claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Says Nancy Pelosi 'made millions in coronavirus insider trading. | Contradiction | Did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi get rich off the coronavirus pandemic through insider trading? That is, did the California Democrat improperly use confidential information, gained by virtue of being the government's third-highest elected official, to make a killing in the stock market? That's the claim of an article widely shared on Facebook. 'Pelosi made millions in coronavirus insider trading,' the headline reads. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim we're checking here misstates the timeline for the stock trades in question and overstates the investment gains. While Pelosi's husband bought stock that later increased in value, it was nearly two weeks before House members were briefed about the COVID-19 outbreak. What is insider trading? Insider trading is when someone uses non-public information to profit from the sale or purchase of a stock. Depending on the circumstances, it can be legal or illegal. Insider trading by members of Congress is a special concern for regulators because lawmakers often have privileged access to nonpublic briefings and investigative information that could affect individual companies or industries. In 2011, '60 Minutes' reported on a transaction by Pelosi's husband, Paul, involving 5,000 shares of Visa that he bought in the credit card company's 2008 initial public offering. Within two days of the IPO, as Congress was considering new credit card regulations, Visa's stock price rose by $20, or about 45%. Five months later, Congress passed the bipartisan Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which prohibits lawmakers from using their insider knowledge to trade stocks. Republicans added the so-called Pelosi provision to prevent government officials from gaining special access to IPOs. This year, news reports revealed that two GOP senators, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, dumped between hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars worth of stock after being privately briefed by health officials early in the coronavirus outbreak, prompting a federal investigation and a call for more reforms. News reports on May 26 said the Justice Department notified Loeffler, as well as Sens. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., it would not file insider trading charges against them. But the investigation against Burr appeared to be proceeding. Paul Pelosi buying Amazon stock The article we're checking is from IndependentCitizen.com, which describes itself as 'a daily journal of news and opinion for free citizens wishing to defend their liberty' based in Liberty, Va. Information about the domain's owner is not disclosed on public databases, but it at one point featured a podcast by longtime Libertarian Austin Petersen, who ran for president in 2016. The article alleges that 'recent reports show that on Jan. 17, Pelosi and her husband bought millions of dollars in Amazon stocks, soon after she began receiving briefings about the coronavirus pandemic's impact on the United States.' The article, published April 2, notes that Amazon's business increased as many Americans opted to shop online - and claims without evidence that the Pelosis earned nearly $2 million in 10 weeks. An article published April 1 by True Pundit, a conservative website, claimed that because Amazon's stock price reached close to $2,000 on March 31, the Paul Pelosi stock purchase had earned the Pelosis $1.1 million in 10 weeks. Nancy Pelosi's disclosure Paul Pelosi has been a prominent businessman in real estate and venture capital for decades. Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told PolitiFact that Pelosi did not receive a briefing on the coronavirus until one was given to House members on Jan. 29. That roughly corresponds with a report from Politico that says lawmakers in the House and Senate were briefed via both classified and non-classified meetings about the coronavirus in late January and February. But Paul Pelosi made his stock purchase a couple of weeks earlier - on Jan. 16. Hammill said that Nancy Pelosi herself owns no stock. Still, she is required to disclose her husband's transactions. Nancy Pelosi disclosed in a report that on Jan. 16, Paul Pelosi bought 3,000 shares of Amazon stock, as well as 5,000 shares of Facebook stock. Amazon shares traded as low as $1,866.02 a share on that day. Paul Pelosi bought his shares for $1,600 apiece by exercising call options that he already held. Call options are contracts that allow an investor to buy a specific stock at a certain price up to a certain date. The options would have expired the next day, according to Pelosi's disclosure form. Over the next few months, Amazon shares moved up and down roughly in tandem with the overall stock market, falling as low as $1,626.03 on March 16, as news of the pandemic-related shutdowns battered stocks. By late June, they were trading at nearly $2,800 a share, with gains far outpacing the broader market. Pelosi's disclosure says her husband exercised options to buy 3,000 shares at $1,600 - a $4.8 million investment. Ten weeks later, on March 26, Amazon's closing price was $1,955. Pelosi's shares would have been worth $5.9 million. That's a paper profit of $1.1 million. Actual profit, minus the cost of the call options and other expenses, would not be realized until a stock is sold. Pelosi's Facebook investment, for which he paid $720,000, was worth about $100,000 more on March 26. | Our ruling An article widely shared on Facebook claimed Nancy Pelosi 'made millions in coronavirus insider trading' over the course of 10 weeks. Her husband, Paul Pelosi, used call options to purchase Amazon stock, and investment that gained about $1.1 million in 10 weeks. The gain on his Facebook investment was about $100,000. But those are paper gains, not actual earnings. Moreover, Paul Pelosi made his purchase roughly two weeks before House members were briefed about the coronavirus outbreak. Lacking any evidence that Nancy Pelosi received inside information about the coronavirus prior to Jan. 29, we rate the statement False. | []
|
Says Nancy Pelosi 'made millions in coronavirus insider trading. | Contradiction | Did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi get rich off the coronavirus pandemic through insider trading? That is, did the California Democrat improperly use confidential information, gained by virtue of being the government's third-highest elected official, to make a killing in the stock market? That's the claim of an article widely shared on Facebook. 'Pelosi made millions in coronavirus insider trading,' the headline reads. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim we're checking here misstates the timeline for the stock trades in question and overstates the investment gains. While Pelosi's husband bought stock that later increased in value, it was nearly two weeks before House members were briefed about the COVID-19 outbreak. What is insider trading? Insider trading is when someone uses non-public information to profit from the sale or purchase of a stock. Depending on the circumstances, it can be legal or illegal. Insider trading by members of Congress is a special concern for regulators because lawmakers often have privileged access to nonpublic briefings and investigative information that could affect individual companies or industries. In 2011, '60 Minutes' reported on a transaction by Pelosi's husband, Paul, involving 5,000 shares of Visa that he bought in the credit card company's 2008 initial public offering. Within two days of the IPO, as Congress was considering new credit card regulations, Visa's stock price rose by $20, or about 45%. Five months later, Congress passed the bipartisan Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which prohibits lawmakers from using their insider knowledge to trade stocks. Republicans added the so-called Pelosi provision to prevent government officials from gaining special access to IPOs. This year, news reports revealed that two GOP senators, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, dumped between hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars worth of stock after being privately briefed by health officials early in the coronavirus outbreak, prompting a federal investigation and a call for more reforms. News reports on May 26 said the Justice Department notified Loeffler, as well as Sens. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., it would not file insider trading charges against them. But the investigation against Burr appeared to be proceeding. Paul Pelosi buying Amazon stock The article we're checking is from IndependentCitizen.com, which describes itself as 'a daily journal of news and opinion for free citizens wishing to defend their liberty' based in Liberty, Va. Information about the domain's owner is not disclosed on public databases, but it at one point featured a podcast by longtime Libertarian Austin Petersen, who ran for president in 2016. The article alleges that 'recent reports show that on Jan. 17, Pelosi and her husband bought millions of dollars in Amazon stocks, soon after she began receiving briefings about the coronavirus pandemic's impact on the United States.' The article, published April 2, notes that Amazon's business increased as many Americans opted to shop online - and claims without evidence that the Pelosis earned nearly $2 million in 10 weeks. An article published April 1 by True Pundit, a conservative website, claimed that because Amazon's stock price reached close to $2,000 on March 31, the Paul Pelosi stock purchase had earned the Pelosis $1.1 million in 10 weeks. Nancy Pelosi's disclosure Paul Pelosi has been a prominent businessman in real estate and venture capital for decades. Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told PolitiFact that Pelosi did not receive a briefing on the coronavirus until one was given to House members on Jan. 29. That roughly corresponds with a report from Politico that says lawmakers in the House and Senate were briefed via both classified and non-classified meetings about the coronavirus in late January and February. But Paul Pelosi made his stock purchase a couple of weeks earlier - on Jan. 16. Hammill said that Nancy Pelosi herself owns no stock. Still, she is required to disclose her husband's transactions. Nancy Pelosi disclosed in a report that on Jan. 16, Paul Pelosi bought 3,000 shares of Amazon stock, as well as 5,000 shares of Facebook stock. Amazon shares traded as low as $1,866.02 a share on that day. Paul Pelosi bought his shares for $1,600 apiece by exercising call options that he already held. Call options are contracts that allow an investor to buy a specific stock at a certain price up to a certain date. The options would have expired the next day, according to Pelosi's disclosure form. Over the next few months, Amazon shares moved up and down roughly in tandem with the overall stock market, falling as low as $1,626.03 on March 16, as news of the pandemic-related shutdowns battered stocks. By late June, they were trading at nearly $2,800 a share, with gains far outpacing the broader market. Pelosi's disclosure says her husband exercised options to buy 3,000 shares at $1,600 - a $4.8 million investment. Ten weeks later, on March 26, Amazon's closing price was $1,955. Pelosi's shares would have been worth $5.9 million. That's a paper profit of $1.1 million. Actual profit, minus the cost of the call options and other expenses, would not be realized until a stock is sold. Pelosi's Facebook investment, for which he paid $720,000, was worth about $100,000 more on March 26. | Our ruling An article widely shared on Facebook claimed Nancy Pelosi 'made millions in coronavirus insider trading' over the course of 10 weeks. Her husband, Paul Pelosi, used call options to purchase Amazon stock, and investment that gained about $1.1 million in 10 weeks. The gain on his Facebook investment was about $100,000. But those are paper gains, not actual earnings. Moreover, Paul Pelosi made his purchase roughly two weeks before House members were briefed about the coronavirus outbreak. Lacking any evidence that Nancy Pelosi received inside information about the coronavirus prior to Jan. 29, we rate the statement False. | []
|
Says Nancy Pelosi 'made millions in coronavirus insider trading. | Contradiction | Did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi get rich off the coronavirus pandemic through insider trading? That is, did the California Democrat improperly use confidential information, gained by virtue of being the government's third-highest elected official, to make a killing in the stock market? That's the claim of an article widely shared on Facebook. 'Pelosi made millions in coronavirus insider trading,' the headline reads. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim we're checking here misstates the timeline for the stock trades in question and overstates the investment gains. While Pelosi's husband bought stock that later increased in value, it was nearly two weeks before House members were briefed about the COVID-19 outbreak. What is insider trading? Insider trading is when someone uses non-public information to profit from the sale or purchase of a stock. Depending on the circumstances, it can be legal or illegal. Insider trading by members of Congress is a special concern for regulators because lawmakers often have privileged access to nonpublic briefings and investigative information that could affect individual companies or industries. In 2011, '60 Minutes' reported on a transaction by Pelosi's husband, Paul, involving 5,000 shares of Visa that he bought in the credit card company's 2008 initial public offering. Within two days of the IPO, as Congress was considering new credit card regulations, Visa's stock price rose by $20, or about 45%. Five months later, Congress passed the bipartisan Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which prohibits lawmakers from using their insider knowledge to trade stocks. Republicans added the so-called Pelosi provision to prevent government officials from gaining special access to IPOs. This year, news reports revealed that two GOP senators, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, dumped between hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars worth of stock after being privately briefed by health officials early in the coronavirus outbreak, prompting a federal investigation and a call for more reforms. News reports on May 26 said the Justice Department notified Loeffler, as well as Sens. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., it would not file insider trading charges against them. But the investigation against Burr appeared to be proceeding. Paul Pelosi buying Amazon stock The article we're checking is from IndependentCitizen.com, which describes itself as 'a daily journal of news and opinion for free citizens wishing to defend their liberty' based in Liberty, Va. Information about the domain's owner is not disclosed on public databases, but it at one point featured a podcast by longtime Libertarian Austin Petersen, who ran for president in 2016. The article alleges that 'recent reports show that on Jan. 17, Pelosi and her husband bought millions of dollars in Amazon stocks, soon after she began receiving briefings about the coronavirus pandemic's impact on the United States.' The article, published April 2, notes that Amazon's business increased as many Americans opted to shop online - and claims without evidence that the Pelosis earned nearly $2 million in 10 weeks. An article published April 1 by True Pundit, a conservative website, claimed that because Amazon's stock price reached close to $2,000 on March 31, the Paul Pelosi stock purchase had earned the Pelosis $1.1 million in 10 weeks. Nancy Pelosi's disclosure Paul Pelosi has been a prominent businessman in real estate and venture capital for decades. Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill told PolitiFact that Pelosi did not receive a briefing on the coronavirus until one was given to House members on Jan. 29. That roughly corresponds with a report from Politico that says lawmakers in the House and Senate were briefed via both classified and non-classified meetings about the coronavirus in late January and February. But Paul Pelosi made his stock purchase a couple of weeks earlier - on Jan. 16. Hammill said that Nancy Pelosi herself owns no stock. Still, she is required to disclose her husband's transactions. Nancy Pelosi disclosed in a report that on Jan. 16, Paul Pelosi bought 3,000 shares of Amazon stock, as well as 5,000 shares of Facebook stock. Amazon shares traded as low as $1,866.02 a share on that day. Paul Pelosi bought his shares for $1,600 apiece by exercising call options that he already held. Call options are contracts that allow an investor to buy a specific stock at a certain price up to a certain date. The options would have expired the next day, according to Pelosi's disclosure form. Over the next few months, Amazon shares moved up and down roughly in tandem with the overall stock market, falling as low as $1,626.03 on March 16, as news of the pandemic-related shutdowns battered stocks. By late June, they were trading at nearly $2,800 a share, with gains far outpacing the broader market. Pelosi's disclosure says her husband exercised options to buy 3,000 shares at $1,600 - a $4.8 million investment. Ten weeks later, on March 26, Amazon's closing price was $1,955. Pelosi's shares would have been worth $5.9 million. That's a paper profit of $1.1 million. Actual profit, minus the cost of the call options and other expenses, would not be realized until a stock is sold. Pelosi's Facebook investment, for which he paid $720,000, was worth about $100,000 more on March 26. | Our ruling An article widely shared on Facebook claimed Nancy Pelosi 'made millions in coronavirus insider trading' over the course of 10 weeks. Her husband, Paul Pelosi, used call options to purchase Amazon stock, and investment that gained about $1.1 million in 10 weeks. The gain on his Facebook investment was about $100,000. But those are paper gains, not actual earnings. Moreover, Paul Pelosi made his purchase roughly two weeks before House members were briefed about the coronavirus outbreak. Lacking any evidence that Nancy Pelosi received inside information about the coronavirus prior to Jan. 29, we rate the statement False. | []
|
Says this poem about people staying home was written by Kathleen O'Mara in 1869. | Contradiction | 'History repeats itself,' begins the introduction to a poem recently published on Facebook accounts like this one. The post claims that the poem was written in 1869 by Kathleen O'Mara and reprinted in 1918 during the 1918 influenza, sometimes called the Spanish flu. The poem describes life much like today: 'And people stayed at home, and read books, and listened, and they rested, and did exercises, and made art and played.' But the posts sharing the poem have been flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because the poem was written all of three weeks ago. Though the version appearing on Facebook is slightly different, Catherine M. O'Meara, or Kitty, posted it on her blog, The Daily Round, on March 16. O magazine, which interviewed O'Meara, called her the 'poet laureate of the pandemic.' O'Meara is a retired teacher and chaplain who lives outside of Madison, Wisc., according to the magazine. 'I was getting kind of sad,' O quotes her as saying about the coronavirus pandemic. 'There was nothing I could do. I couldn't help my friends. I was very worried about them. My husband said: 'Write. Just write again.'' You can read more of her writing here. We rate this Facebook post False. | We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
'(Barack Obama) set up anti-pandemic programs in 47 vulnerable countries as a way to protect against something like the coronavirus, exactly. | Contradiction | Joy Behar, a co-host of ABC's 'The View,' accused President Donald Trump of dismantling anti-pandemic programs the Obama administration set up across the globe. Barack Obama 'set up anti-pandemic programs in 47 vulnerable countries as a way to protect against something like the coronavirus, exactly,' Behar said during the March 9 episode of the show. 'Do you know that Trump closed 37 of them?' The TV host's claim is wrong, and it's not entirely clear how she got her numbers, either. Trump did fail to replace top national-security officials in charge of coordinating the U.S. response to pandemics, and he unsuccessfully sought to cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But he never slashed the programs Behar was referring to, however. As the Washington Post noted, there were concerns among global-health leaders that U.S. funding for an initiative known as the Global Health Security Agenda was running out, and that some U.S.-run pandemic-prevention programs would have to be downsized as a result. But the Trump administration never pulled the plug on those programs, although it did propose smaller budgets. Congress has injected more money into them in recent budget requests. One day after we reached out to ABC for comment, Behar made a tongue-in-cheek correction on air. 'The other day, I mistakenly said that Trump shut down anti-pandemic programs that Obama had set up in nearly 40 countries,' Behar said. 'I'm happy to say, he only attempted to cut funding for them, but that did not ultimately go into effect. Isn't that good?' Why the CDC thought its programs had to shrink The CDC has been operating public-health programs in a number of foreign countries as part the Global Health Security Agenda, which the United States helped launch in 2014. The initiative - which now includes 67 countries - is a global effort to help countries reduce the risk of infectious diseases. The bulk of its early funding came from a one-time, five-year emergency spending bill that Congress approved in late 2014 to respond to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. The package appropriated almost $600 million for the CDC 'to support national public health institutes and global health security.' The CDC had hoped those funds would be replenished once the five-year supplement expired in October 2019, according to reports. But as the expiration date approached, it looked like the agency could be left with just the core annual budget to pull from. National news outlets reported in the spring of 2018 that the CDC was bracing for a possible funding drop-off. The CDC planned to scale back operations in 39 of 49 countries and focus on 10 'priority countries,' according to emails reviewed by the Wall Street Journal. In the end, however, Congress provided enough funding to sustain the programs, experts told us. (The White House and CDC did not respond to our requests for comment. The CDC told Factcheck.org it 'did not have to cut back its work' to 10 countries.) 'The president's budget proposed slashing funding for CDC's (global health security) initiatives,' added Claire Standley, an assistant research professor at Georgetown University's Center for Global Health Science and Security. 'In the end, that didn't happen.' The worry in early 2018 was that the budget for the CDC's global disease-prevention programs would be just over $50 million, as it had been in past years, when the supplement from 2014 was still the primary funding source. Trump's 2018 budget proposal put it in that ballpark. But the budget Congress ultimately passed bumped the appropriations for 'global disease detection and other programs' up to $108.2 million. The same amount was provided in 2019. In November 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services pledged an additional $150 million 'to support capacity strengthening in high-risk countries around the world' at a meeting in which the U.S. affirmed its commitment to the next phase of the Global Health Security Agenda. The Trump administration's 2021 budget request appropriated $225 million for the same global-health programs, up from $183.2 million in 2020. As we've reported, Trump has consistently proposed cuts to certain CDC budgets, but the bills Congress ultimately passed - with Trump's signature - have steadily increased funding for the CDC's infectious-disease activities. Experts said the administration's wavering support has likely made it difficult for the CDC to plan out its activities. 'I don't think the 37 out of 47 statement is accurate,' Standley said. 'But I do think that the Trump administration, in failing to provide consistent funding and clear indication of the priority placed on global health security capacity building, has made it difficult for the CDC to sustain the programs and successful efforts put into place since 2014.' 'Programs weren't shut down in the end, but you can also say that the administration didn't prioritize them in the proposed budget,' added Jennifer Nuzzi, an associate professor of public health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. A problem with the numbers It's not clear why Behar referred to a shutdown of 37 of 47 programs when the 2018 news reports said the CDC was considering scaling back 39 of 49 operations. It's possible she pulled from a tweet by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., whose claim that Trump 'shut down 37 of 47 global anti-pandemic programs' was debunked by other fact-checkers. But however you crunch the numbers, it's hard to get to 47 countries - or 49, for that matter. Trump has put no one in charge of Coronavirus. He is pushing cuts to the budgets of all the agencies that fight pandemics. He shut down 37 of 47 global anti-pandemic programs. Trump made a choice to make us vulnerable...to this pandemic and the next one and the next one.- Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) February 25, 2020 A 2019 annual report on the Global Health Security Agenda says the CDC provides financial support and technical assistance to 17 priority countries, plus technical assistance for 14 countries and CARICOM, a group of 15 Caribbean countries and dependencies. One CARICOM country is Haiti, which is already listed among the countries receiving technical assistance from the CDC. Another is Montserrat, a British territory. That adds up to 44 total countries, or 50 if you include six other countries that Standley said received some early support specifically related to the Ebola outbreak. | Our ruling Behar said Obama 'set up anti-pandemic programs in 47 vulnerable countries as a way to protect against something like the coronavirus' and 'Trump closed 37 of them.' News reports in 2018 said the CDC was planning to shrink its operations to help foreign countries prevent infectious diseases because it didn't expect to receive new funding once the supplement it received in 2014 ran out. But the programs didn't shut down in the end. The spending bill that lawmakers ultimately passed that year provided more money for those CDC programs than Trump's budget request originally asked for. Behar corrected her statement. We rate it False. | [
"108232-proof-33-86ff0f39c60f29a895bc82bbf72e9ee9.jpg"
]
|
'(Barack Obama) set up anti-pandemic programs in 47 vulnerable countries as a way to protect against something like the coronavirus, exactly. | Contradiction | Joy Behar, a co-host of ABC's 'The View,' accused President Donald Trump of dismantling anti-pandemic programs the Obama administration set up across the globe. Barack Obama 'set up anti-pandemic programs in 47 vulnerable countries as a way to protect against something like the coronavirus, exactly,' Behar said during the March 9 episode of the show. 'Do you know that Trump closed 37 of them?' The TV host's claim is wrong, and it's not entirely clear how she got her numbers, either. Trump did fail to replace top national-security officials in charge of coordinating the U.S. response to pandemics, and he unsuccessfully sought to cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But he never slashed the programs Behar was referring to, however. As the Washington Post noted, there were concerns among global-health leaders that U.S. funding for an initiative known as the Global Health Security Agenda was running out, and that some U.S.-run pandemic-prevention programs would have to be downsized as a result. But the Trump administration never pulled the plug on those programs, although it did propose smaller budgets. Congress has injected more money into them in recent budget requests. One day after we reached out to ABC for comment, Behar made a tongue-in-cheek correction on air. 'The other day, I mistakenly said that Trump shut down anti-pandemic programs that Obama had set up in nearly 40 countries,' Behar said. 'I'm happy to say, he only attempted to cut funding for them, but that did not ultimately go into effect. Isn't that good?' Why the CDC thought its programs had to shrink The CDC has been operating public-health programs in a number of foreign countries as part the Global Health Security Agenda, which the United States helped launch in 2014. The initiative - which now includes 67 countries - is a global effort to help countries reduce the risk of infectious diseases. The bulk of its early funding came from a one-time, five-year emergency spending bill that Congress approved in late 2014 to respond to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. The package appropriated almost $600 million for the CDC 'to support national public health institutes and global health security.' The CDC had hoped those funds would be replenished once the five-year supplement expired in October 2019, according to reports. But as the expiration date approached, it looked like the agency could be left with just the core annual budget to pull from. National news outlets reported in the spring of 2018 that the CDC was bracing for a possible funding drop-off. The CDC planned to scale back operations in 39 of 49 countries and focus on 10 'priority countries,' according to emails reviewed by the Wall Street Journal. In the end, however, Congress provided enough funding to sustain the programs, experts told us. (The White House and CDC did not respond to our requests for comment. The CDC told Factcheck.org it 'did not have to cut back its work' to 10 countries.) 'The president's budget proposed slashing funding for CDC's (global health security) initiatives,' added Claire Standley, an assistant research professor at Georgetown University's Center for Global Health Science and Security. 'In the end, that didn't happen.' The worry in early 2018 was that the budget for the CDC's global disease-prevention programs would be just over $50 million, as it had been in past years, when the supplement from 2014 was still the primary funding source. Trump's 2018 budget proposal put it in that ballpark. But the budget Congress ultimately passed bumped the appropriations for 'global disease detection and other programs' up to $108.2 million. The same amount was provided in 2019. In November 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services pledged an additional $150 million 'to support capacity strengthening in high-risk countries around the world' at a meeting in which the U.S. affirmed its commitment to the next phase of the Global Health Security Agenda. The Trump administration's 2021 budget request appropriated $225 million for the same global-health programs, up from $183.2 million in 2020. As we've reported, Trump has consistently proposed cuts to certain CDC budgets, but the bills Congress ultimately passed - with Trump's signature - have steadily increased funding for the CDC's infectious-disease activities. Experts said the administration's wavering support has likely made it difficult for the CDC to plan out its activities. 'I don't think the 37 out of 47 statement is accurate,' Standley said. 'But I do think that the Trump administration, in failing to provide consistent funding and clear indication of the priority placed on global health security capacity building, has made it difficult for the CDC to sustain the programs and successful efforts put into place since 2014.' 'Programs weren't shut down in the end, but you can also say that the administration didn't prioritize them in the proposed budget,' added Jennifer Nuzzi, an associate professor of public health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. A problem with the numbers It's not clear why Behar referred to a shutdown of 37 of 47 programs when the 2018 news reports said the CDC was considering scaling back 39 of 49 operations. It's possible she pulled from a tweet by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., whose claim that Trump 'shut down 37 of 47 global anti-pandemic programs' was debunked by other fact-checkers. But however you crunch the numbers, it's hard to get to 47 countries - or 49, for that matter. Trump has put no one in charge of Coronavirus. He is pushing cuts to the budgets of all the agencies that fight pandemics. He shut down 37 of 47 global anti-pandemic programs. Trump made a choice to make us vulnerable...to this pandemic and the next one and the next one.- Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) February 25, 2020 A 2019 annual report on the Global Health Security Agenda says the CDC provides financial support and technical assistance to 17 priority countries, plus technical assistance for 14 countries and CARICOM, a group of 15 Caribbean countries and dependencies. One CARICOM country is Haiti, which is already listed among the countries receiving technical assistance from the CDC. Another is Montserrat, a British territory. That adds up to 44 total countries, or 50 if you include six other countries that Standley said received some early support specifically related to the Ebola outbreak. | Our ruling Behar said Obama 'set up anti-pandemic programs in 47 vulnerable countries as a way to protect against something like the coronavirus' and 'Trump closed 37 of them.' News reports in 2018 said the CDC was planning to shrink its operations to help foreign countries prevent infectious diseases because it didn't expect to receive new funding once the supplement it received in 2014 ran out. But the programs didn't shut down in the end. The spending bill that lawmakers ultimately passed that year provided more money for those CDC programs than Trump's budget request originally asked for. Behar corrected her statement. We rate it False. | [
