, and many adults get two or three colds per year. Children are more likely to get them. In contrast, cases of the coronavirus have ranged from mild to severe, including illness resulting in death. Older people and those with preexisting medical conditions are more likely to suffer complications from COVID-19, while children are not. The virus has an estimated 3.4% mortality rate. In short, the 2019 coronavirus is a novel strain that was unknown before December 2019. It is different and can be much more dangerous than the common cold. Despite the differences, prevention for both the 2019 coronavirus and the common cold are relatively similar: wash your hands, avoid touching your face and stay away from people who are sick. We rate the Facebook statement False. | Our rating was False. As we reported: There are seven types of coronaviruses that can infect humans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some of those viruses, which are named for their crown-like structure, can cause colds. Featured Fact-check Tweets stated on November 9, 2021 in a tweet 'Bill Gates just admitted that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines don't work well.' By Samantha Putterman • November 17, 2021 Most strains of the coronavirus are relatively mild and take the form of respiratory diseases such as the common cold. But more serious strains have emerged over the last two decades, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, which spread across the globe in 2003. According to the CDC, the 2019 coronavirus is a 'beta coronavirus' similar to SARS and the Middle East respiratory syndrome, or MERS, which was first identified in 2012. All three viruses have their origins in bats, and all three can induce symptoms such as fever, cough and shortness of breath - similar to some common colds. More severe cases can cause pneumonia, kidney failure and death, according to the World Health Organization. A CDC fact-sheet describing common human coronaviruses said most people contract some type of coronavirus during their lives and that the more common strains 'usually cause mild to moderate upper-respiratory-tract illnesses, like the common cold.' But the same fact sheet also knocked down the idea that the 2019 coronavirus was the exact same as the more common strains. 'This information applies to common human coronaviruses and should not be confused with Coronavirus Disease-2019,' it said. The majority of viruses that cause the common cold are rhinoviruses, according to the CDC. Cases range from mild to moderate in severity, and many adults get two or three colds per year. Children are more likely to get them. In contrast, cases of the coronavirus have ranged from mild to severe, including illness resulting in death. Older people and those with preexisting medical conditions are more likely to suffer complications from COVID-19, while children are not. The virus has an estimated 3.4% mortality rate. In short, the 2019 coronavirus is a novel strain that was unknown before December 2019. It is different and can be much more dangerous than the common cold. Despite the differences, prevention for both the 2019 coronavirus and the common cold are relatively similar: wash your hands, avoid touching your face and stay away from people who are sick. We rate the Facebook statement False. | [
"107638-proof-29-e0b5d66834479e5da8eeb6e700d608d5.jpg"
]
|
Video shows Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system engaged in military combat. | Contradiction | A video snippet in a Facebook post purports to show Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile defense system targeting a military plane. But like a similar post from several days earlier, this one uses footage from a video game, not actual combat. The more recent post included video of a mounted rotating machine gun firing on a plane. The text on the post reads: 'Israel's Iron Dome Defense System.' The June 2 Facebook post, which appeared in the aftermath of a real 11-day battle between Israel and Hamas, the militia group that controls Gaza, 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 footage featured in the post is actually a digital simulation from 'Arma 3,' a tactical military video game produced by Prague-based Bohemia Interactive, a spokesperson for the company confirmed to PolitiFact. Similar versions of the video still appear on YouTube. Israel itself published videos of Iron Dome engaged in actual combat, but the video featured in this Facebook post is not one of them. Shortly after the legitimate videos were uploaded, users created simulations using the 'Arma 3' game interface and published them to YouTube and other sites. PolitiFact debunked a similar May 22 post that used footage from the game to falsely claim it showed Israel anti-missile defense system intercepting rockets. Similar videos using lifelike game simulations have been posted with false claims that they show missile attacks in Iraq, according to a fact-check published by Lead Stories in January 2020. We rate this Facebook post False. RELATED: This is not a video of Israel's 'Iron Dome' | We rate this Facebook post False. RELATED: This is not a video of Israel's 'Iron Dome' | []
|
'Law enforcement violence is the leading cause of death for young Black men and women in the US. | Contradiction | State Sen. Kevin Parker, D-Brooklyn, has responded to the police killings of Black men with legislation to raise New York state's use of force standard. Parker released a video to promote his bill, and he included this claim on Twitter and Facebook: 'Law enforcement violence is the leading cause of death for young Black men and women in the US.' THE TIME FOR CHANGE IS NOW‼️Law enforcement violence is the leading cause of death for young black men and women in the US. I have introduced legislation to combat this issue in New York State. #DaunteWright #ExcessiveForce #policebrutality #lawmaker #blacklivesmatter pic.twitter.com/f5UVNflwrj- Senator Kevin Parker (@kevinparkernyc) April 14, 2021 Given the public interest in police use of force in Black communities, we wondered if Parker's claim was accurate. Black men at greater risk We approached his office, and spokesperson Raven Robinson sent us a research article by researchers from Rutgers University, Washington University and the University of Michigan that examined the risk of being killed by police use of force. The study, based on data from 2013 to 2018, found that 'police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in the United States.' Among Black men, about one in every 1,000 'can expect to be killed by police' over the course of their lives. The inequality in risk of death is greatest for Black men, the study found. Black men are about 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than are white men, while Black women are about 1.4 times more likely to be killed by police than are white women. What the lead author says We contacted the study's lead author, Frank Edwards, and he told us that police violence is not the leading cause of death for any group. Edwards, an assistant professor at the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University in Newark, said that police violence is not the leading cause of death for any age group in the United States. It's the sixth leading cause for all young men in the 25 to 29 age group, Edwards said. For Black men ages 25 to 29, it is the seventh leading cause of death, behind homicide, accidents, suicide, heart disease, HIV and cancer, according to the study and federal data. It is ahead of diabetes. The study did not distinguish between the justified or unjustified use of force by police, and it excluded cases that police described as a suicide, those that involved a vehicular crash, or accidents such as overdoses or falls. What the CDC says We also approached the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which studies leading causes of death, though studies have shown that deaths caused by law enforcement are underreported in government databases. Among non-Hispanic Black males ages 15-24, deaths due to use of lethal force by law enforcement would rank as the seventh leading cause of death in 2019, the most recent data available, according to CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard. Among non-Hispanic Black women ages 15 to 24, there were four deaths due to use of lethal force by law enforcement in 2019. The count is low, and is unstable year to year, according to the CDC. Other studies Researchers who study lethal use of force by law enforcement caution that there is no national data collection system. As a result, there is likely an underreporting of incidents in which police actions resulted in deaths, according to the study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Study authors also said that the database it relied on, Fatal Encounters, contains more police-related deaths than the CDC's database, the National Vital Statistics System. Researchers at Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health also found that in the CDC database, misclassification of deaths involving police happen more in instances when the death was caused by something other than a gun, or if it happened in a low-income county. Dr. Anthony Bui, a pediatric resident at University of Washington, is co-author of a 2018 study examining the years of life lost due to encounters with law enforcement. Bui told PolitiFact that young Black men and women are disproportionately impacted by police violence. His study found that years of life lost from encounters with law enforcement disproportionately impacts young people, and the young people affected are disproportionately people of color. | Our ruling Parker called police violence the leading cause of death for young Black men and women. His office pointed to a study that it said backed the claim. It didn't. The study's lead author said that police violence is not the leading cause of death for any age group in the United States, though Black men and women are disproportionately impacted. CDC data back this up. Experts would like to see better official reporting of deaths caused by law enforcement. And research has shown that Black people are more affected by police violence. But no evidence supports Parker's claim. If he had called police use of force a leading cause of deaths among young Black men, our ruling would not have been so clear cut. But he called it the leading cause. We rate his claim False. | []
|
'Law enforcement violence is the leading cause of death for young Black men and women in the US. | Contradiction | State Sen. Kevin Parker, D-Brooklyn, has responded to the police killings of Black men with legislation to raise New York state's use of force standard. Parker released a video to promote his bill, and he included this claim on Twitter and Facebook: 'Law enforcement violence is the leading cause of death for young Black men and women in the US.' THE TIME FOR CHANGE IS NOW‼️Law enforcement violence is the leading cause of death for young black men and women in the US. I have introduced legislation to combat this issue in New York State. #DaunteWright #ExcessiveForce #policebrutality #lawmaker #blacklivesmatter pic.twitter.com/f5UVNflwrj- Senator Kevin Parker (@kevinparkernyc) April 14, 2021 Given the public interest in police use of force in Black communities, we wondered if Parker's claim was accurate. Black men at greater risk We approached his office, and spokesperson Raven Robinson sent us a research article by researchers from Rutgers University, Washington University and the University of Michigan that examined the risk of being killed by police use of force. The study, based on data from 2013 to 2018, found that 'police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in the United States.' Among Black men, about one in every 1,000 'can expect to be killed by police' over the course of their lives. The inequality in risk of death is greatest for Black men, the study found. Black men are about 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than are white men, while Black women are about 1.4 times more likely to be killed by police than are white women. What the lead author says We contacted the study's lead author, Frank Edwards, and he told us that police violence is not the leading cause of death for any group. Edwards, an assistant professor at the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University in Newark, said that police violence is not the leading cause of death for any age group in the United States. It's the sixth leading cause for all young men in the 25 to 29 age group, Edwards said. For Black men ages 25 to 29, it is the seventh leading cause of death, behind homicide, accidents, suicide, heart disease, HIV and cancer, according to the study and federal data. It is ahead of diabetes. The study did not distinguish between the justified or unjustified use of force by police, and it excluded cases that police described as a suicide, those that involved a vehicular crash, or accidents such as overdoses or falls. What the CDC says We also approached the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which studies leading causes of death, though studies have shown that deaths caused by law enforcement are underreported in government databases. Among non-Hispanic Black males ages 15-24, deaths due to use of lethal force by law enforcement would rank as the seventh leading cause of death in 2019, the most recent data available, according to CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard. Among non-Hispanic Black women ages 15 to 24, there were four deaths due to use of lethal force by law enforcement in 2019. The count is low, and is unstable year to year, according to the CDC. Other studies Researchers who study lethal use of force by law enforcement caution that there is no national data collection system. As a result, there is likely an underreporting of incidents in which police actions resulted in deaths, according to the study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Study authors also said that the database it relied on, Fatal Encounters, contains more police-related deaths than the CDC's database, the National Vital Statistics System. Researchers at Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health also found that in the CDC database, misclassification of deaths involving police happen more in instances when the death was caused by something other than a gun, or if it happened in a low-income county. Dr. Anthony Bui, a pediatric resident at University of Washington, is co-author of a 2018 study examining the years of life lost due to encounters with law enforcement. Bui told PolitiFact that young Black men and women are disproportionately impacted by police violence. His study found that years of life lost from encounters with law enforcement disproportionately impacts young people, and the young people affected are disproportionately people of color. | Our ruling Parker called police violence the leading cause of death for young Black men and women. His office pointed to a study that it said backed the claim. It didn't. The study's lead author said that police violence is not the leading cause of death for any age group in the United States, though Black men and women are disproportionately impacted. CDC data back this up. Experts would like to see better official reporting of deaths caused by law enforcement. And research has shown that Black people are more affected by police violence. But no evidence supports Parker's claim. If he had called police use of force a leading cause of deaths among young Black men, our ruling would not have been so clear cut. But he called it the leading cause. We rate his claim False. | []
|
'Law enforcement violence is the leading cause of death for young Black men and women in the US. | Contradiction | State Sen. Kevin Parker, D-Brooklyn, has responded to the police killings of Black men with legislation to raise New York state's use of force standard. Parker released a video to promote his bill, and he included this claim on Twitter and Facebook: 'Law enforcement violence is the leading cause of death for young Black men and women in the US.' THE TIME FOR CHANGE IS NOW‼️Law enforcement violence is the leading cause of death for young black men and women in the US. I have introduced legislation to combat this issue in New York State. #DaunteWright #ExcessiveForce #policebrutality #lawmaker #blacklivesmatter pic.twitter.com/f5UVNflwrj- Senator Kevin Parker (@kevinparkernyc) April 14, 2021 Given the public interest in police use of force in Black communities, we wondered if Parker's claim was accurate. Black men at greater risk We approached his office, and spokesperson Raven Robinson sent us a research article by researchers from Rutgers University, Washington University and the University of Michigan that examined the risk of being killed by police use of force. The study, based on data from 2013 to 2018, found that 'police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in the United States.' Among Black men, about one in every 1,000 'can expect to be killed by police' over the course of their lives. The inequality in risk of death is greatest for Black men, the study found. Black men are about 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than are white men, while Black women are about 1.4 times more likely to be killed by police than are white women. What the lead author says We contacted the study's lead author, Frank Edwards, and he told us that police violence is not the leading cause of death for any group. Edwards, an assistant professor at the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University in Newark, said that police violence is not the leading cause of death for any age group in the United States. It's the sixth leading cause for all young men in the 25 to 29 age group, Edwards said. For Black men ages 25 to 29, it is the seventh leading cause of death, behind homicide, accidents, suicide, heart disease, HIV and cancer, according to the study and federal data. It is ahead of diabetes. The study did not distinguish between the justified or unjustified use of force by police, and it excluded cases that police described as a suicide, those that involved a vehicular crash, or accidents such as overdoses or falls. What the CDC says We also approached the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which studies leading causes of death, though studies have shown that deaths caused by law enforcement are underreported in government databases. Among non-Hispanic Black males ages 15-24, deaths due to use of lethal force by law enforcement would rank as the seventh leading cause of death in 2019, the most recent data available, according to CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard. Among non-Hispanic Black women ages 15 to 24, there were four deaths due to use of lethal force by law enforcement in 2019. The count is low, and is unstable year to year, according to the CDC. Other studies Researchers who study lethal use of force by law enforcement caution that there is no national data collection system. As a result, there is likely an underreporting of incidents in which police actions resulted in deaths, according to the study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Study authors also said that the database it relied on, Fatal Encounters, contains more police-related deaths than the CDC's database, the National Vital Statistics System. Researchers at Harvard University's T.H. Chan School of Public Health also found that in the CDC database, misclassification of deaths involving police happen more in instances when the death was caused by something other than a gun, or if it happened in a low-income county. Dr. Anthony Bui, a pediatric resident at University of Washington, is co-author of a 2018 study examining the years of life lost due to encounters with law enforcement. Bui told PolitiFact that young Black men and women are disproportionately impacted by police violence. His study found that years of life lost from encounters with law enforcement disproportionately impacts young people, and the young people affected are disproportionately people of color. | Our ruling Parker called police violence the leading cause of death for young Black men and women. His office pointed to a study that it said backed the claim. It didn't. The study's lead author said that police violence is not the leading cause of death for any age group in the United States, though Black men and women are disproportionately impacted. CDC data back this up. Experts would like to see better official reporting of deaths caused by law enforcement. And research has shown that Black people are more affected by police violence. But no evidence supports Parker's claim. If he had called police use of force a leading cause of deaths among young Black men, our ruling would not have been so clear cut. But he called it the leading cause. We rate his claim False. | []
|