"108232-proof-33-86ff0f39c60f29a895bc82bbf72e9ee9.jpg"
]
|
'(Barack Obama) set up anti-pandemic programs in 47 vulnerable countries as a way to protect against something like the coronavirus, exactly. | Contradiction | Joy Behar, a co-host of ABC's 'The View,' accused President Donald Trump of dismantling anti-pandemic programs the Obama administration set up across the globe. Barack Obama 'set up anti-pandemic programs in 47 vulnerable countries as a way to protect against something like the coronavirus, exactly,' Behar said during the March 9 episode of the show. 'Do you know that Trump closed 37 of them?' The TV host's claim is wrong, and it's not entirely clear how she got her numbers, either. Trump did fail to replace top national-security officials in charge of coordinating the U.S. response to pandemics, and he unsuccessfully sought to cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But he never slashed the programs Behar was referring to, however. As the Washington Post noted, there were concerns among global-health leaders that U.S. funding for an initiative known as the Global Health Security Agenda was running out, and that some U.S.-run pandemic-prevention programs would have to be downsized as a result. But the Trump administration never pulled the plug on those programs, although it did propose smaller budgets. Congress has injected more money into them in recent budget requests. One day after we reached out to ABC for comment, Behar made a tongue-in-cheek correction on air. 'The other day, I mistakenly said that Trump shut down anti-pandemic programs that Obama had set up in nearly 40 countries,' Behar said. 'I'm happy to say, he only attempted to cut funding for them, but that did not ultimately go into effect. Isn't that good?' Why the CDC thought its programs had to shrink The CDC has been operating public-health programs in a number of foreign countries as part the Global Health Security Agenda, which the United States helped launch in 2014. The initiative - which now includes 67 countries - is a global effort to help countries reduce the risk of infectious diseases. The bulk of its early funding came from a one-time, five-year emergency spending bill that Congress approved in late 2014 to respond to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. The package appropriated almost $600 million for the CDC 'to support national public health institutes and global health security.' The CDC had hoped those funds would be replenished once the five-year supplement expired in October 2019, according to reports. But as the expiration date approached, it looked like the agency could be left with just the core annual budget to pull from. National news outlets reported in the spring of 2018 that the CDC was bracing for a possible funding drop-off. The CDC planned to scale back operations in 39 of 49 countries and focus on 10 'priority countries,' according to emails reviewed by the Wall Street Journal. In the end, however, Congress provided enough funding to sustain the programs, experts told us. (The White House and CDC did not respond to our requests for comment. The CDC told Factcheck.org it 'did not have to cut back its work' to 10 countries.) 'The president's budget proposed slashing funding for CDC's (global health security) initiatives,' added Claire Standley, an assistant research professor at Georgetown University's Center for Global Health Science and Security. 'In the end, that didn't happen.' The worry in early 2018 was that the budget for the CDC's global disease-prevention programs would be just over $50 million, as it had been in past years, when the supplement from 2014 was still the primary funding source. Trump's 2018 budget proposal put it in that ballpark. But the budget Congress ultimately passed bumped the appropriations for 'global disease detection and other programs' up to $108.2 million. The same amount was provided in 2019. In November 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services pledged an additional $150 million 'to support capacity strengthening in high-risk countries around the world' at a meeting in which the U.S. affirmed its commitment to the next phase of the Global Health Security Agenda. The Trump administration's 2021 budget request appropriated $225 million for the same global-health programs, up from $183.2 million in 2020. As we've reported, Trump has consistently proposed cuts to certain CDC budgets, but the bills Congress ultimately passed - with Trump's signature - have steadily increased funding for the CDC's infectious-disease activities. Experts said the administration's wavering support has likely made it difficult for the CDC to plan out its activities. 'I don't think the 37 out of 47 statement is accurate,' Standley said. 'But I do think that the Trump administration, in failing to provide consistent funding and clear indication of the priority placed on global health security capacity building, has made it difficult for the CDC to sustain the programs and successful efforts put into place since 2014.' 'Programs weren't shut down in the end, but you can also say that the administration didn't prioritize them in the proposed budget,' added Jennifer Nuzzi, an associate professor of public health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. A problem with the numbers It's not clear why Behar referred to a shutdown of 37 of 47 programs when the 2018 news reports said the CDC was considering scaling back 39 of 49 operations. It's possible she pulled from a tweet by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., whose claim that Trump 'shut down 37 of 47 global anti-pandemic programs' was debunked by other fact-checkers. But however you crunch the numbers, it's hard to get to 47 countries - or 49, for that matter. Trump has put no one in charge of Coronavirus. He is pushing cuts to the budgets of all the agencies that fight pandemics. He shut down 37 of 47 global anti-pandemic programs. Trump made a choice to make us vulnerable...to this pandemic and the next one and the next one.- Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) February 25, 2020 A 2019 annual report on the Global Health Security Agenda says the CDC provides financial support and technical assistance to 17 priority countries, plus technical assistance for 14 countries and CARICOM, a group of 15 Caribbean countries and dependencies. One CARICOM country is Haiti, which is already listed among the countries receiving technical assistance from the CDC. Another is Montserrat, a British territory. That adds up to 44 total countries, or 50 if you include six other countries that Standley said received some early support specifically related to the Ebola outbreak. | Our ruling Behar said Obama 'set up anti-pandemic programs in 47 vulnerable countries as a way to protect against something like the coronavirus' and 'Trump closed 37 of them.' News reports in 2018 said the CDC was planning to shrink its operations to help foreign countries prevent infectious diseases because it didn't expect to receive new funding once the supplement it received in 2014 ran out. But the programs didn't shut down in the end. The spending bill that lawmakers ultimately passed that year provided more money for those CDC programs than Trump's budget request originally asked for. Behar corrected her statement. We rate it False. | [
"108232-proof-33-86ff0f39c60f29a895bc82bbf72e9ee9.jpg"
]
|
'American coronavirus vaccine killed five Ukrainians. | Contradiction | In June, 35% of Americans in one poll said they definitely won't or probably won't take a coronavirus vaccine, which has yet to be developed. In the same Fairleigh Dickinson University survey, 28% said they are not confident that a COVID-19 vaccine will be both effective and safe. Then this headline was widely shared on Facebook: 'American coronavirus vaccine killed five Ukrainians.' The headline appeared on a four-paragraph article posted July 18 on News Front, which calls itself a Crimea-based news agency. In 2014, the Crimea region of Ukraine was annexed by Russia, an act the United States considers illegal. 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 found multiple reports that News Front is known for producing pro-Russian disinformation, but no evidence to back the headline. 'I don't know of any Americans who have or who are doing COVID-19 vaccine testing in Ukraine,' Dr. Matthew Laurens of the University of Maryland School of Medicine's Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health told PolitiFact. Pursuit of a vaccine As we've reported, regarding a possible vaccine: Worldwide, as of early July, there were roughly 160 vaccine projects under way worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Scientists are expressing cautious optimism that a vaccine can be ready to go by the late spring of 2021, although it's unclear how much longer it would take to distribute the vaccine widely. Five possible vaccines, including one being developed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Cambridge, Mass.-based biotechnology firm Moderna, are in phase 3 clinical trials; once those trials are completed, they would be candidates for approval. Another 12 vaccines have begun phase 2 trials. And more than 100 other vaccines that haven't begun clinical trials are in the pipeline. No COVID-19 vaccine trials in Ukraine are listed in the federal ClinicalTrials.gov database, which tracks privately and publicly funded clinical studies conducted around the world; and none are listed in the ISRCTN registry, another global research registry. The article The article claims that, using a vaccine that had not been tested on people in the United States, American virologists tested residents in the area of the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. A spokesman for what was identified as the People's Militia of the LPR was quoted as saying that of 15 people tested, five died 'from complications caused by the infection.' Of the 15 allegedly tested, 10 were said to be from the Ukrainian military, as were four of the dead. LPR, which stands for Luhansk People's Republic, has asserted governmental authority over a region in eastern Ukraine without the authorization of the government of Ukraine since 2014, according to GlobalSecurity.org, which does research on homeland security and related topics. The ruble has mostly replaced the Ukrainian currency there and 'a strong pro-Russian and anti-Western ideology prevails,' according to Carnegie Europe, part of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, D.C. think tank. No confirmation Our searches of Google and Nexis turned up no mainstream news reports or other authoritative accounts of what was in the article. 'This is an obvious fake,' Peter Zalmayev, director of the Eurasia Democracy Initiative, told PolitiFact. Based in New York with staff in Ukraine, the group says it 'works to educate the public in the United States about the post-Communist world from the Balkans to Central Asia.' StopFake, a prominent fact-checking organization in Ukraine, reported that other websites in the LPR region and Russian news sites had carried similar articles about the alleged testing and deaths. It labeled the stories fake. 'The entire story is completely made up,' StopFake reported, based on an interview with a spokesperson for Ukraine's Armed Forces Medical Service Corps. The spokesperson noted that in recent months, no foreign medical specialists had visited Ukraine's military. News Front's reputation As for News Front, StopFake reported in May that it is 'a pro-Kremlin outlet with a record of publishing conspiratorial stories, including other fake news about the coronavirus.' (The New York Times reported that StopFake, hired earlier this year by Facebook to help curb the flow of Russian propaganda and other false news across its platform in Ukraine, is battling accusations of ties to the Ukrainian far right and of bias in its fact-checking, and that the International Fact-Checking Network is conducting an 'interim assessment' of StopFake. The IFCN is based at the Poynter Institute, which owns PolitiFact.) Other organizations have issued similar warnings about News Front. In August 2019, EUvsDisinfo, which says it responds to Russian disinformation against the EU, wrote that News Front operates from Crimea and 'has always been a reliable source of disinformation. The site... is ambitiously publishing lies in eight languages.' Coda Story, a nonprofit journalism site that focuses on in-depth reporting and fighting disinformation in Eurasia, reported from Crimea in 2018 on the leader of News Front. The pro-Moscow News Front has 'carved out a reputation for its staunchly pro-Kremlin line and a steady output of stories which media monitors such as Stop Fake say are false or deliberately inflammatory,' according to Coda Story. News Front did not reply to our requests for information. With no evidence to back a claim that was made by a source known for disinformation, we rate the claim False. | With no evidence to back a claim that was made by a source known for disinformation, we rate the claim False. | []
|
'American coronavirus vaccine killed five Ukrainians. | Contradiction | In June, 35% of Americans in one poll said they definitely won't or probably won't take a coronavirus vaccine, which has yet to be developed. In the same Fairleigh Dickinson University survey, 28% said they are not confident that a COVID-19 vaccine will be both effective and safe. Then this headline was widely shared on Facebook: 'American coronavirus vaccine killed five Ukrainians.' The headline appeared on a four-paragraph article posted July 18 on News Front, which calls itself a Crimea-based news agency. In 2014, the Crimea region of Ukraine was annexed by Russia, an act the United States considers illegal. 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 found multiple reports that News Front is known for producing pro-Russian disinformation, but no evidence to back the headline. 'I don't know of any Americans who have or who are doing COVID-19 vaccine testing in Ukraine,' Dr. Matthew Laurens of the University of Maryland School of Medicine's Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health told PolitiFact. Pursuit of a vaccine As we've reported, regarding a possible vaccine: Worldwide, as of early July, there were roughly 160 vaccine projects under way worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Scientists are expressing cautious optimism that a vaccine can be ready to go by the late spring of 2021, although it's unclear how much longer it would take to distribute the vaccine widely. Five possible vaccines, including one being developed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Cambridge, Mass.-based biotechnology firm Moderna, are in phase 3 clinical trials; once those trials are completed, they would be candidates for approval. Another 12 vaccines have begun phase 2 trials. And more than 100 other vaccines that haven't begun clinical trials are in the pipeline. No COVID-19 vaccine trials in Ukraine are listed in the federal ClinicalTrials.gov database, which tracks privately and publicly funded clinical studies conducted around the world; and none are listed in the ISRCTN registry, another global research registry. The article The article claims that, using a vaccine that had not been tested on people in the United States, American virologists tested residents in the area of the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. A spokesman for what was identified as the People's Militia of the LPR was quoted as saying that of 15 people tested, five died 'from complications caused by the infection.' Of the 15 allegedly tested, 10 were said to be from the Ukrainian military, as were four of the dead. LPR, which stands for Luhansk People's Republic, has asserted governmental authority over a region in eastern Ukraine without the authorization of the government of Ukraine since 2014, according to GlobalSecurity.org, which does research on homeland security and related topics. The ruble has mostly replaced the Ukrainian currency there and 'a strong pro-Russian and anti-Western ideology prevails,' according to Carnegie Europe, part of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, D.C. think tank. No confirmation Our searches of Google and Nexis turned up no mainstream news reports or other authoritative accounts of what was in the article. 'This is an obvious fake,' Peter Zalmayev, director of the Eurasia Democracy Initiative, told PolitiFact. Based in New York with staff in Ukraine, the group says it 'works to educate the public in the United States about the post-Communist world from the Balkans to Central Asia.' StopFake, a prominent fact-checking organization in Ukraine, reported that other websites in the LPR region and Russian news sites had carried similar articles about the alleged testing and deaths. It labeled the stories fake. 