'Hunter Biden was chairman of the World Food Program, which just won the Nobel Peace Prize. Eric Trump, Donald J Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump are banned from ever operating a charity again because they stole donations to children with cancer. | Contradiction | A popular liberal Facebook page is pushing back against attacks on Hunter Biden with uncharitable claims about the children of President Donald Trump. 'Hunter Biden was chairman of the World Food Program, which just won the Nobel Peace Prize,' Left Action said in an Oct. 20 post. 'Eric Trump, Donald J Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump are banned from ever operating a charity again because they stole donations to children with cancer.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It's been shared more than 5,200 times. Left Action is a popular Facebook page that's part of a series of online liberal advocacy properties called the Left Action Network. We reached out to the page for evidence to back up its post, but we haven't heard back. We've previously fact-checked claims about the Trump children being disallowed from operating charities, but we wanted to take a fresh look at the facts. The Facebook post is wrong to say that the Trump children aren't allowed to operate charities, and it paints a misleading picture of Hunter Biden's connection to a nonprofit that fights global hunger. (Screenshot from Facebook) World Food Program USA is a 501(c)(3) charity based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to support the World Food Programme, a United Nations-affiliated humanitarian organization that delivers food assistance in dozens of countries around the world. The World Food Programme won the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize - not World Food Program USA. While the two organizations share a common mission, and the U.S. group frequently donates to the international one, they are separate entities, as evidenced by public tax records. Hunter Biden, son of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, was on the World Food Program USA board of directors from 2011 to 2017 and served as chairman from 2011 to 2015, according to the nonprofit's annual reports. Randy Russell is the current chairman. So Hunter Biden is not a former chairman of a Nobel Prize-winning humanitarian organization, as the Facebook post claims. But what about the Trump children? We reached out to the White House and Trump's re-election campaign for more information. A spokesperson for the campaign pointed to an October 2019 PolitiFact fact-check about a Facebook post that claimed the Trumps were 'disallowed from operating any charity in the State of New York because they stole from a kids cancer charity.' We rated that claim False. Left Action's recent Facebook post is also misleading. In June 2018, the New York attorney general filed a lawsuit against the president and three of his children: Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump. The Donald J. Trump Foundation, whose board the Trump children served on, was also named in the lawsuit. The suit claimed that for more than a decade, the foundation violated state and federal laws related to charities in New York state. As a result, it sought to dissolve the foundation and to temporarily prohibit the Trumps from future service as officers or directors in New York charitable organizations. In November 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a settlement under which the state Supreme Court ordered the president to pay $2 million 'for improperly using charitable assets to intervene in the 2016 presidential primaries and further his own political interests.' The settlement also required training for the three Trump children and imposed restrictions on the president if and when he joined another charity as director. RELATED: Trump family 'disallowed' from operating charities in New York? No. The lawsuit had nothing to do with a charity for children with cancer, as the Facebook post claims. Forbes reported in June 2017 that Eric Trump's own foundation gave donors the impression that all the money it raised at an annual golf event went to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, when in reality more than $500,000 went to other causes. Eric Trump resigned from the foundation in December 2016. That scrutiny was separate from the New York attorney general's lawsuit against Donald J. Trump Foundation, which agreed to dissolve in 2018. And Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump can still operate charities under the terms of the settlement. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | We rated that claim False. Left Action's recent Facebook post is also misleading. In June 2018, the New York attorney general filed a lawsuit against the president and three of his children: Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump. The Donald J. Trump Foundation, whose board the Trump children served on, was also named in the lawsuit. The suit claimed that for more than a decade, the foundation violated state and federal laws related to charities in New York state. As a result, it sought to dissolve the foundation and to temporarily prohibit the Trumps from future service as officers or directors in New York charitable organizations. In November 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a settlement under which the state Supreme Court ordered the president to pay $2 million 'for improperly using charitable assets to intervene in the 2016 presidential primaries and further his own political interests.' The settlement also required training for the three Trump children and imposed restrictions on the president if and when he joined another charity as director. RELATED: Trump family 'disallowed' from operating charities in New York? No. The lawsuit had nothing to do with a charity for children with cancer, as the Facebook post claims. Forbes reported in June 2017 that Eric Trump's own foundation gave donors the impression that all the money it raised at an annual golf event went to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, when in reality more than $500,000 went to other causes. Eric Trump resigned from the foundation in December 2016. That scrutiny was separate from the New York attorney general's lawsuit against Donald J. Trump Foundation, which agreed to dissolve in 2018. And Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump can still operate charities under the terms of the settlement. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"107667-proof-00-a4054b6d7bd43365241f128f48089feb.jpg",
"107667-proof-30-Screen_Shot_2020-10-21_at_15_15_03.jpg"
]
|
'Hunter Biden was chairman of the World Food Program, which just won the Nobel Peace Prize. Eric Trump, Donald J Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump are banned from ever operating a charity again because they stole donations to children with cancer. | Contradiction | A popular liberal Facebook page is pushing back against attacks on Hunter Biden with uncharitable claims about the children of President Donald Trump. 'Hunter Biden was chairman of the World Food Program, which just won the Nobel Peace Prize,' Left Action said in an Oct. 20 post. 'Eric Trump, Donald J Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump are banned from ever operating a charity again because they stole donations to children with cancer.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It's been shared more than 5,200 times. Left Action is a popular Facebook page that's part of a series of online liberal advocacy properties called the Left Action Network. We reached out to the page for evidence to back up its post, but we haven't heard back. We've previously fact-checked claims about the Trump children being disallowed from operating charities, but we wanted to take a fresh look at the facts. The Facebook post is wrong to say that the Trump children aren't allowed to operate charities, and it paints a misleading picture of Hunter Biden's connection to a nonprofit that fights global hunger. (Screenshot from Facebook) World Food Program USA is a 501(c)(3) charity based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to support the World Food Programme, a United Nations-affiliated humanitarian organization that delivers food assistance in dozens of countries around the world. The World Food Programme won the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize - not World Food Program USA. While the two organizations share a common mission, and the U.S. group frequently donates to the international one, they are separate entities, as evidenced by public tax records. Hunter Biden, son of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, was on the World Food Program USA board of directors from 2011 to 2017 and served as chairman from 2011 to 2015, according to the nonprofit's annual reports. Randy Russell is the current chairman. So Hunter Biden is not a former chairman of a Nobel Prize-winning humanitarian organization, as the Facebook post claims. But what about the Trump children? We reached out to the White House and Trump's re-election campaign for more information. A spokesperson for the campaign pointed to an October 2019 PolitiFact fact-check about a Facebook post that claimed the Trumps were 'disallowed from operating any charity in the State of New York because they stole from a kids cancer charity.' We rated that claim False. Left Action's recent Facebook post is also misleading. In June 2018, the New York attorney general filed a lawsuit against the president and three of his children: Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump. The Donald J. Trump Foundation, whose board the Trump children served on, was also named in the lawsuit. The suit claimed that for more than a decade, the foundation violated state and federal laws related to charities in New York state. As a result, it sought to dissolve the foundation and to temporarily prohibit the Trumps from future service as officers or directors in New York charitable organizations. In November 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a settlement under which the state Supreme Court ordered the president to pay $2 million 'for improperly using charitable assets to intervene in the 2016 presidential primaries and further his own political interests.' The settlement also required training for the three Trump children and imposed restrictions on the president if and when he joined another charity as director. RELATED: Trump family 'disallowed' from operating charities in New York? No. The lawsuit had nothing to do with a charity for children with cancer, as the Facebook post claims. Forbes reported in June 2017 that Eric Trump's own foundation gave donors the impression that all the money it raised at an annual golf event went to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, when in reality more than $500,000 went to other causes. Eric Trump resigned from the foundation in December 2016. That scrutiny was separate from the New York attorney general's lawsuit against Donald J. Trump Foundation, which agreed to dissolve in 2018. And Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump can still operate charities under the terms of the settlement. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | We rated that claim False. Left Action's recent Facebook post is also misleading. In June 2018, the New York attorney general filed a lawsuit against the president and three of his children: Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump. The Donald J. Trump Foundation, whose board the Trump children served on, was also named in the lawsuit. The suit claimed that for more than a decade, the foundation violated state and federal laws related to charities in New York state. As a result, it sought to dissolve the foundation and to temporarily prohibit the Trumps from future service as officers or directors in New York charitable organizations. In November 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a settlement under which the state Supreme Court ordered the president to pay $2 million 'for improperly using charitable assets to intervene in the 2016 presidential primaries and further his own political interests.' The settlement also required training for the three Trump children and imposed restrictions on the president if and when he joined another charity as director. RELATED: Trump family 'disallowed' from operating charities in New York? No. The lawsuit had nothing to do with a charity for children with cancer, as the Facebook post claims. Forbes reported in June 2017 that Eric Trump's own foundation gave donors the impression that all the money it raised at an annual golf event went to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, when in reality more than $500,000 went to other causes. Eric Trump resigned from the foundation in December 2016. That scrutiny was separate from the New York attorney general's lawsuit against Donald J. Trump Foundation, which agreed to dissolve in 2018. And Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump can still operate charities under the terms of the settlement. The Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False. | [
"107667-proof-00-a4054b6d7bd43365241f128f48089feb.jpg",
"107667-proof-30-Screen_Shot_2020-10-21_at_15_15_03.jpg"
]
|
Photo shows a semi-truck that crashed with a Chevy pickup that cut in front of it. | Contradiction | An unnerving photo of a vehicle crumpled under a semi-truck is being shared on social media with a warning: 'The next time you decide to cut in front of that 80,000 lb semi, remember: this was once a 4-door Chevy pickup.' The photo is authentic, but it doesn't show a pickup truck that cut off a semi. 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.) In September 2016, WSB-TV, a news station in Atlanta, aired images from a crash involving four tractor-trailers on Interstate 20 in Carroll County, Georgia. Georgia State Patrol said at the time that a tractor-trailer ran into the back of a second tractor-trailer, according to the station. The second tractor-trailer then drove over a silver pickup truck, crushing it, and ran into a third tractor-trailer. The third tractor trailer then hit a fourth one. The person driving the pickup and a passenger were killed in the crash. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported the same narrative. 'The deadly chain reaction started when a tractor-trailer headed eastbound struck a second tractor-trailer, which then struck the silver pickup truck, killing the driver and passenger,' the newspaper said. The photo suggests this is what happens to smaller vehicles that cut in front of big trucks on the highway. But this was no ordinary collison; it involved multiple vehicles that are not all pictured. We rate claims that this photo shows a pickup truck that cut in front of a semi-truck Mostly False. | We rate claims that this photo shows a pickup truck that cut in front of a semi-truck Mostly False. | []
|
'The president looks like he was ahead of the curve - as you know, he talks about this all the time - on shutting down travel from China. | Contradiction | Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum on Monday defended President Donald Trump's response to the coronavirus outbreak in an interview with CNN anchor John King. 'The president looks like he was ahead of the curve - as you know, he talks about this all the time - on shutting down travel from China,' said Santorum, a Republican from Pennsylvania who lost his bid for a third term in 2006. Santorum's comments came one day after Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, told CNN anchor Jake Tapper that earlier implementation of social-distancing and stay-at-home orders could have saved lives lost to the coronavirus. Santorum called Fauci's remarks 'Monday morning quarterbacking' and sought to redirect attention to other coronavirus mitigation strategies he believes the Trump administration embraced early on. Fauci, later on Monday, said his remarks were hypothetical. We wondered whether Trump's decision to restrict travel from China was as prescient as Santorum described. The administration announced the restrictions on Jan. 31 and they took effect two days later. The policy prohibited non-U.S. citizens who had traveled to China within the last two weeks from entering the country. Trump has repeatedly said he acted to restrict travel - first from China, then from Iran and finally from Europe - despite objections from experts. 'But we closed those borders very early, against the advice of a lot of professionals, and we turned out to be right. I took a lot of heat for that,' Trump said on March 4. Later that same day, Trump spoke about the rationale behind his decision, telling Fox anchor Sean Hannity, 'Everybody said, it's too early, it's too soon, and good people, brilliant people, in many ways, doctors and lawyers and, frankly, a lot of people that work on this stuff almost exclusively. And they said, don't do it.' Trump repeated the claim again at the Scranton town hall he held on March 5, saying he imposed the travel restrictions 'against the advice of almost everybody.' The World Health Organization did caution against the overuse of travel restrictions around the time the one imposed by the U.S. first took effect, but public health officials in this country and many airlines themselves agreed on the policy's importance. Several airlines voluntarily halted flights between the U.S. and China a few days before the administration's travel restrictions took effect. And Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said experts in his department all agreed that restricting travel from countries with coronavirus outbreaks was the right call. 'The travel restrictions that we put in place in consultation with the president were very measured and incremental,' Azar told reporters on Feb. 7. 'These were the uniform recommendations of the career public health officials here at HHS.' What was the rest of the world thinking at the same time? We consulted Think Global Health, an initiative of the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations that is tracking travel restrictions on China due to COVID-19. By the group's count, about 45 nations restricted travel from China before the United States. That number covers variations of travel restrictions in effect up to and including Feb. 1. Think Global Health's tracker includes partial or total land border closures, suspension of flights to and from China, visa restrictions, such as a pause on visa-on-arrival programs, and entry restrictions (similar to what the United States implemented). 'While the United States was not one of the first countries to impose restrictions against travel from China, nor was it late to do so relative to the actions of others,' said Samantha Kiernan, a research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'Rather, the United States acted around the same time that many other countries did.' | Our ruling Santorum said, 'The president looks like he was ahead of the curve - as you know, he talks about this all the time - on shutting down travel from China.' Trump wasn't 'ahead of the curve,' as Santorum said. He was following the advice of experts in his own administration - and the actions of the industry directly affected by the move. And about 45 nations restricted travel from China before the United States. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. PolitiFact's Miriam Valverde contributed to this report. | [
"107678-proof-12-f430649f0c4120de379aa7282725fbdd.jpg"
]
|
'The president looks like he was ahead of the curve - as you know, he talks about this all the time - on shutting down travel from China. | Contradiction | Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum on Monday defended President Donald Trump's response to the coronavirus outbreak in an interview with CNN anchor John King. 'The president looks like he was ahead of the curve - as you know, he talks about this all the time - on shutting down travel from China,' said Santorum, a Republican from Pennsylvania who lost his bid for a third term in 2006. Santorum's comments came one day after Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, told CNN anchor Jake Tapper that earlier implementation of social-distancing and stay-at-home orders could have saved lives lost to the coronavirus. Santorum called Fauci's remarks 'Monday morning quarterbacking' and sought to redirect attention to other coronavirus mitigation strategies he believes the Trump administration embraced early on. Fauci, later on Monday, said his remarks were hypothetical. We wondered whether Trump's decision to restrict travel from China was as prescient as Santorum described. The administration announced the restrictions on Jan. 31 and they took effect two days later. The policy prohibited non-U.S. citizens who had traveled to China within the last two weeks from entering the country. Trump has repeatedly said he acted to restrict travel - first from China, then from Iran and finally from Europe - despite objections from experts. 'But we closed those borders very early, against the advice of a lot of professionals, and we turned out to be right. I took a lot of heat for that,' Trump said on March 4. Later that same day, Trump spoke about the rationale behind his decision, telling Fox anchor Sean Hannity, 'Everybody said, it's too early, it's too soon, and good people, brilliant people, in many ways, doctors and lawyers and, frankly, a lot of people that work on this stuff almost exclusively. And they said, don't do it.' Trump repeated the claim again at the Scranton town hall he held on March 5, saying he imposed the travel restrictions 'against the advice of almost everybody.' The World Health Organization did caution against the overuse of travel restrictions around the time the one imposed by the U.S. first took effect, but public health officials in this country and many airlines themselves agreed on the policy's importance. Several airlines voluntarily halted flights between the U.S. and China a few days before the administration's travel restrictions took effect. And Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said experts in his department all agreed that restricting travel from countries with coronavirus outbreaks was the right call. 'The travel restrictions that we put in place in consultation with the president were very measured and incremental,' Azar told reporters on Feb. 7. 'These were the uniform recommendations of the career public health officials here at HHS.' What was the rest of the world thinking at the same time? We consulted Think Global Health, an initiative of the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations that is tracking travel restrictions on China due to COVID-19. By the group's count, about 45 nations restricted travel from China before the United States. That number covers variations of travel restrictions in effect up to and including Feb. 1. Think Global Health's tracker includes partial or total land border closures, suspension of flights to and from China, visa restrictions, such as a pause on visa-on-arrival programs, and entry restrictions (similar to what the United States implemented). 'While the United States was not one of the first countries to impose restrictions against travel from China, nor was it late to do so relative to the actions of others,' said Samantha Kiernan, a research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'Rather, the United States acted around the same time that many other countries did.' | Our ruling Santorum said, 'The president looks like he was ahead of the curve - as you know, he talks about this all the time - on shutting down travel from China.' Trump wasn't 'ahead of the curve,' as Santorum said. He was following the advice of experts in his own administration - and the actions of the industry directly affected by the move. And about 45 nations restricted travel from China before the United States. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. PolitiFact's Miriam Valverde contributed to this report. | [