'The entire story is completely made up,' StopFake reported, based on an interview with a spokesperson for Ukraine's Armed Forces Medical Service Corps. The spokesperson noted that in recent months, no foreign medical specialists had visited Ukraine's military. News Front's reputation As for News Front, StopFake reported in May that it is 'a pro-Kremlin outlet with a record of publishing conspiratorial stories, including other fake news about the coronavirus.' (The New York Times reported that StopFake, hired earlier this year by Facebook to help curb the flow of Russian propaganda and other false news across its platform in Ukraine, is battling accusations of ties to the Ukrainian far right and of bias in its fact-checking, and that the International Fact-Checking Network is conducting an 'interim assessment' of StopFake. The IFCN is based at the Poynter Institute, which owns PolitiFact.) Other organizations have issued similar warnings about News Front. In August 2019, EUvsDisinfo, which says it responds to Russian disinformation against the EU, wrote that News Front operates from Crimea and 'has always been a reliable source of disinformation. The site... is ambitiously publishing lies in eight languages.' Coda Story, a nonprofit journalism site that focuses on in-depth reporting and fighting disinformation in Eurasia, reported from Crimea in 2018 on the leader of News Front. The pro-Moscow News Front has 'carved out a reputation for its staunchly pro-Kremlin line and a steady output of stories which media monitors such as Stop Fake say are false or deliberately inflammatory,' according to Coda Story. News Front did not reply to our requests for information. With no evidence to back a claim that was made by a source known for disinformation, we rate the claim False. | With no evidence to back a claim that was made by a source known for disinformation, we rate the claim False. | []
|
'American coronavirus vaccine killed five Ukrainians. | Contradiction | In June, 35% of Americans in one poll said they definitely won't or probably won't take a coronavirus vaccine, which has yet to be developed. In the same Fairleigh Dickinson University survey, 28% said they are not confident that a COVID-19 vaccine will be both effective and safe. Then this headline was widely shared on Facebook: 'American coronavirus vaccine killed five Ukrainians.' The headline appeared on a four-paragraph article posted July 18 on News Front, which calls itself a Crimea-based news agency. In 2014, the Crimea region of Ukraine was annexed by Russia, an act the United States considers illegal. 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 found multiple reports that News Front is known for producing pro-Russian disinformation, but no evidence to back the headline. 'I don't know of any Americans who have or who are doing COVID-19 vaccine testing in Ukraine,' Dr. Matthew Laurens of the University of Maryland School of Medicine's Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health told PolitiFact. Pursuit of a vaccine As we've reported, regarding a possible vaccine: Worldwide, as of early July, there were roughly 160 vaccine projects under way worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Scientists are expressing cautious optimism that a vaccine can be ready to go by the late spring of 2021, although it's unclear how much longer it would take to distribute the vaccine widely. Five possible vaccines, including one being developed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Cambridge, Mass.-based biotechnology firm Moderna, are in phase 3 clinical trials; once those trials are completed, they would be candidates for approval. Another 12 vaccines have begun phase 2 trials. And more than 100 other vaccines that haven't begun clinical trials are in the pipeline. No COVID-19 vaccine trials in Ukraine are listed in the federal ClinicalTrials.gov database, which tracks privately and publicly funded clinical studies conducted around the world; and none are listed in the ISRCTN registry, another global research registry. The article The article claims that, using a vaccine that had not been tested on people in the United States, American virologists tested residents in the area of the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. A spokesman for what was identified as the People's Militia of the LPR was quoted as saying that of 15 people tested, five died 'from complications caused by the infection.' Of the 15 allegedly tested, 10 were said to be from the Ukrainian military, as were four of the dead. LPR, which stands for Luhansk People's Republic, has asserted governmental authority over a region in eastern Ukraine without the authorization of the government of Ukraine since 2014, according to GlobalSecurity.org, which does research on homeland security and related topics. The ruble has mostly replaced the Ukrainian currency there and 'a strong pro-Russian and anti-Western ideology prevails,' according to Carnegie Europe, part of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, D.C. think tank. No confirmation Our searches of Google and Nexis turned up no mainstream news reports or other authoritative accounts of what was in the article. 'This is an obvious fake,' Peter Zalmayev, director of the Eurasia Democracy Initiative, told PolitiFact. Based in New York with staff in Ukraine, the group says it 'works to educate the public in the United States about the post-Communist world from the Balkans to Central Asia.' StopFake, a prominent fact-checking organization in Ukraine, reported that other websites in the LPR region and Russian news sites had carried similar articles about the alleged testing and deaths. It labeled the stories fake. 'The entire story is completely made up,' StopFake reported, based on an interview with a spokesperson for Ukraine's Armed Forces Medical Service Corps. The spokesperson noted that in recent months, no foreign medical specialists had visited Ukraine's military. News Front's reputation As for News Front, StopFake reported in May that it is 'a pro-Kremlin outlet with a record of publishing conspiratorial stories, including other fake news about the coronavirus.' (The New York Times reported that StopFake, hired earlier this year by Facebook to help curb the flow of Russian propaganda and other false news across its platform in Ukraine, is battling accusations of ties to the Ukrainian far right and of bias in its fact-checking, and that the International Fact-Checking Network is conducting an 'interim assessment' of StopFake. The IFCN is based at the Poynter Institute, which owns PolitiFact.) Other organizations have issued similar warnings about News Front. In August 2019, EUvsDisinfo, which says it responds to Russian disinformation against the EU, wrote that News Front operates from Crimea and 'has always been a reliable source of disinformation. The site... is ambitiously publishing lies in eight languages.' Coda Story, a nonprofit journalism site that focuses on in-depth reporting and fighting disinformation in Eurasia, reported from Crimea in 2018 on the leader of News Front. The pro-Moscow News Front has 'carved out a reputation for its staunchly pro-Kremlin line and a steady output of stories which media monitors such as Stop Fake say are false or deliberately inflammatory,' according to Coda Story. News Front did not reply to our requests for information. With no evidence to back a claim that was made by a source known for disinformation, we rate the claim False. | With no evidence to back a claim that was made by a source known for disinformation, we rate the claim False. | []
|