"107678-proof-12-f430649f0c4120de379aa7282725fbdd.jpg"
]
|
'The president looks like he was ahead of the curve - as you know, he talks about this all the time - on shutting down travel from China. | Contradiction | Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum on Monday defended President Donald Trump's response to the coronavirus outbreak in an interview with CNN anchor John King. 'The president looks like he was ahead of the curve - as you know, he talks about this all the time - on shutting down travel from China,' said Santorum, a Republican from Pennsylvania who lost his bid for a third term in 2006. Santorum's comments came one day after Anthony Fauci, the nation's top infectious disease expert, told CNN anchor Jake Tapper that earlier implementation of social-distancing and stay-at-home orders could have saved lives lost to the coronavirus. Santorum called Fauci's remarks 'Monday morning quarterbacking' and sought to redirect attention to other coronavirus mitigation strategies he believes the Trump administration embraced early on. Fauci, later on Monday, said his remarks were hypothetical. We wondered whether Trump's decision to restrict travel from China was as prescient as Santorum described. The administration announced the restrictions on Jan. 31 and they took effect two days later. The policy prohibited non-U.S. citizens who had traveled to China within the last two weeks from entering the country. Trump has repeatedly said he acted to restrict travel - first from China, then from Iran and finally from Europe - despite objections from experts. 'But we closed those borders very early, against the advice of a lot of professionals, and we turned out to be right. I took a lot of heat for that,' Trump said on March 4. Later that same day, Trump spoke about the rationale behind his decision, telling Fox anchor Sean Hannity, 'Everybody said, it's too early, it's too soon, and good people, brilliant people, in many ways, doctors and lawyers and, frankly, a lot of people that work on this stuff almost exclusively. And they said, don't do it.' Trump repeated the claim again at the Scranton town hall he held on March 5, saying he imposed the travel restrictions 'against the advice of almost everybody.' The World Health Organization did caution against the overuse of travel restrictions around the time the one imposed by the U.S. first took effect, but public health officials in this country and many airlines themselves agreed on the policy's importance. Several airlines voluntarily halted flights between the U.S. and China a few days before the administration's travel restrictions took effect. And Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said experts in his department all agreed that restricting travel from countries with coronavirus outbreaks was the right call. 'The travel restrictions that we put in place in consultation with the president were very measured and incremental,' Azar told reporters on Feb. 7. 'These were the uniform recommendations of the career public health officials here at HHS.' What was the rest of the world thinking at the same time? We consulted Think Global Health, an initiative of the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations that is tracking travel restrictions on China due to COVID-19. By the group's count, about 45 nations restricted travel from China before the United States. That number covers variations of travel restrictions in effect up to and including Feb. 1. Think Global Health's tracker includes partial or total land border closures, suspension of flights to and from China, visa restrictions, such as a pause on visa-on-arrival programs, and entry restrictions (similar to what the United States implemented). 'While the United States was not one of the first countries to impose restrictions against travel from China, nor was it late to do so relative to the actions of others,' said Samantha Kiernan, a research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations. 'Rather, the United States acted around the same time that many other countries did.' | Our ruling Santorum said, 'The president looks like he was ahead of the curve - as you know, he talks about this all the time - on shutting down travel from China.' Trump wasn't 'ahead of the curve,' as Santorum said. He was following the advice of experts in his own administration - and the actions of the industry directly affected by the move. And about 45 nations restricted travel from China before the United States. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. PolitiFact's Miriam Valverde contributed to this report. | [
"107678-proof-12-f430649f0c4120de379aa7282725fbdd.jpg"
]
|
'6000% Increase in Reported Vaccine Deaths 1st Quarter 2021 Compared to 1st Quarter 2020' | Contradiction | An Instagram post shares a startling headline on the reportedly sharp increase in the number of vaccine-related deaths during the coronavirus pandemic. '6000% Increase in Reported Vaccine Deaths 1st Quarter 2021 Compared to 1st Quarter 2020,' reads the screenshot of an article published on April 1 from a website called Truth Unmuted. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post includes as its caption a copy-and-paste of the full article, which appears to have originated from another site called Health Impact News. It asserts that the data show a link between the increase in reported deaths and the recent introduction of COVID-19 vaccines. It claims all vaccine-related deaths reported since January to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, a federally maintained database that records health issues that occur after vaccinations, dramatically rose by more than 6,000% compared to the same time frame in 2021. Between Jan. 1 and March 19, 2020, 36 people were reported to have died in connection to a vaccination, according to the article. During that period in 2021, 2,213 people were reported to have died. 'The increase in deaths reported is most certainly related to the new experimental COVID injections, and yet the CDC and FDA's position is that NOT ONE of these deaths are related to the COVID injections,' according to the article. It's a frightening statistic - but the article's findings are a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the numbers reported by VAERS. What is VAERS? Maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, the VAERS database contains what it describes as 'unverified' reports of adverse events that follow vaccines. The system allows almost anyone - from a doctor to a nurse to a pharmacist to a patient or parent - to enter in any information about illnesses or medical issues that follow someone receiving a vaccine. The information is collected so that officials can spot possible trends or side effects related to particular vaccines. The CDC has a lengthy disclaimer on its database landing page that says, in part: 'While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically.' Before clicking on the database, one must acknowledge having read this disclaimer. Claim distorts figures' meaning Our attempt to recreate the figures reported in the article yielded slightly different results as VAERS is constantly updating and numbers can 'change from week to week,' according to the database. But when we searched on April 5, we found data that was pretty close to what the claim suggests: there were 30 reported deaths following vaccinations in the period between January 2020 and March 2020 compared to 1,813 during that same period in 2021. That's an increase of just under 6,000%. And of those deaths, VAERS reports that 1,770 followed COVID-19 vaccinations. But it's inaccurate and misleading to say these deaths were caused by COVID-19 vaccines. While federal public health officials, including the CDC and the FDA, are monitoring the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, there is no evidence linking these deaths to vaccines - and officials follow up on every report of death to learn more. 'A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths,' the CDC says. 'To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines.' The majority of people who received the COVID-19 vaccines during this period were older adults, many in nursing homes, said Susan S. Ellenberg, a professor of biostatistics, medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine. 'If you take a group of 10 million people over the age of 65, how many would be expected to die in a period of two months? That number is not trivial,' she said. 'And because of all the publicity about the vaccines, any death following the vaccine is likely to raise suspicion, even if the person who died was 88 years old and was diabetic, a smoker, and already had had a couple of heart attacks.' Ellenberg said comparing the two years is also meaningless as the vaccines that were administered in 2020 would have been around for a long time and without the same level of attention that has been given to COVID-19 vaccines administered during an historic pandemic. Most vaccines in 2020 were also given to infants and toddlers. Despite these warnings, anti-vaccination groups and skeptics frequently cite these figures from VAERS, as well as a similar database maintained by the European Union, stripped of their context and proof of a vaccine's lethality. This has frequently become a common occurrence for the COVID-19 vaccines. PolitiFact has previously debunked a number of such claims. The CDC has maintained the vaccines' safety and effectiveness as more than 167 million doses have been administered to people in the United States. | Our ruling An Instagram post shared an article claiming '6000% Increase in Reported Vaccine Deaths 1st Quarter 2021 Compared to 1st Quarter 2020.' The article is based on a misrepresentation of information from a federally maintained database of suspected adverse reactions to vaccinations, including the COVID-19 vaccines. The database cautions users the numbers reported should not be taken as fact since they have not been verified through independent scientific study. Millions of people across the United States have been given a COVID-19 vaccination and not enough research has been done to show a definitive link between the vaccines and any of the reported adverse reactions. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'6000% Increase in Reported Vaccine Deaths 1st Quarter 2021 Compared to 1st Quarter 2020' | Contradiction | An Instagram post shares a startling headline on the reportedly sharp increase in the number of vaccine-related deaths during the coronavirus pandemic. '6000% Increase in Reported Vaccine Deaths 1st Quarter 2021 Compared to 1st Quarter 2020,' reads the screenshot of an article published on April 1 from a website called Truth Unmuted. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post includes as its caption a copy-and-paste of the full article, which appears to have originated from another site called Health Impact News. It asserts that the data show a link between the increase in reported deaths and the recent introduction of COVID-19 vaccines. It claims all vaccine-related deaths reported since January to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, a federally maintained database that records health issues that occur after vaccinations, dramatically rose by more than 6,000% compared to the same time frame in 2021. Between Jan. 1 and March 19, 2020, 36 people were reported to have died in connection to a vaccination, according to the article. During that period in 2021, 2,213 people were reported to have died. 'The increase in deaths reported is most certainly related to the new experimental COVID injections, and yet the CDC and FDA's position is that NOT ONE of these deaths are related to the COVID injections,' according to the article. It's a frightening statistic - but the article's findings are a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the numbers reported by VAERS. What is VAERS? Maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, the VAERS database contains what it describes as 'unverified' reports of adverse events that follow vaccines. The system allows almost anyone - from a doctor to a nurse to a pharmacist to a patient or parent - to enter in any information about illnesses or medical issues that follow someone receiving a vaccine. The information is collected so that officials can spot possible trends or side effects related to particular vaccines. The CDC has a lengthy disclaimer on its database landing page that says, in part: 'While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically.' Before clicking on the database, one must acknowledge having read this disclaimer. Claim distorts figures' meaning Our attempt to recreate the figures reported in the article yielded slightly different results as VAERS is constantly updating and numbers can 'change from week to week,' according to the database. But when we searched on April 5, we found data that was pretty close to what the claim suggests: there were 30 reported deaths following vaccinations in the period between January 2020 and March 2020 compared to 1,813 during that same period in 2021. That's an increase of just under 6,000%. And of those deaths, VAERS reports that 1,770 followed COVID-19 vaccinations. But it's inaccurate and misleading to say these deaths were caused by COVID-19 vaccines. While federal public health officials, including the CDC and the FDA, are monitoring the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, there is no evidence linking these deaths to vaccines - and officials follow up on every report of death to learn more. 'A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths,' the CDC says. 'To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines.' The majority of people who received the COVID-19 vaccines during this period were older adults, many in nursing homes, said Susan S. Ellenberg, a professor of biostatistics, medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine. 'If you take a group of 10 million people over the age of 65, how many would be expected to die in a period of two months? That number is not trivial,' she said. 'And because of all the publicity about the vaccines, any death following the vaccine is likely to raise suspicion, even if the person who died was 88 years old and was diabetic, a smoker, and already had had a couple of heart attacks.' Ellenberg said comparing the two years is also meaningless as the vaccines that were administered in 2020 would have been around for a long time and without the same level of attention that has been given to COVID-19 vaccines administered during an historic pandemic. Most vaccines in 2020 were also given to infants and toddlers. Despite these warnings, anti-vaccination groups and skeptics frequently cite these figures from VAERS, as well as a similar database maintained by the European Union, stripped of their context and proof of a vaccine's lethality. This has frequently become a common occurrence for the COVID-19 vaccines. PolitiFact has previously debunked a number of such claims. The CDC has maintained the vaccines' safety and effectiveness as more than 167 million doses have been administered to people in the United States. | Our ruling An Instagram post shared an article claiming '6000% Increase in Reported Vaccine Deaths 1st Quarter 2021 Compared to 1st Quarter 2020.' The article is based on a misrepresentation of information from a federally maintained database of suspected adverse reactions to vaccinations, including the COVID-19 vaccines. The database cautions users the numbers reported should not be taken as fact since they have not been verified through independent scientific study. Millions of people across the United States have been given a COVID-19 vaccination and not enough research has been done to show a definitive link between the vaccines and any of the reported adverse reactions. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'6000% Increase in Reported Vaccine Deaths 1st Quarter 2021 Compared to 1st Quarter 2020' | Contradiction | An Instagram post shares a startling headline on the reportedly sharp increase in the number of vaccine-related deaths during the coronavirus pandemic. '6000% Increase in Reported Vaccine Deaths 1st Quarter 2021 Compared to 1st Quarter 2020,' reads the screenshot of an article published on April 1 from a website called Truth Unmuted. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post includes as its caption a copy-and-paste of the full article, which appears to have originated from another site called Health Impact News. It asserts that the data show a link between the increase in reported deaths and the recent introduction of COVID-19 vaccines. It claims all vaccine-related deaths reported since January to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, a federally maintained database that records health issues that occur after vaccinations, dramatically rose by more than 6,000% compared to the same time frame in 2021. Between Jan. 1 and March 19, 2020, 36 people were reported to have died in connection to a vaccination, according to the article. During that period in 2021, 2,213 people were reported to have died. 'The increase in deaths reported is most certainly related to the new experimental COVID injections, and yet the CDC and FDA's position is that NOT ONE of these deaths are related to the COVID injections,' according to the article. It's a frightening statistic - but the article's findings are a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the numbers reported by VAERS. What is VAERS? Maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, the VAERS database contains what it describes as 'unverified' reports of adverse events that follow vaccines. The system allows almost anyone - from a doctor to a nurse to a pharmacist to a patient or parent - to enter in any information about illnesses or medical issues that follow someone receiving a vaccine. The information is collected so that officials can spot possible trends or side effects related to particular vaccines. The CDC has a lengthy disclaimer on its database landing page that says, in part: 'While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically.' Before clicking on the database, one must acknowledge having read this disclaimer. Claim distorts figures' meaning Our attempt to recreate the figures reported in the article yielded slightly different results as VAERS is constantly updating and numbers can 'change from week to week,' according to the database. But when we searched on April 5, we found data that was pretty close to what the claim suggests: there were 30 reported deaths following vaccinations in the period between January 2020 and March 2020 compared to 1,813 during that same period in 2021. That's an increase of just under 6,000%. And of those deaths, VAERS reports that 1,770 followed COVID-19 vaccinations. But it's inaccurate and misleading to say these deaths were caused by COVID-19 vaccines. While federal public health officials, including the CDC and the FDA, are monitoring the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, there is no evidence linking these deaths to vaccines - and officials follow up on every report of death to learn more. 'A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths,' the CDC says. 'To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines.' The majority of people who received the COVID-19 vaccines during this period were older adults, many in nursing homes, said Susan S. Ellenberg, a professor of biostatistics, medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine. 'If you take a group of 10 million people over the age of 65, how many would be expected to die in a period of two months? That number is not trivial,' she said. 'And because of all the publicity about the vaccines, any death following the vaccine is likely to raise suspicion, even if the person who died was 88 years old and was diabetic, a smoker, and already had had a couple of heart attacks.' Ellenberg said comparing the two years is also meaningless as the vaccines that were administered in 2020 would have been around for a long time and without the same level of attention that has been given to COVID-19 vaccines administered during an historic pandemic. Most vaccines in 2020 were also given to infants and toddlers. Despite these warnings, anti-vaccination groups and skeptics frequently cite these figures from VAERS, as well as a similar database maintained by the European Union, stripped of their context and proof of a vaccine's lethality. This has frequently become a common occurrence for the COVID-19 vaccines. PolitiFact has previously debunked a number of such claims. The CDC has maintained the vaccines' safety and effectiveness as more than 167 million doses have been administered to people in the United States. | Our ruling An Instagram post shared an article claiming '6000% Increase in Reported Vaccine Deaths 1st Quarter 2021 Compared to 1st Quarter 2020.' The article is based on a misrepresentation of information from a federally maintained database of suspected adverse reactions to vaccinations, including the COVID-19 vaccines. The database cautions users the numbers reported should not be taken as fact since they have not been verified through independent scientific study. Millions of people across the United States have been given a COVID-19 vaccination and not enough research has been done to show a definitive link between the vaccines and any of the reported adverse reactions. We rate this claim False. | []
|
In this photo, 'Man uses a gun to rob a Texas convenience store. | Contradiction | In the wake of deadly mass shootings in the U.S., some old claims about guns and gun ownership are again circulating on social media. Among them is a mischaracterization of what is shown in a real snapshot of 2017 security camera footage. The low-resolution, black and white image shows at least three individuals pointing guns in the direction of a fourth person, who is on the ground. 'Man uses a gun to rob a Texas convenience store,' the Facebook photo caption reads. 'Man was shot by every customer inside the store.' The image is stacked on top of a photo of two bald eagles that is captioned, '(Laughs in American).' The problem? This didn't happen in America. And what did transpire before the image was taken does not line up with what the Facebook post claims. 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 reverse image search revealed that this video originated in Brazil in May 2017. And this claim about the video featuring customers stopping an armed robber has been fact-checked before. According to accounts on ConcealedNation.org, Snopes.com and G1 Goiás, the image captured an attempted robbery at a pharmacy in Itumbiara, Brazil, that was stopped by plainclothes military police officers. At the time, Brazil had strict gun ownership requirements, making it unlikely that a convenience store would have so many customers who were licensed gun owners if they weren't police officers. The security camera footage shows that a person wearing a helmet walked into the store and pointed a gun at the cashier behind the counter. As the officers realized what was happening, they drew their weapons. In seconds, the person who attempted to rob the store is on the ground, shot. The person who attempted to commit the robbery was a 17-year-old, and he was dead by the time emergency medical services arrived. According to the reports, it is unclear how many officers fired, but there is no evidence to support the claim that it was 'every customer inside the store.' Concealed Nation, a website that says its purpose is 'promoting responsible concealed carry,' accurately shared in 2017 that the incident occurred in Brazil. When sharing this story, the conservative news website Breitbart also noted that the event happened in Brazil. | Our ruling A viral image post reads, 'Man uses a gun to rob a Texas convenience store. Man was shot by every customer inside the store.' The incident captured by the security cameras happened at a pharmacy in Brazil, not a convenience store in Texas, and the individuals in the video who pulled their guns on the 17-year-old robber were plainclothes military police officers. It is unknown how many officers shot the boy who attempted to rob the pharmacy. We rate this claim False. | []
|
In this photo, 'Man uses a gun to rob a Texas convenience store. | Contradiction | In the wake of deadly mass shootings in the U.S., some old claims about guns and gun ownership are again circulating on social media. Among them is a mischaracterization of what is shown in a real snapshot of 2017 security camera footage. The low-resolution, black and white image shows at least three individuals pointing guns in the direction of a fourth person, who is on the ground. 'Man uses a gun to rob a Texas convenience store,' the Facebook photo caption reads. 'Man was shot by every customer inside the store.' The image is stacked on top of a photo of two bald eagles that is captioned, '(Laughs in American).' The problem? This didn't happen in America. And what did transpire before the image was taken does not line up with what the Facebook post claims. 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 reverse image search revealed that this video originated in Brazil in May 2017. And this claim about the video featuring customers stopping an armed robber has been fact-checked before. According to accounts on ConcealedNation.org, Snopes.com and G1 Goiás, the image captured an attempted robbery at a pharmacy in Itumbiara, Brazil, that was stopped by plainclothes military police officers. At the time, Brazil had strict gun ownership requirements, making it unlikely that a convenience store would have so many customers who were licensed gun owners if they weren't police officers. The security camera footage shows that a person wearing a helmet walked into the store and pointed a gun at the cashier behind the counter. As the officers realized what was happening, they drew their weapons. In seconds, the person who attempted to rob the store is on the ground, shot. The person who attempted to commit the robbery was a 17-year-old, and he was dead by the time emergency medical services arrived. According to the reports, it is unclear how many officers fired, but there is no evidence to support the claim that it was 'every customer inside the store.' Concealed Nation, a website that says its purpose is 'promoting responsible concealed carry,' accurately shared in 2017 that the incident occurred in Brazil. When sharing this story, the conservative news website Breitbart also noted that the event happened in Brazil. | Our ruling A viral image post reads, 'Man uses a gun to rob a Texas convenience store. Man was shot by every customer inside the store.' The incident captured by the security cameras happened at a pharmacy in Brazil, not a convenience store in Texas, and the individuals in the video who pulled their guns on the 17-year-old robber were plainclothes military police officers. It is unknown how many officers shot the boy who attempted to rob the pharmacy. We rate this claim False. | []
|
In this photo, 'Man uses a gun to rob a Texas convenience store. | Contradiction | In the wake of deadly mass shootings in the U.S., some old claims about guns and gun ownership are again circulating on social media. Among them is a mischaracterization of what is shown in a real snapshot of 2017 security camera footage. The low-resolution, black and white image shows at least three individuals pointing guns in the direction of a fourth person, who is on the ground. 'Man uses a gun to rob a Texas convenience store,' the Facebook photo caption reads. 'Man was shot by every customer inside the store.' The image is stacked on top of a photo of two bald eagles that is captioned, '(Laughs in American).' The problem? This didn't happen in America. And what did transpire before the image was taken does not line up with what the Facebook post claims. 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 reverse image search revealed that this video originated in Brazil in May 2017. And this claim about the video featuring customers stopping an armed robber has been fact-checked before. According to accounts on ConcealedNation.org, Snopes.com and G1 Goiás, the image captured an attempted robbery at a pharmacy in Itumbiara, Brazil, that was stopped by plainclothes military police officers. At the time, Brazil had strict gun ownership requirements, making it unlikely that a convenience store would have so many customers who were licensed gun owners if they weren't police officers. The security camera footage shows that a person wearing a helmet walked into the store and pointed a gun at the cashier behind the counter. As the officers realized what was happening, they drew their weapons. In seconds, the person who attempted to rob the store is on the ground, shot. The person who attempted to commit the robbery was a 17-year-old, and he was dead by the time emergency medical services arrived. According to the reports, it is unclear how many officers fired, but there is no evidence to support the claim that it was 'every customer inside the store.' Concealed Nation, a website that says its purpose is 'promoting responsible concealed carry,' accurately shared in 2017 that the incident occurred in Brazil. When sharing this story, the conservative news website Breitbart also noted that the event happened in Brazil. | Our ruling A viral image post reads, 'Man uses a gun to rob a Texas convenience store. Man was shot by every customer inside the store.' The incident captured by the security cameras happened at a pharmacy in Brazil, not a convenience store in Texas, and the individuals in the video who pulled their guns on the 17-year-old robber were plainclothes military police officers. It is unknown how many officers shot the boy who attempted to rob the pharmacy. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Muslim BTS fan accidentally plays the song 'Dynamite' instead of Azaan on loudspeakers at 4am; gets arrested. | Contradiction | An image circulating on Instagram and other social media platforms tells an elaborate story about a 21-year-old man who was arrested for interrupting a Muslim call to prayer. The man accidentally connected his phone to the loudspeakers at a mosque in Jaunpur, India, at 4 a.m., according to the post. So instead of the Muslim call to prayer, the post claims, the community heard the speakers play 'Dynamite,' the hit song by the K-pop boy band BTS. 'Muslim BTS fan accidantally plays the song 'Dynamite' instead of Azaan on loudspeakers a 4 AM; gets arrested,' the June 29 post said. A screenshot of a June 29 Instagram post sharing a satirical story about an incident at a mosque. The problem with the story: It's not true. It was created as satire. A watermarked logo in the top right corner of the image indicates that the post originated with an Instagram account called 'Real Inshots.' The page says in its bio it is 'India's foremost fictitious source of news.' The original Instagram post no longer appeared on the account's page on July 1, but versions of it were also shared elsewhere, including on Facebook. They 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 Real Inshots account has since clarified in a series of Instagram stories saved to its page that the mosque incident the post described never happened. 'The post was satire, and we didn't intend to make it viral and baffle people,' the account also said in response to an inquiry from PolitiFact sent through Instagram. A screenshot of a clarification posted as an Instagram story on the Real Inshots account. Other accounts that shared the post on Instagram and Facebook did not make it clear that the story was satire. Versions of it got more than 400,000 interactions on Instagram and over 7,000 interactions on Facebook, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. Fact-checkers in the U.S. and India also concluded that the story told in the post was made-up. In fact, the mosque shown in the post does not actually resemble the mosque in Jaunpur where the image claims the incident took place, India's The Quint reported. We rate the Instagram post Pants on Fire! | We rate the Instagram post Pants on Fire! | []
|
There are 'absolutely no patients' at Los Angeles hospital considered the center of region's COVID-19 surge. | Contradiction | A deceptive and widely viewed Facebook video claimed Los Angeles hospitals did not face a recent surge of COVID-19 patients. The footage made the rounds and was believed by Facebook users despite strong evidence to the contrary from health officials and media reports. The anti-mask activist who shot the video made a sweeping conclusion: There are 'absolutely no patients' at Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital in Los Angeles, according to the video, posted on New Year's Day. The activist also referred to hospital staff as 'useful idiots.' A hospital representative rejected the video's assertions as baseless. The footage mostly shows the hospital's deserted outpatient center. But this is not where COVID-19 patients arrive, as pointed out by some of the comments on the video. Most patients arrive through separate ambulance and emergency department entrances, said Gwendolyn Driscoll, spokesperson for MLK Jr. Community Hospital. 'There is no substance whatsoever to her allegations,' Driscoll wrote in an email, referring to the activist. The hospital is located in a mostly Black and Latino south L.A. neighborhood where many residents are essential workers who are continually exposed to COVID-19. It also serves some unhoused individuals. The hospital is considered among the hardest hit in Southern California, where post-holiday COVID-19 cases have skyrocketed. In a striking example, the number of cases in Los Angeles County doubled from 400,000 on Nov. 30 to 800,000 on Jan. 2, according to the county's public health department. That led to patients overwhelming area hospitals, including an oxygen shortage at five facilities, forcing them to close to all ambulance traffic for several hours. The Facebook video was flagged as part of the social media company's effort to combat false news and misinformation. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) It had been shared 1,000 times and viewed more than 18,000 times as of early this week. Converting 'Every Nook And Cranny' To Patient Space To fact check the video's claim, we relied on statements and data from officials at MLK Jr. Community Hospital, along with other health and emergency service officials. We also reviewed recent news reports, photos and videos showing the impact of the COVID-19 surge on hospitals in the L.A. area. A Dec. 19 report by CBS News shows patients inside a triage area set up at MLK Jr. Community Hospital's ambulance bay. Additionally, a KTLA TV news report this week shows a similar tent set up outside the hospital. A Dec. 29 report by ABC 7 Los Angeles shows footage of patients on gurneys waiting in hallways at an unidentified hospital, while several news clips include footage of ambulances waiting outside emergency rooms with patients still inside. 'We have converted every conceivable nook and cranny in the hospital into patient care space,' Dr. Elaine Batchlor, Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital CEO, told ABC News last month. 'We're doing everything that we can.' The Facebook video shows the both the outpatient center and the main entrance to MLK Jr. Community Hospital. There's little activity at either location. Driscoll, the hospital spokesperson, said that's because these 'are not patient areas' and few COVID-19 patients come in through the main doors. She also cited a data analysis showing MLK Jr. Community Hospital had the highest rate of COVID-19 patient volume to hospital bed capacity of any nearby hospital in late December. It shows 97% of its 131 licensed beds were being used by COVID-19 patients the week before Christmas, a higher rate than each of the dozens of other hospitals within 15 miles. SOURCE: MLK Jr. Community Hospital Driscoll says the hospital's figures are based on an analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human services, which publishes COVID-19 data at hospitals nationwide. As of late December, the hospital remained well over capacity with 225 total patients, when combining those with and without the virus, according to the Los Angeles Times. 'Every Bed Occupied By A Ventilated COVID Patient' Staff at MLK Jr. Community Hospital aren't the only ones dealing with the impacts of the area's coronavirus surge. The situation at nearby Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center was also dire, chief medical officer Dr. Brad Spellberg told the Times last week. 'When you walk into the ICU, and you see every bed occupied by a ventilated COVID patient, with tubes coming in all orifices of their body, you begin to understand that we are not dealing with what we were dealing with 10 months ago,' Spellberg said in the Times article. There was not one available bed for at least 30 patients who needed intensive or intermediate levels of care, Spellberg added in the article, and the hospital had to shut its doors to all ambulance traffic for 12 hours. In this Dec. 17, 2020, photo, medical tents are set up outside the emergency room at UCI Medical Center in Irvine, Calif. California hospitals are facing increasingly difficult decisions about which services to postpone amid a crushing load of coronavirus patients. Intensive-care beds are full in Southern California and the Central Valley, with statewide availability at only 1.1%. (AP Photo/Ashley Landis, File) Regional health officials warned the impact to hospitals is even more serious this week, as the post-Christmas and New Year's Eve surge of cases and patients is just beginning. 'We are still encouraging people to only come to the emergency department or to call 911 if you have a medical emergency or psychiatric emergency,' Los Angeles County Public Health Services Director Christina Ghaly said at a press conference on Monday. 'Ambulances are still having to wait many hours to offload patients to the emergency room.' Our Ruling A misleading Facebook video alleged Los Angeles hospitals were not overwhelmed with patients following the recent COVID-19 surge. Specifically, it said there were 'absolutely no patients' at Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital in south Los Angeles. That claim is a far cry from reality. Video from news reports along with patient data and statements from the hospital all show MLK Jr. Community Hospital, like many in the region, was flooded with patients last month as COVID-19 cases soared. Additionally, the Facebook video was filmed at the hospital's outpatient center, which is not where COVID-19 patients arrive. They come in through separate emergency department and ambulance entrances. A hospital spokesperson described the claim as groundless. Based on the evidence, we agree and rate it Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | Our Ruling A misleading Facebook video alleged Los Angeles hospitals were not overwhelmed with patients following the recent COVID-19 surge. Specifically, it said there were 'absolutely no patients' at Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital in south Los Angeles. That claim is a far cry from reality. Video from news reports along with patient data and statements from the hospital all show MLK Jr. Community Hospital, like many in the region, was flooded with patients last month as COVID-19 cases soared. Additionally, the Facebook video was filmed at the hospital's outpatient center, which is not where COVID-19 patients arrive. They come in through separate emergency department and ambulance entrances. A hospital spokesperson described the claim as groundless. Based on the evidence, we agree and rate it Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | [
"107695-proof-07-kSyt4D0lCGSTszowTlW1qsciKNgXa9mKg-2h_wcJTQP3UurRlXNrwociC6AxNtoITnihbNCxuQtNXKbS.jpg",
"107695-proof-16-5fHXD-9bNs5JLjpaTxEHoIjMuOLWpDwOCJ8fi9y6XweULuQmX3oQq4xmOVS5fdcFrU0tI0UxoH54w_ln.jpg",
"107695-proof-36-c14d481fac49e2c653db2712f223611e.jpg"
]
|
There are 'absolutely no patients' at Los Angeles hospital considered the center of region's COVID-19 surge. | Contradiction | A deceptive and widely viewed Facebook video claimed Los Angeles hospitals did not face a recent surge of COVID-19 patients. The footage made the rounds and was believed by Facebook users despite strong evidence to the contrary from health officials and media reports. The anti-mask activist who shot the video made a sweeping conclusion: There are 'absolutely no patients' at Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital in Los Angeles, according to the video, posted on New Year's Day. The activist also referred to hospital staff as 'useful idiots.' A hospital representative rejected the video's assertions as baseless. The footage mostly shows the hospital's deserted outpatient center. But this is not where COVID-19 patients arrive, as pointed out by some of the comments on the video. Most patients arrive through separate ambulance and emergency department entrances, said Gwendolyn Driscoll, spokesperson for MLK Jr. Community Hospital. 'There is no substance whatsoever to her allegations,' Driscoll wrote in an email, referring to the activist. The hospital is located in a mostly Black and Latino south L.A. neighborhood where many residents are essential workers who are continually exposed to COVID-19. It also serves some unhoused individuals. The hospital is considered among the hardest hit in Southern California, where post-holiday COVID-19 cases have skyrocketed. In a striking example, the number of cases in Los Angeles County doubled from 400,000 on Nov. 30 to 800,000 on Jan. 2, according to the county's public health department. That led to patients overwhelming area hospitals, including an oxygen shortage at five facilities, forcing them to close to all ambulance traffic for several hours. The Facebook video was flagged as part of the social media company's effort to combat false news and misinformation. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) It had been shared 1,000 times and viewed more than 18,000 times as of early this week. Converting 'Every Nook And Cranny' To Patient Space To fact check the video's claim, we relied on statements and data from officials at MLK Jr. Community Hospital, along with other health and emergency service officials. We also reviewed recent news reports, photos and videos showing the impact of the COVID-19 surge on hospitals in the L.A. area. A Dec. 19 report by CBS News shows patients inside a triage area set up at MLK Jr. Community Hospital's ambulance bay. Additionally, a KTLA TV news report this week shows a similar tent set up outside the hospital. A Dec. 29 report by ABC 7 Los Angeles shows footage of patients on gurneys waiting in hallways at an unidentified hospital, while several news clips include footage of ambulances waiting outside emergency rooms with patients still inside. 'We have converted every conceivable nook and cranny in the hospital into patient care space,' Dr. Elaine Batchlor, Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital CEO, told ABC News last month. 'We're doing everything that we can.' The Facebook video shows the both the outpatient center and the main entrance to MLK Jr. Community Hospital. There's little activity at either location. Driscoll, the hospital spokesperson, said that's because these 'are not patient areas' and few COVID-19 patients come in through the main doors. She also cited a data analysis showing MLK Jr. Community Hospital had the highest rate of COVID-19 patient volume to hospital bed capacity of any nearby hospital in late December. It shows 97% of its 131 licensed beds were being used by COVID-19 patients the week before Christmas, a higher rate than each of the dozens of other hospitals within 15 miles. SOURCE: MLK Jr. Community Hospital Driscoll says the hospital's figures are based on an analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human services, which publishes COVID-19 data at hospitals nationwide. As of late December, the hospital remained well over capacity with 225 total patients, when combining those with and without the virus, according to the Los Angeles Times. 'Every Bed Occupied By A Ventilated COVID Patient' Staff at MLK Jr. Community Hospital aren't the only ones dealing with the impacts of the area's coronavirus surge. The situation at nearby Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center was also dire, chief medical officer Dr. Brad Spellberg told the Times last week. 'When you walk into the ICU, and you see every bed occupied by a ventilated COVID patient, with tubes coming in all orifices of their body, you begin to understand that we are not dealing with what we were dealing with 10 months ago,' Spellberg said in the Times article. There was not one available bed for at least 30 patients who needed intensive or intermediate levels of care, Spellberg added in the article, and the hospital had to shut its doors to all ambulance traffic for 12 hours. In this Dec. 17, 2020, photo, medical tents are set up outside the emergency room at UCI Medical Center in Irvine, Calif. California hospitals are facing increasingly difficult decisions about which services to postpone amid a crushing load of coronavirus patients. Intensive-care beds are full in Southern California and the Central Valley, with statewide availability at only 1.1%. (AP Photo/Ashley Landis, File) Regional health officials warned the impact to hospitals is even more serious this week, as the post-Christmas and New Year's Eve surge of cases and patients is just beginning. 'We are still encouraging people to only come to the emergency department or to call 911 if you have a medical emergency or psychiatric emergency,' Los Angeles County Public Health Services Director Christina Ghaly said at a press conference on Monday. 'Ambulances are still having to wait many hours to offload patients to the emergency room.' Our Ruling A misleading Facebook video alleged Los Angeles hospitals were not overwhelmed with patients following the recent COVID-19 surge. Specifically, it said there were 'absolutely no patients' at Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital in south Los Angeles. That claim is a far cry from reality. Video from news reports along with patient data and statements from the hospital all show MLK Jr. Community Hospital, like many in the region, was flooded with patients last month as COVID-19 cases soared. Additionally, the Facebook video was filmed at the hospital's outpatient center, which is not where COVID-19 patients arrive. They come in through separate emergency department and ambulance entrances. A hospital spokesperson described the claim as groundless. Based on the evidence, we agree and rate it Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | Our Ruling A misleading Facebook video alleged Los Angeles hospitals were not overwhelmed with patients following the recent COVID-19 surge. Specifically, it said there were 'absolutely no patients' at Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital in south Los Angeles. That claim is a far cry from reality. Video from news reports along with patient data and statements from the hospital all show MLK Jr. Community Hospital, like many in the region, was flooded with patients last month as COVID-19 cases soared. Additionally, the Facebook video was filmed at the hospital's outpatient center, which is not where COVID-19 patients arrive. They come in through separate emergency department and ambulance entrances. A hospital spokesperson described the claim as groundless. Based on the evidence, we agree and rate it Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | [
"107695-proof-07-kSyt4D0lCGSTszowTlW1qsciKNgXa9mKg-2h_wcJTQP3UurRlXNrwociC6AxNtoITnihbNCxuQtNXKbS.jpg",
"107695-proof-16-5fHXD-9bNs5JLjpaTxEHoIjMuOLWpDwOCJ8fi9y6XweULuQmX3oQq4xmOVS5fdcFrU0tI0UxoH54w_ln.jpg",
"107695-proof-36-c14d481fac49e2c653db2712f223611e.jpg"
]
|
There are 'absolutely no patients' at Los Angeles hospital considered the center of region's COVID-19 surge. | Contradiction | A deceptive and widely viewed Facebook video claimed Los Angeles hospitals did not face a recent surge of COVID-19 patients. The footage made the rounds and was believed by Facebook users despite strong evidence to the contrary from health officials and media reports. The anti-mask activist who shot the video made a sweeping conclusion: There are 'absolutely no patients' at Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital in Los Angeles, according to the video, posted on New Year's Day. The activist also referred to hospital staff as 'useful idiots.' A hospital representative rejected the video's assertions as baseless. The footage mostly shows the hospital's deserted outpatient center. But this is not where COVID-19 patients arrive, as pointed out by some of the comments on the video. Most patients arrive through separate ambulance and emergency department entrances, said Gwendolyn Driscoll, spokesperson for MLK Jr. Community Hospital. 'There is no substance whatsoever to her allegations,' Driscoll wrote in an email, referring to the activist. The hospital is located in a mostly Black and Latino south L.A. neighborhood where many residents are essential workers who are continually exposed to COVID-19. It also serves some unhoused individuals. The hospital is considered among the hardest hit in Southern California, where post-holiday COVID-19 cases have skyrocketed. In a striking example, the number of cases in Los Angeles County doubled from 400,000 on Nov. 30 to 800,000 on Jan. 2, according to the county's public health department. That led to patients overwhelming area hospitals, including an oxygen shortage at five facilities, forcing them to close to all ambulance traffic for several hours. The Facebook video was flagged as part of the social media company's effort to combat false news and misinformation. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) It had been shared 1,000 times and viewed more than 18,000 times as of early this week. Converting 'Every Nook And Cranny' To Patient Space To fact check the video's claim, we relied on statements and data from officials at MLK Jr. Community Hospital, along with other health and emergency service officials. We also reviewed recent news reports, photos and videos showing the impact of the COVID-19 surge on hospitals in the L.A. area. A Dec. 19 report by CBS News shows patients inside a triage area set up at MLK Jr. Community Hospital's ambulance bay. Additionally, a KTLA TV news report this week shows a similar tent set up outside the hospital. A Dec. 29 report by ABC 7 Los Angeles shows footage of patients on gurneys waiting in hallways at an unidentified hospital, while several news clips include footage of ambulances waiting outside emergency rooms with patients still inside. 'We have converted every conceivable nook and cranny in the hospital into patient care space,' Dr. Elaine Batchlor, Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital CEO, told ABC News last month. 'We're doing everything that we can.' The Facebook video shows the both the outpatient center and the main entrance to MLK Jr. Community Hospital. There's little activity at either location. Driscoll, the hospital spokesperson, said that's because these 'are not patient areas' and few COVID-19 patients come in through the main doors. She also cited a data analysis showing MLK Jr. Community Hospital had the highest rate of COVID-19 patient volume to hospital bed capacity of any nearby hospital in late December. It shows 97% of its 131 licensed beds were being used by COVID-19 patients the week before Christmas, a higher rate than each of the dozens of other hospitals within 15 miles. SOURCE: MLK Jr. Community Hospital Driscoll says the hospital's figures are based on an analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human services, which publishes COVID-19 data at hospitals nationwide. As of late December, the hospital remained well over capacity with 225 total patients, when combining those with and without the virus, according to the Los Angeles Times. 'Every Bed Occupied By A Ventilated COVID Patient' Staff at MLK Jr. Community Hospital aren't the only ones dealing with the impacts of the area's coronavirus surge. The situation at nearby Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center was also dire, chief medical officer Dr. Brad Spellberg told the Times last week. 'When you walk into the ICU, and you see every bed occupied by a ventilated COVID patient, with tubes coming in all orifices of their body, you begin to understand that we are not dealing with what we were dealing with 10 months ago,' Spellberg said in the Times article. There was not one available bed for at least 30 patients who needed intensive or intermediate levels of care, Spellberg added in the article, and the hospital had to shut its doors to all ambulance traffic for 12 hours. In this Dec. 17, 2020, photo, medical tents are set up outside the emergency room at UCI Medical Center in Irvine, Calif. California hospitals are facing increasingly difficult decisions about which services to postpone amid a crushing load of coronavirus patients. Intensive-care beds are full in Southern California and the Central Valley, with statewide availability at only 1.1%. (AP Photo/Ashley Landis, File) Regional health officials warned the impact to hospitals is even more serious this week, as the post-Christmas and New Year's Eve surge of cases and patients is just beginning. 'We are still encouraging people to only come to the emergency department or to call 911 if you have a medical emergency or psychiatric emergency,' Los Angeles County Public Health Services Director Christina Ghaly said at a press conference on Monday. 'Ambulances are still having to wait many hours to offload patients to the emergency room.' Our Ruling A misleading Facebook video alleged Los Angeles hospitals were not overwhelmed with patients following the recent COVID-19 surge. Specifically, it said there were 'absolutely no patients' at Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital in south Los Angeles. That claim is a far cry from reality. Video from news reports along with patient data and statements from the hospital all show MLK Jr. Community Hospital, like many in the region, was flooded with patients last month as COVID-19 cases soared. Additionally, the Facebook video was filmed at the hospital's outpatient center, which is not where COVID-19 patients arrive. They come in through separate emergency department and ambulance entrances. A hospital spokesperson described the claim as groundless. Based on the evidence, we agree and rate it Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | Our Ruling A misleading Facebook video alleged Los Angeles hospitals were not overwhelmed with patients following the recent COVID-19 surge. Specifically, it said there were 'absolutely no patients' at Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital in south Los Angeles. That claim is a far cry from reality. Video from news reports along with patient data and statements from the hospital all show MLK Jr. Community Hospital, like many in the region, was flooded with patients last month as COVID-19 cases soared. Additionally, the Facebook video was filmed at the hospital's outpatient center, which is not where COVID-19 patients arrive. They come in through separate emergency department and ambulance entrances. A hospital spokesperson described the claim as groundless. Based on the evidence, we agree and rate it Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | [
"107695-proof-07-kSyt4D0lCGSTszowTlW1qsciKNgXa9mKg-2h_wcJTQP3UurRlXNrwociC6AxNtoITnihbNCxuQtNXKbS.jpg",
"107695-proof-16-5fHXD-9bNs5JLjpaTxEHoIjMuOLWpDwOCJ8fi9y6XweULuQmX3oQq4xmOVS5fdcFrU0tI0UxoH54w_ln.jpg",
"107695-proof-36-c14d481fac49e2c653db2712f223611e.jpg"
]
|
There are 'absolutely no patients' at Los Angeles hospital considered the center of region's COVID-19 surge. | Contradiction | A deceptive and widely viewed Facebook video claimed Los Angeles hospitals did not face a recent surge of COVID-19 patients. The footage made the rounds and was believed by Facebook users despite strong evidence to the contrary from health officials and media reports. The anti-mask activist who shot the video made a sweeping conclusion: There are 'absolutely no patients' at Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital in Los Angeles, according to the video, posted on New Year's Day. The activist also referred to hospital staff as 'useful idiots.' A hospital representative rejected the video's assertions as baseless. The footage mostly shows the hospital's deserted outpatient center. But this is not where COVID-19 patients arrive, as pointed out by some of the comments on the video. Most patients arrive through separate ambulance and emergency department entrances, said Gwendolyn Driscoll, spokesperson for MLK Jr. Community Hospital. 'There is no substance whatsoever to her allegations,' Driscoll wrote in an email, referring to the activist. The hospital is located in a mostly Black and Latino south L.A. neighborhood where many residents are essential workers who are continually exposed to COVID-19. It also serves some unhoused individuals. The hospital is considered among the hardest hit in Southern California, where post-holiday COVID-19 cases have skyrocketed. In a striking example, the number of cases in Los Angeles County doubled from 400,000 on Nov. 30 to 800,000 on Jan. 2, according to the county's public health department. That led to patients overwhelming area hospitals, including an oxygen shortage at five facilities, forcing them to close to all ambulance traffic for several hours. The Facebook video was flagged as part of the social media company's effort to combat false news and misinformation. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) It had been shared 1,000 times and viewed more than 18,000 times as of early this week. Converting 'Every Nook And Cranny' To Patient Space To fact check the video's claim, we relied on statements and data from officials at MLK Jr. Community Hospital, along with other health and emergency service officials. We also reviewed recent news reports, photos and videos showing the impact of the COVID-19 surge on hospitals in the L.A. area. A Dec. 19 report by CBS News shows patients inside a triage area set up at MLK Jr. Community Hospital's ambulance bay. Additionally, a KTLA TV news report this week shows a similar tent set up outside the hospital. A Dec. 29 report by ABC 7 Los Angeles shows footage of patients on gurneys waiting in hallways at an unidentified hospital, while several news clips include footage of ambulances waiting outside emergency rooms with patients still inside. 'We have converted every conceivable nook and cranny in the hospital into patient care space,' Dr. Elaine Batchlor, Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital CEO, told ABC News last month. 'We're doing everything that we can.' The Facebook video shows the both the outpatient center and the main entrance to MLK Jr. Community Hospital. There's little activity at either location. Driscoll, the hospital spokesperson, said that's because these 'are not patient areas' and few COVID-19 patients come in through the main doors. She also cited a data analysis showing MLK Jr. Community Hospital had the highest rate of COVID-19 patient volume to hospital bed capacity of any nearby hospital in late December. It shows 97% of its 131 licensed beds were being used by COVID-19 patients the week before Christmas, a higher rate than each of the dozens of other hospitals within 15 miles. SOURCE: MLK Jr. Community Hospital Driscoll says the hospital's figures are based on an analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human services, which publishes COVID-19 data at hospitals nationwide. As of late December, the hospital remained well over capacity with 225 total patients, when combining those with and without the virus, according to the Los Angeles Times. 'Every Bed Occupied By A Ventilated COVID Patient' Staff at MLK Jr. Community Hospital aren't the only ones dealing with the impacts of the area's coronavirus surge. The situation at nearby Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center was also dire, chief medical officer Dr. Brad Spellberg told the Times last week. 'When you walk into the ICU, and you see every bed occupied by a ventilated COVID patient, with tubes coming in all orifices of their body, you begin to understand that we are not dealing with what we were dealing with 10 months ago,' Spellberg said in the Times article. There was not one available bed for at least 30 patients who needed intensive or intermediate levels of care, Spellberg added in the article, and the hospital had to shut its doors to all ambulance traffic for 12 hours. In this Dec. 17, 2020, photo, medical tents are set up outside the emergency room at UCI Medical Center in Irvine, Calif. California hospitals are facing increasingly difficult decisions about which services to postpone amid a crushing load of coronavirus patients. Intensive-care beds are full in Southern California and the Central Valley, with statewide availability at only 1.1%. (AP Photo/Ashley Landis, File) Regional health officials warned the impact to hospitals is even more serious this week, as the post-Christmas and New Year's Eve surge of cases and patients is just beginning. 'We are still encouraging people to only come to the emergency department or to call 911 if you have a medical emergency or psychiatric emergency,' Los Angeles County Public Health Services Director Christina Ghaly said at a press conference on Monday. 'Ambulances are still having to wait many hours to offload patients to the emergency room.' Our Ruling A misleading Facebook video alleged Los Angeles hospitals were not overwhelmed with patients following the recent COVID-19 surge. Specifically, it said there were 'absolutely no patients' at Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital in south Los Angeles. That claim is a far cry from reality. Video from news reports along with patient data and statements from the hospital all show MLK Jr. Community Hospital, like many in the region, was flooded with patients last month as COVID-19 cases soared. Additionally, the Facebook video was filmed at the hospital's outpatient center, which is not where COVID-19 patients arrive. They come in through separate emergency department and ambulance entrances. A hospital spokesperson described the claim as groundless. Based on the evidence, we agree and rate it Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | Our Ruling A misleading Facebook video alleged Los Angeles hospitals were not overwhelmed with patients following the recent COVID-19 surge. Specifically, it said there were 'absolutely no patients' at Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital in south Los Angeles. That claim is a far cry from reality. Video from news reports along with patient data and statements from the hospital all show MLK Jr. Community Hospital, like many in the region, was flooded with patients last month as COVID-19 cases soared. Additionally, the Facebook video was filmed at the hospital's outpatient center, which is not where COVID-19 patients arrive. They come in through separate emergency department and ambulance entrances. A hospital spokesperson described the claim as groundless. Based on the evidence, we agree and rate it Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | [
"107695-proof-07-kSyt4D0lCGSTszowTlW1qsciKNgXa9mKg-2h_wcJTQP3UurRlXNrwociC6AxNtoITnihbNCxuQtNXKbS.jpg",
"107695-proof-16-5fHXD-9bNs5JLjpaTxEHoIjMuOLWpDwOCJ8fi9y6XweULuQmX3oQq4xmOVS5fdcFrU0tI0UxoH54w_ln.jpg",
"107695-proof-36-c14d481fac49e2c653db2712f223611e.jpg"
]
|
'THOUSANDS of fake votes found at Wisconsin Recount in Dane County. | Contradiction | Much of the misinformation circulating widely amid the hard-fought 2020 election boils down to people unfamiliar with election processes making assumptions - trumpeting something as fraud when the issue is actually that they don't understand the process. We saw a classic example of this in the latest baseless Gateway Pundit story about Wisconsin vote counting. The far-right purveyor of election nonsense published a story Nov. 28, 2020, with this headline: 'BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: THOUSANDS of fake votes found at Wisconsin Recount in Dane County - Photos and Report from GOP Observer.' This story, widely shared on Facebook, 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 story - which also linked a long-since debunked claim about a 'dump' of votes for Democrat Joe Biden in the middle of the night - contained nothing approaching proof of this claim. Here's why this is both wrong and ridiculous. Publisher tweaks article after question, still wrong The closest thing to proof presented in the story is a sentence saying the signature (actually referring to initials) MLW was used on the 'fake votes.' It then shows a picture of a ballot with those initials. But those initials are under a section titled 'Absentee ballot issued by.' It's where the issuing clerk puts their initials on every ballot. The Madison city clerk is Maribeth L. Witzel-Behl - in line with the initials cited in the story. In other words, those repeated initials are exactly what and where you would expect to find repeated initials on thousands of ballots. Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell confirmed in an email the initials are simply those of the Madison clerk. When asked for proof that this picture showed votes were fake, Gateway Pundit Editor Jim Hoft changed the headline within minutes to say the votes were 'suspect' rather than fake. And he briefly added a line to the story saying, 'Madison County attorneys contacted The Gateway Pundit to say the ballots were signed by the city clerk in Madison, Wisconsin.' That was later deleted. Of course, Hoft didn't pass along this information to readers until he was challenged on the matter, and after the story had collected thousands of social media shares and comments. Aside from bungling the location - Madison is a city in Dane County - Hoft's temporary change pointed out the obvious reason for the repeated initials, while still asserting there is something underhanded about the ballots. Which there isn't. Hoft did not offer any other proof of his amended claim in the story or an email exchange. | Our ruling A story shared widely across social media said, 'More than 2,000 fake votes were found at the Wisconsin Recount in Dane County on Friday!' An amended version instead referenced them as being 'suspect' votes. Neither claim has any basis in reality. The repeated initials aren't those of the voter, they're initials of the clerk who issued the absentee ballots. That's not sketchy, it's just a basic element of how elections are administered. We rate this Pants on Fire. | []
|
'THOUSANDS of fake votes found at Wisconsin Recount in Dane County. | Contradiction | Much of the misinformation circulating widely amid the hard-fought 2020 election boils down to people unfamiliar with election processes making assumptions - trumpeting something as fraud when the issue is actually that they don't understand the process. We saw a classic example of this in the latest baseless Gateway Pundit story about Wisconsin vote counting. The far-right purveyor of election nonsense published a story Nov. 28, 2020, with this headline: 'BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: THOUSANDS of fake votes found at Wisconsin Recount in Dane County - Photos and Report from GOP Observer.' This story, widely shared on Facebook, 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 story - which also linked a long-since debunked claim about a 'dump' of votes for Democrat Joe Biden in the middle of the night - contained nothing approaching proof of this claim. Here's why this is both wrong and ridiculous. Publisher tweaks article after question, still wrong The closest thing to proof presented in the story is a sentence saying the signature (actually referring to initials) MLW was used on the 'fake votes.' It then shows a picture of a ballot with those initials. But those initials are under a section titled 'Absentee ballot issued by.' It's where the issuing clerk puts their initials on every ballot. The Madison city clerk is Maribeth L. Witzel-Behl - in line with the initials cited in the story. In other words, those repeated initials are exactly what and where you would expect to find repeated initials on thousands of ballots. Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell confirmed in an email the initials are simply those of the Madison clerk. When asked for proof that this picture showed votes were fake, Gateway Pundit Editor Jim Hoft changed the headline within minutes to say the votes were 'suspect' rather than fake. And he briefly added a line to the story saying, 'Madison County attorneys contacted The Gateway Pundit to say the ballots were signed by the city clerk in Madison, Wisconsin.' That was later deleted. Of course, Hoft didn't pass along this information to readers until he was challenged on the matter, and after the story had collected thousands of social media shares and comments. Aside from bungling the location - Madison is a city in Dane County - Hoft's temporary change pointed out the obvious reason for the repeated initials, while still asserting there is something underhanded about the ballots. Which there isn't. Hoft did not offer any other proof of his amended claim in the story or an email exchange. | Our ruling A story shared widely across social media said, 'More than 2,000 fake votes were found at the Wisconsin Recount in Dane County on Friday!' An amended version instead referenced them as being 'suspect' votes. Neither claim has any basis in reality. The repeated initials aren't those of the voter, they're initials of the clerk who issued the absentee ballots. That's not sketchy, it's just a basic element of how elections are administered. We rate this Pants on Fire. | []
|
'NIH COVID Treatment Guidelines Approve Ivermectin' | Contradiction | Despite repeated attempts to debunk misinformation about the anti-parasitic ivermectin as a purported COVID-19 treatment, false claims about the drug persist online. 'NIH COVID Treatment Guidelines Approve Ivermectin,' reads an Oct. 21 Instagram post. The post goes on to say that the National Institutes of Health made a 'silent' update to a key website, indicating that ivermectin is one of the 'antiviral agents that are approved or under evaluation for the treatment of COVID-19.' 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.) Has the NIH approved ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment? No. The NIH is a central access point for much of the latest COVID-19 research - including research into treatments that are approved or being studied. A page on the NIH website provides information about antiviral therapies that are being evaluated, or have been evaluated, as possible treatments for COVID-19. But the site makes clear that the NIH has not approved or recommended ivermectin to treat COVID-19. 'Remdesivir is the only Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for the treatment of COVID-19,' reads the NIH's summary recommendations. The page includes the language from the post - 'Antiviral Drugs That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19' - and was last updated on July 8. But it does not indicate that ivermectin is an approved treatment. Here's what it does say: 'There is insufficient evidence for the Panel to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.' Another page of the site specifically about ivermectin says it more clearly: 'Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection.' The NIH's ivermectin page says some randomized trials and studies of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients have showed 'no benefits or worsening of disease,' while others showed varying levels of effectiveness, ranging from: 'shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels, shorter time to viral clearance, or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.' A spokesperson for the NIH noted that the ivermectin page of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines was last updated on Feb. 11, and the clinical data was updated July 19. The NIH 'doesn't silently update' its pages, she said. 'We update them regularly to ensure they are current,' the spokesperson said. 'The date they are last updated is included on the page.' For the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines in particular, she said people can sign up for updates so they are notified whenever there is a change on the page. In explaining why it decided not to recommend ivermectin as a treatment, the NIH's COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel said studies suggesting the drug was effective 'had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias.' Clinical trials to assess the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 are 'currently underway or in development,' according to the NIH. | Our ruling A post claimed, 'NIH COVID Treatment Guidelines Approve Ivermectin.' The NIH includes ivermectin on a list of drugs that are being evaluated as COVID-19 possible treatments. But its Treatment Guidelines Panel has not recommended 'for or against' the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, citing the need for more clinical trials. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'NIH COVID Treatment Guidelines Approve Ivermectin' | Contradiction | Despite repeated attempts to debunk misinformation about the anti-parasitic ivermectin as a purported COVID-19 treatment, false claims about the drug persist online. 'NIH COVID Treatment Guidelines Approve Ivermectin,' reads an Oct. 21 Instagram post. The post goes on to say that the National Institutes of Health made a 'silent' update to a key website, indicating that ivermectin is one of the 'antiviral agents that are approved or under evaluation for the treatment of COVID-19.' 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.) Has the NIH approved ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment? No. The NIH is a central access point for much of the latest COVID-19 research - including research into treatments that are approved or being studied. A page on the NIH website provides information about antiviral therapies that are being evaluated, or have been evaluated, as possible treatments for COVID-19. But the site makes clear that the NIH has not approved or recommended ivermectin to treat COVID-19. 'Remdesivir is the only Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for the treatment of COVID-19,' reads the NIH's summary recommendations. The page includes the language from the post - 'Antiviral Drugs That Are Approved or Under Evaluation for the Treatment of COVID-19' - and was last updated on July 8. But it does not indicate that ivermectin is an approved treatment. Here's what it does say: 'There is insufficient evidence for the Panel to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.' Another page of the site specifically about ivermectin says it more clearly: 'Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection.' The NIH's ivermectin page says some randomized trials and studies of ivermectin in COVID-19 patients have showed 'no benefits or worsening of disease,' while others showed varying levels of effectiveness, ranging from: 'shorter time to resolution of disease manifestations that were attributed to COVID-19, greater reduction in inflammatory marker levels, shorter time to viral clearance, or lower mortality rates in patients who received ivermectin than in patients who received comparator drugs or placebo.' A spokesperson for the NIH noted that the ivermectin page of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines was last updated on Feb. 11, and the clinical data was updated July 19. The NIH 'doesn't silently update' its pages, she said. 'We update them regularly to ensure they are current,' the spokesperson said. 'The date they are last updated is included on the page.' For the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines in particular, she said people can sign up for updates so they are notified whenever there is a change on the page. In explaining why it decided not to recommend ivermectin as a treatment, the NIH's COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel said studies suggesting the drug was effective 'had incomplete information and significant methodological limitations, which make it difficult to exclude common causes of bias.' Clinical trials to assess the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 are 'currently underway or in development,' according to the NIH. | Our ruling A post claimed, 'NIH COVID Treatment Guidelines Approve Ivermectin.' The NIH includes ivermectin on a list of drugs that are being evaluated as COVID-19 possible treatments. But its Treatment Guidelines Panel has not recommended 'for or against' the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, citing the need for more clinical trials. We rate this claim False. | []
|
'Japan says goodbye Moderna, hello ivermectin. | Contradiction | In a 30-second video on Instagram, a woman made several inaccurate statements regarding Japan's response to the pandemic and its use of the Moderna vaccine. The caption: 'Japan says goodbye Moderna, hello ivermectin.' 'It was just a few days ago that the Tokyo chairman of the Medical Association made the recommendation to hospitals and doctors to discontinue using Moderna, and to begin prescribing ivermectin to all COVID patients,' she says. She cites 'tremendous results' in India, Mexico, Argentina and parts of Bangladesh as proof of ivermectin's effectiveness. 'Honestly, I'm guessing the metal contaminants they found in many of the bottles had something to do with it, too,' the woman says at the end of the video. This take joined similar claims about Japan's alleged switch to ivermectin on the internet. The anti-parasitic has gained popularity in recent months, especially in the U.S., as an alternative to the COVID-19 vaccines, even though U.S. health agencies have not approved ivermectin as a coronavirus treatment and have warned against its misuse. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. Instagram owns Facebooks. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) While the chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Haruo Ozaki, has recommended the use of ivermectin on COVID-19 patients, neither he nor the organization is associated with the Japanese government. The group is akin to the American Medical Association in the United States. It can make suggestions, but cannot enact government policies, according to its parent organization, the Japan Medical Association. Ivermectin is not listed by the Japanese government as an approved medicine to treat COVID-19. Moderna, on the other hand, remains an approved vaccine in Japan, along with Pfizer and AstraZeneca. Although there have been studies into the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients, they're far away from the 'tremendous results' cited in the Instagram video. PolitiFact has previously found many of the studies lacked scientific standing. The studies used small sample sizes and, in one case, had a clear conflict of interest where researchers were linked to a group that lobbied for ivermectin to be used as a treatment While at least three men in Japan have died several days after receiving a dose of the Moderna vaccine, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare has not found a link between the vaccinations and deaths. The country's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare had to recall more than 1.6 million doses of the vaccine in late August after multiple vials were found contaminated with black particles. More than 3,700 people were vaccinated using the contaminated vials, but none have reported any health issues, according to the BBC. The three men's vaccinations were not from the contaminated vials, and their deaths are still under investigation, the Japan Times reported. | Our ruling An Instagram user claimed Japan has dropped its use of the Moderna vaccine in favor of using ivermectin to treat the coronavirus after two people died following their vaccinations. The Japanese professional association that recommended ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment has no power to enact policy changes for the country. There has also been no conclusive evidence linking the Moderna vaccine to the deaths of three Japanese men. While more than 1.6 million doses of the Moderna vaccine were recalled because of contamination issues, Japan continues to administer shots of the Moderna vaccine. We rate the claim that Japan said 'goodbye Moderna, hello ivermectin' Mostly False. | []
|
'Japan says goodbye Moderna, hello ivermectin. | Contradiction | In a 30-second video on Instagram, a woman made several inaccurate statements regarding Japan's response to the pandemic and its use of the Moderna vaccine. The caption: 'Japan says goodbye Moderna, hello ivermectin.' 'It was just a few days ago that the Tokyo chairman of the Medical Association made the recommendation to hospitals and doctors to discontinue using Moderna, and to begin prescribing ivermectin to all COVID patients,' she says. She cites 'tremendous results' in India, Mexico, Argentina and parts of Bangladesh as proof of ivermectin's effectiveness. 'Honestly, I'm guessing the metal contaminants they found in many of the bottles had something to do with it, too,' the woman says at the end of the video. This take joined similar claims about Japan's alleged switch to ivermectin on the internet. The anti-parasitic has gained popularity in recent months, especially in the U.S., as an alternative to the COVID-19 vaccines, even though U.S. health agencies have not approved ivermectin as a coronavirus treatment and have warned against its misuse. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. Instagram owns Facebooks. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) While the chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Haruo Ozaki, has recommended the use of ivermectin on COVID-19 patients, neither he nor the organization is associated with the Japanese government. The group is akin to the American Medical Association in the United States. It can make suggestions, but cannot enact government policies, according to its parent organization, the Japan Medical Association. Ivermectin is not listed by the Japanese government as an approved medicine to treat COVID-19. Moderna, on the other hand, remains an approved vaccine in Japan, along with Pfizer and AstraZeneca. Although there have been studies into the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients, they're far away from the 'tremendous results' cited in the Instagram video. PolitiFact has previously found many of the studies lacked scientific standing. The studies used small sample sizes and, in one case, had a clear conflict of interest where researchers were linked to a group that lobbied for ivermectin to be used as a treatment While at least three men in Japan have died several days after receiving a dose of the Moderna vaccine, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare has not found a link between the vaccinations and deaths. The country's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare had to recall more than 1.6 million doses of the vaccine in late August after multiple vials were found contaminated with black particles. More than 3,700 people were vaccinated using the contaminated vials, but none have reported any health issues, according to the BBC. The three men's vaccinations were not from the contaminated vials, and their deaths are still under investigation, the Japan Times reported. | Our ruling An Instagram user claimed Japan has dropped its use of the Moderna vaccine in favor of using ivermectin to treat the coronavirus after two people died following their vaccinations. The Japanese professional association that recommended ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment has no power to enact policy changes for the country. There has also been no conclusive evidence linking the Moderna vaccine to the deaths of three Japanese men. While more than 1.6 million doses of the Moderna vaccine were recalled because of contamination issues, Japan continues to administer shots of the Moderna vaccine. We rate the claim that Japan said 'goodbye Moderna, hello ivermectin' Mostly False. | []
|
'Japan says goodbye Moderna, hello ivermectin. | Contradiction | In a 30-second video on Instagram, a woman made several inaccurate statements regarding Japan's response to the pandemic and its use of the Moderna vaccine. The caption: 'Japan says goodbye Moderna, hello ivermectin.' 'It was just a few days ago that the Tokyo chairman of the Medical Association made the recommendation to hospitals and doctors to discontinue using Moderna, and to begin prescribing ivermectin to all COVID patients,' she says. She cites 'tremendous results' in India, Mexico, Argentina and parts of Bangladesh as proof of ivermectin's effectiveness. 'Honestly, I'm guessing the metal contaminants they found in many of the bottles had something to do with it, too,' the woman says at the end of the video. This take joined similar claims about Japan's alleged switch to ivermectin on the internet. The anti-parasitic has gained popularity in recent months, especially in the U.S., as an alternative to the COVID-19 vaccines, even though U.S. health agencies have not approved ivermectin as a coronavirus treatment and have warned against its misuse. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. Instagram owns Facebooks. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) While the chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association, Haruo Ozaki, has recommended the use of ivermectin on COVID-19 patients, neither he nor the organization is associated with the Japanese government. The group is akin to the American Medical Association in the United States. It can make suggestions, but cannot enact government policies, according to its parent organization, the Japan Medical Association. Ivermectin is not listed by the Japanese government as an approved medicine to treat COVID-19. Moderna, on the other hand, remains an approved vaccine in Japan, along with Pfizer and AstraZeneca. Although there have been studies into the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients, they're far away from the 'tremendous results' cited in the Instagram video. PolitiFact has previously found many of the studies lacked scientific standing. The studies used small sample sizes and, in one case, had a clear conflict of interest where researchers were linked to a group that lobbied for ivermectin to be used as a treatment While at least three men in Japan have died several days after receiving a dose of the Moderna vaccine, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare has not found a link between the vaccinations and deaths. The country's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare had to recall more than 1.6 million doses of the vaccine in late August after multiple vials were found contaminated with black particles. More than 3,700 people were vaccinated using the contaminated vials, but none have reported any health issues, according to the BBC. The three men's vaccinations were not from the contaminated vials, and their deaths are still under investigation, the Japan Times reported. | Our ruling An Instagram user claimed Japan has dropped its use of the Moderna vaccine in favor of using ivermectin to treat the coronavirus after two people died following their vaccinations. The Japanese professional association that recommended ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment has no power to enact policy changes for the country. There has also been no conclusive evidence linking the Moderna vaccine to the deaths of three Japanese men. While more than 1.6 million doses of the Moderna vaccine were recalled because of contamination issues, Japan continues to administer shots of the Moderna vaccine. We rate the claim that Japan said 'goodbye Moderna, hello ivermectin' Mostly False. | []
|
Protesters 'broke into the White House. | Contradiction | A couple thousand people protested outside the White House in Washington, D.C. on May 29 over the death of George Floyd after a Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee into the black man's neck. NBC News reported that protesters chanted 'black lives matter' and that the Secret Service put the White House under lockdown as the demonstration grew outside its gates. At one point, according to NBC, Secret Service officers took a woman into custody after she climbed over a barrier. Protesters later moved to the Trump International Hotel and demonstrated there, NBC said. But they didn't break into the White House as social media posts claim. 'THEY BROKE INTO THE WHITE HOUSE,' reads the text over a clip of a demonstration that shows a man using a chair to break a window on a white building with columns. In another video clip, people gather outside a domed white building with columns. 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 video does not show the White House in Washington, D.C. It's the statehouse in Columbus, Ohio, where protesters smashed windows during demonstrations. A local NBC affiliate reported that the protests began peacefully but were broken up by police as they became destructive. Twenty-eight windows were broken, five lamp poles were damaged, and American flags were burned by demonstrators, according to Newsweek. 'One protester was able to gain access to the Statehouse through a broken window to an office,' Newsweek quotes Ohio State Highway Patrol Lt. Craig Cvetan as saying. 'However, the protester fled back out the window before troopers could apprehend him from the interior. He was taken into custody by Columbus police when he exited the window.' We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Protesters 'broke into the White House. | Contradiction | A couple thousand people protested outside the White House in Washington, D.C. on May 29 over the death of George Floyd after a Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee into the black man's neck. NBC News reported that protesters chanted 'black lives matter' and that the Secret Service put the White House under lockdown as the demonstration grew outside its gates. At one point, according to NBC, Secret Service officers took a woman into custody after she climbed over a barrier. Protesters later moved to the Trump International Hotel and demonstrated there, NBC said. But they didn't break into the White House as social media posts claim. 'THEY BROKE INTO THE WHITE HOUSE,' reads the text over a clip of a demonstration that shows a man using a chair to break a window on a white building with columns. In another video clip, people gather outside a domed white building with columns. 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 video does not show the White House in Washington, D.C. It's the statehouse in Columbus, Ohio, where protesters smashed windows during demonstrations. A local NBC affiliate reported that the protests began peacefully but were broken up by police as they became destructive. Twenty-eight windows were broken, five lamp poles were damaged, and American flags were burned by demonstrators, according to Newsweek. 'One protester was able to gain access to the Statehouse through a broken window to an office,' Newsweek quotes Ohio State Highway Patrol Lt. Craig Cvetan as saying. 'However, the protester fled back out the window before troopers could apprehend him from the interior. He was taken into custody by Columbus police when he exited the window.' We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Unleaded gas costs nearly $7 in Lancaster, Calif. | Contradiction | A viral image of a Circle K convenience store gas station sign with eyebrow-raising prices is raising eyebrows on the internet. 'Location: East Lancaster, Antelope Valley, California,' a description of the image says. '11/9/2021.' It shows $6.99 a gallon for unleaded gas, $8.90 for premium and $9.90 for diesel. Some people sharing the photo are blaming President Joe Biden. 'Way to go, Joe,' one person wrote. The image appears to be authentic, but the prices aren't. 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.) Gasoline prices have been rising steadily since mid-2020, and Californians pay some of the highest prices in the nation. For the week that ended Nov. 15, the price for all grades of gasoline in California averaged $4.619 a gallon, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That's up from $3.186 at the start of the year, but not even close to the amounts on the sign in the photo. We searched Circle K's website for locations in Lancaster, which is north of Los Angeles. It shows that there are two that are open and one, at 108 E. Ave. K, that is listed as 'coming soon.' We looked up the other stations on GasBuddy and found that regular gas was reported at one as costing $4.79 a gallon, $5.09 for premium and $4.89 for diesel. Prices were similar at the other station. Searching the address for the third, not-yet-open location, we found a Google street image from March that shows an empty, dusty lot with green construction fencing on the perimeter. A tag that shows the company providing the fencing - United Site Services - is visible in the picture. That same kind of fencing and United tag appears in what looks like another photo of the Circle K sign. All the prices shown in that photo are the same - $6.99 for unleaded, and so on. 'The store isn't open yet,' tweeted the person sharing the photo. 'They do that so people don't stop to get gas.' Snopes found another tweet of someone sharing the same photo. 'I drove by this last week,' they said. 'It's a brand new Circle K, not open yet.' RELATED VIDEO In March, we fact-checked a similar image that appeared to show a New Mexico gas station with gas costing $7.89 a gallon. There too the station hadn't opened yet. It's common for closed stations to advertise high prices so that drivers don't stop. We rate claims that gas is selling for these prices at Circle K in Lancaster False. | We rate claims that gas is selling for these prices at Circle K in Lancaster False. | []
|
Says Charles Schumer supports 'putting everybody on the Medicare system. He wants the Green New Deal ... reduce funding for the police. | Contradiction | With the general election over, the nation's political attention has shifted to Georgia, where runoff elections for two U.S. Senate seats take place on Jan. 5. Democrats need to win both for Sen. Charles Schumer to take over as Senate majority leader. Sen. Rick Scott, incoming chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, a campaign committee focused on electing Republicans to the Senate, told Fox News his view on what would happen if the GOP lost and Schumer ascended to the leadership post. We're going to make sure @SenSchumer doesn't get his wish to be Majority Leader. He said he wants to take Georgia so Democrats can change America. Thankfully, Georgia doesn't want the radical change that Schumer, Warnock and Ossoff have in mind. pic.twitter.com/16SarGdbLg- Rick Scott (@ScottforFlorida) November 16, 2020 'He wants to eliminate private health care insurance. He wants to ruin the Medicare program by putting everybody on the Medicare system. He wants the Green New Deal, which is going to cost close to $100 trillion and kill our economy, socialism, reduce funding for the police,' Scott said. In campaigns, using hyperbole to depict rivals is a common practice. We wanted to know whether the Florida senator described Schumer's positions correctly. Health care Scott said Schumer, the senior senator from New York, 'wants to eliminate private health care insurance' and put everyone on the Medicare system. Schumer is not a co-sponsor of the 'Medicare for All' bill sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. In August, during his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Schumer said Democrats would make 'health care affordable for all,' but he did not elaborate. In an interview with Vox in March 2019, Schumer was asked if Medicare for All would pass if Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. He replied: 'I can say this. Some strong health care bill would pass.' Asked about implementing a single-payer system, Schumer said he couldn't predict if that would pass or not, and that views in his conference on the topic are mixed. Senate Democrats are interested in universal coverage, not just access, he said. Without endorsing Medicare for All, Schumer praised its supporters. 'And the energy for Medicare for All that's out in the streets, it's great. It pushes everything over that we need to move over,' he said. In April 2019, the Associated Press reported that Schumer 'stopped short of throwing his weight behind Sen. Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for All' plan.' Thomas P. Miller, co-author of 'Why Obamacare's Wrong for America,' and a resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said that in 2009, during debate around the Affordable Care Act, Schumer proposed a kind of public option, but one that didn't appeal to his colleagues further to the left. The model proposed by Schumer at the time was self-sustaining, not requiring government subsidy. We also asked Miller about the broader context of Scott's remarks, such as the likelihood that the Senate would pass a Medicare for All kind of system if Democrats were in charge. Miller said that would depend on the vote margins - big wins for Democrats could lead them to make greater changes to the health care system - but that he doubts Democrats would abandon private insurance altogether. We reached out to Scott's Senate spokesperson and the NRSC, both of which did not respond to calls and email messages. Schumer's spokesperson also declined to comment for this fact-check. Climate change When Senate Republicans brought the Green New Deal to the floor -- not because any GOP member supported it, but to force an uncomfortable vote for vulnerable Democratic incumbents -- Schumer took to the Senate floor to condemn the move. He also condemned Senate Republicans for not putting forth meaningful legislation to combat climate change. But Schumer did not endorse the Green New Deal, as proposed by Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass. When a procedural vote on the Republicans' Green New Deal plan came up, Schumer voted present, as did many of his Democratic colleagues. The Green New Deal, as proposed by Markey, is a resolution calling on Congress to create legislation that would achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, investments in infrastructure, job creation, clean air and water and healthy food, among other things. Without other legislation, it would not have the force of law if passed. The resolution has been referred to committee in the Senate. While Schumer has not co-sponsored the Green New Deal, he has co-sponsored the 'Thrive Agenda,' a resolution that calls for combating climate change while investing in minority communities and creating jobs. It has been supported by the Green New Deal Network, a coalition of organizations such as the Sunrise Movement, which has been a foremost proponent of the Green New Deal. Police funding Scott also said that Schumer wants to 'reduce funding for the police.' Schumer has endorsed a criminal justice reform bill, the 'Justice in Policing Act.' The bill encourages policing reforms and withholds federal funds if local departments do not make changes, but also provides funding for training. The Congressional Research Service, which produces objective analyses of legislation for members of Congress, found that the receipt of certain federal funds would be conditional on whether state and local agencies prohibited the use of no-knock warrants in certain drug cases, as well as banned choke-holds, and changed use of force standards so the use of deadly force is only used as a last resort to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury. The legislation also limits transfer of certain military-grade equipment, primarily weapons and vehicles used in combat, to state and local departments. In June, Schumer opposed a resolution from Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., opposing efforts to defund the police. In itself, this opposition was not a vote to reduce funding for police. Schumer has not said exactly what kind of policies he would pursue if he becomes majority leader, and he has said repeatedly that 'everything is on the table.' | Our ruling Scott said that Schumer was in favor of Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and reducing funding for police. Schumer is not on record supporting Medicare for All, though he has said that a strong health care bill would pass if Democrats take control of the Senate. He is not a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, though he does support legislation to combat climate change supported by a coalition of progressive organizations, known as the Green New Deal Network. Schumer supports legislation to make the receipt of federal funds by local and state governments conditional on adopting certain reforms. It would not reduce police funding automatically. We rate Scott's statement False. | []
|
Says Charles Schumer supports 'putting everybody on the Medicare system. He wants the Green New Deal ... reduce funding for the police. | Contradiction | With the general election over, the nation's political attention has shifted to Georgia, where runoff elections for two U.S. Senate seats take place on Jan. 5. Democrats need to win both for Sen. Charles Schumer to take over as Senate majority leader. Sen. Rick Scott, incoming chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, a campaign committee focused on electing Republicans to the Senate, told Fox News his view on what would happen if the GOP lost and Schumer ascended to the leadership post. We're going to make sure @SenSchumer doesn't get his wish to be Majority Leader. He said he wants to take Georgia so Democrats can change America. Thankfully, Georgia doesn't want the radical change that Schumer, Warnock and Ossoff have in mind. pic.twitter.com/16SarGdbLg- Rick Scott (@ScottforFlorida) November 16, 2020 'He wants to eliminate private health care insurance. He wants to ruin the Medicare program by putting everybody on the Medicare system. He wants the Green New Deal, which is going to cost close to $100 trillion and kill our economy, socialism, reduce funding for the police,' Scott said. In campaigns, using hyperbole to depict rivals is a common practice. We wanted to know whether the Florida senator described Schumer's positions correctly. Health care Scott said Schumer, the senior senator from New York, 'wants to eliminate private health care insurance' and put everyone on the Medicare system. Schumer is not a co-sponsor of the 'Medicare for All' bill sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. In August, during his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Schumer said Democrats would make 'health care affordable for all,' but he did not elaborate. In an interview with Vox in March 2019, Schumer was asked if Medicare for All would pass if Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. He replied: 'I can say this. Some strong health care bill would pass.' Asked about implementing a single-payer system, Schumer said he couldn't predict if that would pass or not, and that views in his conference on the topic are mixed. Senate Democrats are interested in universal coverage, not just access, he said. Without endorsing Medicare for All, Schumer praised its supporters. 'And the energy for Medicare for All that's out in the streets, it's great. It pushes everything over that we need to move over,' he said. In April 2019, the Associated Press reported that Schumer 'stopped short of throwing his weight behind Sen. Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for All' plan.' Thomas P. Miller, co-author of 'Why Obamacare's Wrong for America,' and a resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said that in 2009, during debate around the Affordable Care Act, Schumer proposed a kind of public option, but one that didn't appeal to his colleagues further to the left. The model proposed by Schumer at the time was self-sustaining, not requiring government subsidy. We also asked Miller about the broader context of Scott's remarks, such as the likelihood that the Senate would pass a Medicare for All kind of system if Democrats were in charge. Miller said that would depend on the vote margins - big wins for Democrats could lead them to make greater changes to the health care system - but that he doubts Democrats would abandon private insurance altogether. We reached out to Scott's Senate spokesperson and the NRSC, both of which did not respond to calls and email messages. Schumer's spokesperson also declined to comment for this fact-check. Climate change When Senate Republicans brought the Green New Deal to the floor -- not because any GOP member supported it, but to force an uncomfortable vote for vulnerable Democratic incumbents -- Schumer took to the Senate floor to condemn the move. He also condemned Senate Republicans for not putting forth meaningful legislation to combat climate change. But Schumer did not endorse the Green New Deal, as proposed by Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass. When a procedural vote on the Republicans' Green New Deal plan came up, Schumer voted present, as did many of his Democratic colleagues. The Green New Deal, as proposed by Markey, is a resolution calling on Congress to create legislation that would achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, investments in infrastructure, job creation, clean air and water and healthy food, among other things. Without other legislation, it would not have the force of law if passed. The resolution has been referred to committee in the Senate. While Schumer has not co-sponsored the Green New Deal, he has co-sponsored the 'Thrive Agenda,' a resolution that calls for combating climate change while investing in minority communities and creating jobs. It has been supported by the Green New Deal Network, a coalition of organizations such as the Sunrise Movement, which has been a foremost proponent of the Green New Deal. Police funding Scott also said that Schumer wants to 'reduce funding for the police.' Schumer has endorsed a criminal justice reform bill, the 'Justice in Policing Act.' The bill encourages policing reforms and withholds federal funds if local departments do not make changes, but also provides funding for training. The Congressional Research Service, which produces objective analyses of legislation for members of Congress, found that the receipt of certain federal funds would be conditional on whether state and local agencies prohibited the use of no-knock warrants in certain drug cases, as well as banned choke-holds, and changed use of force standards so the use of deadly force is only used as a last resort to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury. The legislation also limits transfer of certain military-grade equipment, primarily weapons and vehicles used in combat, to state and local departments. In June, Schumer opposed a resolution from Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., opposing efforts to defund the police. In itself, this opposition was not a vote to reduce funding for police. Schumer has not said exactly what kind of policies he would pursue if he becomes majority leader, and he has said repeatedly that 'everything is on the table.' | Our ruling Scott said that Schumer was in favor of Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and reducing funding for police. Schumer is not on record supporting Medicare for All, though he has said that a strong health care bill would pass if Democrats take control of the Senate. He is not a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, though he does support legislation to combat climate change supported by a coalition of progressive organizations, known as the Green New Deal Network. Schumer supports legislation to make the receipt of federal funds by local and state governments conditional on adopting certain reforms. It would not reduce police funding automatically. We rate Scott's statement False. | []
|
Says Charles Schumer supports 'putting everybody on the Medicare system. He wants the Green New Deal ... reduce funding for the police. | Contradiction | With the general election over, the nation's political attention has shifted to Georgia, where runoff elections for two U.S. Senate seats take place on Jan. 5. Democrats need to win both for Sen. Charles Schumer to take over as Senate majority leader. Sen. Rick Scott, incoming chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, a campaign committee focused on electing Republicans to the Senate, told Fox News his view on what would happen if the GOP lost and Schumer ascended to the leadership post. We're going to make sure @SenSchumer doesn't get his wish to be Majority Leader. He said he wants to take Georgia so Democrats can change America. Thankfully, Georgia doesn't want the radical change that Schumer, Warnock and Ossoff have in mind. pic.twitter.com/16SarGdbLg- Rick Scott (@ScottforFlorida) November 16, 2020 'He wants to eliminate private health care insurance. He wants to ruin the Medicare program by putting everybody on the Medicare system. He wants the Green New Deal, which is going to cost close to $100 trillion and kill our economy, socialism, reduce funding for the police,' Scott said. In campaigns, using hyperbole to depict rivals is a common practice. We wanted to know whether the Florida senator described Schumer's positions correctly. Health care Scott said Schumer, the senior senator from New York, 'wants to eliminate private health care insurance' and put everyone on the Medicare system. Schumer is not a co-sponsor of the 'Medicare for All' bill sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. In August, during his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Schumer said Democrats would make 'health care affordable for all,' but he did not elaborate. In an interview with Vox in March 2019, Schumer was asked if Medicare for All would pass if Democrats controlled Congress and the White House. He replied: 'I can say this. Some strong health care bill would pass.' Asked about implementing a single-payer system, Schumer said he couldn't predict if that would pass or not, and that views in his conference on the topic are mixed. Senate Democrats are interested in universal coverage, not just access, he said. Without endorsing Medicare for All, Schumer praised its supporters. 'And the energy for Medicare for All that's out in the streets, it's great. It pushes everything over that we need to move over,' he said. In April 2019, the Associated Press reported that Schumer 'stopped short of throwing his weight behind Sen. Bernie Sanders' 'Medicare for All' plan.' Thomas P. Miller, co-author of 'Why Obamacare's Wrong for America,' and a resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said that in 2009, during debate around the Affordable Care Act, Schumer proposed a kind of public option, but one that didn't appeal to his colleagues further to the left. The model proposed by Schumer at the time was self-sustaining, not requiring government subsidy. We also asked Miller about the broader context of Scott's remarks, such as the likelihood that the Senate would pass a Medicare for All kind of system if Democrats were in charge. Miller said that would depend on the vote margins - big wins for Democrats could lead them to make greater changes to the health care system - but that he doubts Democrats would abandon private insurance altogether. We reached out to Scott's Senate spokesperson and the NRSC, both of which did not respond to calls and email messages. Schumer's spokesperson also declined to comment for this fact-check. Climate change When Senate Republicans brought the Green New Deal to the floor -- not because any GOP member supported it, but to force an uncomfortable vote for vulnerable Democratic incumbents -- Schumer took to the Senate floor to condemn the move. He also condemned Senate Republicans for not putting forth meaningful legislation to combat climate change. But Schumer did not endorse the Green New Deal, as proposed by Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass. When a procedural vote on the Republicans' Green New Deal plan came up, Schumer voted present, as did many of his Democratic colleagues. The Green New Deal, as proposed by Markey, is a resolution calling on Congress to create legislation that would achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, investments in infrastructure, job creation, clean air and water and healthy food, among other things. Without other legislation, it would not have the force of law if passed. The resolution has been referred to committee in the Senate. While Schumer has not co-sponsored the Green New Deal, he has co-sponsored the 'Thrive Agenda,' a resolution that calls for combating climate change while investing in minority communities and creating jobs. It has been supported by the Green New Deal Network, a coalition of organizations such as the Sunrise Movement, which has been a foremost proponent of the Green New Deal. Police funding Scott also said that Schumer wants to 'reduce funding for the police.' Schumer has endorsed a criminal justice reform bill, the 'Justice in Policing Act.' The bill encourages policing reforms and withholds federal funds if local departments do not make changes, but also provides funding for training. The Congressional Research Service, which produces objective analyses of legislation for members of Congress, found that the receipt of certain federal funds would be conditional on whether state and local agencies prohibited the use of no-knock warrants in certain drug cases, as well as banned choke-holds, and changed use of force standards so the use of deadly force is only used as a last resort to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury. The legislation also limits transfer of certain military-grade equipment, primarily weapons and vehicles used in combat, to state and local departments. In June, Schumer opposed a resolution from Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., opposing efforts to defund the police. In itself, this opposition was not a vote to reduce funding for police. Schumer has not said exactly what kind of policies he would pursue if he becomes majority leader, and he has said repeatedly that 'everything is on the table.' | Our ruling Scott said that Schumer was in favor of Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and reducing funding for police. Schumer is not on record supporting Medicare for All, though he has said that a strong health care bill would pass if Democrats take control of the Senate. He is not a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, though he does support legislation to combat climate change supported by a coalition of progressive organizations, known as the Green New Deal Network. Schumer supports legislation to make the receipt of federal funds by local and state governments conditional on adopting certain reforms. It would not reduce police funding automatically. We rate Scott's statement False. | []
|
'Epstein dies while in custody, his private banker is found dead, a judge had a trial regarding Epstein and the Deutsche Bank. Her son has been killed now and her husband has been shot. The shooter who shot the son and shot the judge's husband has now also been found dead. | Contradiction | Conspiracy theories about the death of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and sex offender who officials say killed himself in jail, have spilled into into the world he orbited. 'Epstein dies while in custody, his private banker is found dead, a judge had a trial regarding Epstein and the Deutsche Bank,' reads a recent Facebook post. 'Her son has been killed now and her husband has been shot. The shooter who shot the son and shot the judge's husband has now also been found dead. Why is this not news?!' 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.) Epstein's 'private banker' who was found dead seems to be a reference to Thomas Bowers, who committed suicide in November 2019, according to the Los Angeles County medical examiner. Bowers was a former Deutsche Bank executive who 'reportedly signed off on some of the institution's unorthodox loans to Donald Trump,' Los Angeles Magazine reported. Bowers was once the head of the bank's American wealth-management division, where he oversaw Trump's private banker. The article doesn't mention Epstein. But Epstein, a financier, has close ties to Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank recently agreed to pay a $150 million fine for its dealings with Epstein, the New York Times reported in a July article titled: 'These are the Deutsche Bank executives responsible for serving Jeffrey Epstein.' The bank itself hasn't publicly identified the individuals who worked with Epstein but based on descriptions of the employees in a consent order with the New York Department of Financial Services, and interviews with current and former bank officials, the Times identified nearly everyone in the legal document, according to the story. Paul Morris, who had previously helped Epstein manage an account at JPMorgan, brought Epstein to Deutsche Bank, the Times reported. Because Morris needed approval for a client who carried a reputational risk - Epstein had been convicted in 2008 of soliciting prostitution from a minor - he sent a memo to Charles Packard, then the head of the bank's American wealth-management division that detailed Epstein's past. Other bank officials are mentioned in the article but not Bowers. We found no credible sources corroborating the Facebook post's claim that Bowers was Epstein's 'private banker.' Deutsche Bank also connects Epstein to Judge Esther Salas, a federal judge whose son was killed and her husband injured in a shooting at their New Jersey home in July. Salas has presided over a class action lawsuit brought against the bank by investors who claim it made false and misleading statements about its anti-money laundering policies, according to the Associated Press, and because it failed to monitor 'high-risk' customers like Epstein. The lawyer suspected in the shooting at Salas' home was Roy Den Hollander, a self-described 'anti-feminist' who had compiled a dossier on her and her family and arrived at their home that morning carrying a FedEx package. 'He was apparently angry at Judge Salas for not moving quickly enough on a lawsuit he had brought challenging the constitutionality of the male-only draft,' according to the Times. Days before the shooting at Salas' residence, Hollander had traveled to San Bernardino County, Calif., where authorities say he shot and killed a rival men's rights lawyer at his home. Hollander later killed himself. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'Epstein dies while in custody, his private banker is found dead, a judge had a trial regarding Epstein and the Deutsche Bank. Her son has been killed now and her husband has been shot. The shooter who shot the son and shot the judge's husband has now also been found dead. | Contradiction | Conspiracy theories about the death of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and sex offender who officials say killed himself in jail, have spilled into into the world he orbited. 'Epstein dies while in custody, his private banker is found dead, a judge had a trial regarding Epstein and the Deutsche Bank,' reads a recent Facebook post. 'Her son has been killed now and her husband has been shot. The shooter who shot the son and shot the judge's husband has now also been found dead. Why is this not news?!' 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.) Epstein's 'private banker' who was found dead seems to be a reference to Thomas Bowers, who committed suicide in November 2019, according to the Los Angeles County medical examiner. Bowers was a former Deutsche Bank executive who 'reportedly signed off on some of the institution's unorthodox loans to Donald Trump,' Los Angeles Magazine reported. Bowers was once the head of the bank's American wealth-management division, where he oversaw Trump's private banker. The article doesn't mention Epstein. But Epstein, a financier, has close ties to Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank recently agreed to pay a $150 million fine for its dealings with Epstein, the New York Times reported in a July article titled: 'These are the Deutsche Bank executives responsible for serving Jeffrey Epstein.' The bank itself hasn't publicly identified the individuals who worked with Epstein but based on descriptions of the employees in a consent order with the New York Department of Financial Services, and interviews with current and former bank officials, the Times identified nearly everyone in the legal document, according to the story. Paul Morris, who had previously helped Epstein manage an account at JPMorgan, brought Epstein to Deutsche Bank, the Times reported. Because Morris needed approval for a client who carried a reputational risk - Epstein had been convicted in 2008 of soliciting prostitution from a minor - he sent a memo to Charles Packard, then the head of the bank's American wealth-management division that detailed Epstein's past. Other bank officials are mentioned in the article but not Bowers. We found no credible sources corroborating the Facebook post's claim that Bowers was Epstein's 'private banker.' Deutsche Bank also connects Epstein to Judge Esther Salas, a federal judge whose son was killed and her husband injured in a shooting at their New Jersey home in July. Salas has presided over a class action lawsuit brought against the bank by investors who claim it made false and misleading statements about its anti-money laundering policies, according to the Associated Press, and because it failed to monitor 'high-risk' customers like Epstein. The lawyer suspected in the shooting at Salas' home was Roy Den Hollander, a self-described 'anti-feminist' who had compiled a dossier on her and her family and arrived at their home that morning carrying a FedEx package. 'He was apparently angry at Judge Salas for not moving quickly enough on a lawsuit he had brought challenging the constitutionality of the male-only draft,' according to the Times. Days before the shooting at Salas' residence, Hollander had traveled to San Bernardino County, Calif., where authorities say he shot and killed a rival men's rights lawyer at his home. Hollander later killed himself. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'Epstein dies while in custody, his private banker is found dead, a judge had a trial regarding Epstein and the Deutsche Bank. Her son has been killed now and her husband has been shot. The shooter who shot the son and shot the judge's husband has now also been found dead. | Contradiction | Conspiracy theories about the death of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and sex offender who officials say killed himself in jail, have spilled into into the world he orbited. 'Epstein dies while in custody, his private banker is found dead, a judge had a trial regarding Epstein and the Deutsche Bank,' reads a recent Facebook post. 'Her son has been killed now and her husband has been shot. The shooter who shot the son and shot the judge's husband has now also been found dead. Why is this not news?!' 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.) Epstein's 'private banker' who was found dead seems to be a reference to Thomas Bowers, who committed suicide in November 2019, according to the Los Angeles County medical examiner. Bowers was a former Deutsche Bank executive who 'reportedly signed off on some of the institution's unorthodox loans to Donald Trump,' Los Angeles Magazine reported. Bowers was once the head of the bank's American wealth-management division, where he oversaw Trump's private banker. The article doesn't mention Epstein. But Epstein, a financier, has close ties to Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank recently agreed to pay a $150 million fine for its dealings with Epstein, the New York Times reported in a July article titled: 'These are the Deutsche Bank executives responsible for serving Jeffrey Epstein.' The bank itself hasn't publicly identified the individuals who worked with Epstein but based on descriptions of the employees in a consent order with the New York Department of Financial Services, and interviews with current and former bank officials, the Times identified nearly everyone in the legal document, according to the story. Paul Morris, who had previously helped Epstein manage an account at JPMorgan, brought Epstein to Deutsche Bank, the Times reported. Because Morris needed approval for a client who carried a reputational risk - Epstein had been convicted in 2008 of soliciting prostitution from a minor - he sent a memo to Charles Packard, then the head of the bank's American wealth-management division that detailed Epstein's past. Other bank officials are mentioned in the article but not Bowers. We found no credible sources corroborating the Facebook post's claim that Bowers was Epstein's 'private banker.' Deutsche Bank also connects Epstein to Judge Esther Salas, a federal judge whose son was killed and her husband injured in a shooting at their New Jersey home in July. Salas has presided over a class action lawsuit brought against the bank by investors who claim it made false and misleading statements about its anti-money laundering policies, according to the Associated Press, and because it failed to monitor 'high-risk' customers like Epstein. The lawyer suspected in the shooting at Salas' home was Roy Den Hollander, a self-described 'anti-feminist' who had compiled a dossier on her and her family and arrived at their home that morning carrying a FedEx package. 'He was apparently angry at Judge Salas for not moving quickly enough on a lawsuit he had brought challenging the constitutionality of the male-only draft,' according to the Times. Days before the shooting at Salas' residence, Hollander had traveled to San Bernardino County, Calif., where authorities say he shot and killed a rival men's rights lawyer at his home. Hollander later killed himself. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'The flu killed 80,000 people in the U.S. | Contradiction | With a climbing death toll from COVID-19 grabbing daily headlines, some social media users have noted that the seasonal flu kills tens of thousands per year, too. But an April 18 Facebook post exaggerates seasonal flu fatalities: 'Flu killed 80k people in the U.S. last year. None of you were afraid because the media didn't tell you to be!' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post appears to rely on a number used as a preliminary estimate for the 2017-18 flu season. The final figure for that year was lower than 80,000. And while the number of people who died from flu during the 2018-19 season is still preliminary, it is estimated to be less than half of what the Facebook post claims as well. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention uses a mathematical model to retroactively estimate the numbers of influenza illnesses, medical visits, hospitalizations, and deaths in the United States each year. The CDC first looks at in-hospital deaths and then uses death certificate data since not all flu deaths are in the hospital. That 80,000 figure stems from a preliminary estimate provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in September 2018. At that time, the CDC said early estimates indicated that 'more than 80,000 people died from flu last season' - a reference to the 2017-18 flu season. The CDC later updated its estimate for 2017-18 to about 61,000 (though the CDC notes that the true range could be as low as 46,404 and as high as 94,987). The estimate for flu deaths for the following year, 2018-19, is 34,157 deaths, but that number is preliminary and will be updated at a later date when data on contemporary testing practices become available, a CDC spokesman told PolitiFact. The Atlantic explained that seasonal flu deaths are hard to tally. 'Flu deaths are estimated through a model that looks at hospitalizations and death certificates, and accounts for the possibility that many deaths are due to flu but aren't coded as such,' The Atlantic wrote. 'If flu deaths were counted like COVID-19 deaths, the number would be substantially lower. This doesn't mean we're overestimating the flu. It does mean we are probably underestimating COVID-19.' RELATED: Too soon to compare number of COVID deaths to past outbreaks | Our ruling A Facebook post said that 'flu killed 80k people in the U.S. last year.' Flu deaths are hard to tally. But we know that in September 2018, the CDC announced a preliminary estimate that flu deaths totaled 80,000. Later, the CDC updated its estimate to a lower number: 61,099 deaths. The Facebook post said 'last year' which we think would refer to the 2018-19 season. The CDC's preliminary estimate is about 34,157 deaths. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"107757-proof-35-14ba8a049581afc962e2736e40bdcebf.jpg"
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.