In the United Kingdom, '81% of COVID-19 deaths are among the vaccinated. | Contradiction | A long headline on a United Kingdom website painted an apocalyptic picture of the pandemic there, starting with this claim: 'The UK has Fallen - 81% of Covid-19 deaths are among the Vaccinated.' The article was from The Exposé, which says it was 'set up due to a lack of alternatives to the lying mainstream media.' The 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.) There are two things wrong. The claim refers to the UK, which comprises England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. But it cites statistics only for Scotland. A full reading of the statistics shows that the unvaccinated in Scotland die at a rate much higher than the fully vaccinated. Putting the statistic in context The article makes its claim by adding up figures in Table 18 from a Public Health Scotland report about COVID-19 deaths in Scotland from Aug. 21 to Sept. 17. Adding the columns of numbers in the table shows 302 deaths during the period and that 243, or nearly 81%, of the people were fully or partially vaccinated. The table itself tells a different story, however. It reports on the weekly death rates per 100,000 people during the period. For each of the four weeks, the death rate was lowest among people who had received two doses of the vaccine. In the final week of the period - Sept. 11-17 - the rate of death among the unvaccinated was calculated to be 8.38 per 100,000 people. That's more than four times higher than the rate for the fully vaccinated (1.93) and higher than the rate for people who had received one dose of vaccine (4.93). Text below the table states: 'Age-standardized mortality rates for COVID-19 deaths shown in Table 18 are lower for people who have received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine compared to individuals that are unvaccinated or have received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. This is comparable with data published by the Office for National Statistics which showed the risk of death involving COVID-19 was consistently lower for people who had received two vaccinations compared to one or no vaccination, as shown by the weekly age standardized mortality rates for deaths involving COVID-19.' The claim also ignores two other important points about vaccinations in Scotland that help explain why the raw number of deaths is higher among the vaccinated: The vast majority of residents are vaccinated. Of Scotland's population age 12 and over, 80.9% had received two vaccination doses as of Oct. 12, according to the UK Health Security Agency. Each of the other UK nations is within two percentage points of that rate. By comparison, 56% of the U.S. population was vaccinated as of Oct. 14, according to Our World in Data. Since Scotland rolled out vaccinations, 79.5% of the COVID-19 deaths are among people age 70 and over, according to the Scotland health report. | Our ruling A headline widely shared on Facebook claimed that in the United Kingdom, '81% of COVID-19 deaths are among the vaccinated.' The statistic alluded to by the claim applies to Scotland, not the entire United Kingdom, and it gives a misleading impression of what an official report says. The report says the rate of COVID-19 death in Scotland is much more likely among unvaccinated people. We rate the claim False. | []
|
In the United Kingdom, '81% of COVID-19 deaths are among the vaccinated. | Contradiction | A long headline on a United Kingdom website painted an apocalyptic picture of the pandemic there, starting with this claim: 'The UK has Fallen - 81% of Covid-19 deaths are among the Vaccinated.' The article was from The Exposé, which says it was 'set up due to a lack of alternatives to the lying mainstream media.' The 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.) There are two things wrong. The claim refers to the UK, which comprises England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. But it cites statistics only for Scotland. A full reading of the statistics shows that the unvaccinated in Scotland die at a rate much higher than the fully vaccinated. Putting the statistic in context The article makes its claim by adding up figures in Table 18 from a Public Health Scotland report about COVID-19 deaths in Scotland from Aug. 21 to Sept. 17. Adding the columns of numbers in the table shows 302 deaths during the period and that 243, or nearly 81%, of the people were fully or partially vaccinated. The table itself tells a different story, however. It reports on the weekly death rates per 100,000 people during the period. For each of the four weeks, the death rate was lowest among people who had received two doses of the vaccine. In the final week of the period - Sept. 11-17 - the rate of death among the unvaccinated was calculated to be 8.38 per 100,000 people. That's more than four times higher than the rate for the fully vaccinated (1.93) and higher than the rate for people who had received one dose of vaccine (4.93). Text below the table states: 'Age-standardized mortality rates for COVID-19 deaths shown in Table 18 are lower for people who have received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine compared to individuals that are unvaccinated or have received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. This is comparable with data published by the Office for National Statistics which showed the risk of death involving COVID-19 was consistently lower for people who had received two vaccinations compared to one or no vaccination, as shown by the weekly age standardized mortality rates for deaths involving COVID-19.' The claim also ignores two other important points about vaccinations in Scotland that help explain why the raw number of deaths is higher among the vaccinated: The vast majority of residents are vaccinated. Of Scotland's population age 12 and over, 80.9% had received two vaccination doses as of Oct. 12, according to the UK Health Security Agency. Each of the other UK nations is within two percentage points of that rate. By comparison, 56% of the U.S. population was vaccinated as of Oct. 14, according to Our World in Data. Since Scotland rolled out vaccinations, 79.5% of the COVID-19 deaths are among people age 70 and over, according to the Scotland health report. | Our ruling A headline widely shared on Facebook claimed that in the United Kingdom, '81% of COVID-19 deaths are among the vaccinated.' The statistic alluded to by the claim applies to Scotland, not the entire United Kingdom, and it gives a misleading impression of what an official report says. The report says the rate of COVID-19 death in Scotland is much more likely among unvaccinated people. We rate the claim False. | []
|
'They're unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends because the emergency ends with it. | Contradiction | The U.S. and the U.K. approved the first COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use months ago, clearing the way for the millions of people to be inoculated. Now, social media users are falling for posts that claim, wrongly, that the vaccines' emergency approvals are a sign that government-imposed 'lockdown' measures are here to say. 'The vaccine is authorised for emergency use only and still in live clinical trials until 2023,' says a March 25 tweet from a British poster. 'They're unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends because the emergency ends with it. Hence why, lockdowns won't end anytime soon.' A screenshot of the March 25 tweet about vaccines and lockdowns. That's not true, public health experts said. In both the U.S. and the U.K., the authorizations for the vaccine are not tied to stay-at-home orders and other restrictions to limit the virus' spread. But the tweet spread widely online, with screenshots of it posted on Facebook and Instagram receiving thousands of interactions, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. 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.) Social media users left comments on Facebook and Instagram indicating that they thought the claim was about the U.S., but the person who authored the original tweet told PolitiFact he was posting from the U.K. So, PolitiFact spoke to experts and government regulatory agencies from both countries. A screenshot of an Instagram post sharing the March 25 tweet about vaccines and lockdowns. We found that no matter which side of the Atlantic Ocean you're on, it's inaccurate to say that 'they're unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends.' Asked for evidence to support the claim, the person behind the tweet did not provide any. He later said in a direct message on Twitter: 'To be clear, I have no idea if this is correct or not.' The state of the pandemic One problem with the tweet is the claim that 'lockdowns won't end anytime soon.' The U.K. is starting to ease the restrictions imposed by law in January to limit gatherings and minimize the virus' spread - restrictions that news outlets have referred to as a lockdown. But in the U.S., there is no nationwide lockdown and never was. Masks are currently required in about half the states, but businesses across the country are mostly open, and no state is enforcing a mandatory curfew or stay-at-home order, according to the New York Times. 'The U.S. government hasn't locked anything down,' said John Grabenstein, associate director for scientific communications at the Immunization Action Coalition. Ending lockdowns doesn't mean losing the ability to vaccinate The main problem with the tweet, however, is the inaccurate claim that lifting restrictions would mean losing the ability to continue vaccinating the population against COVID-19. There is no connection between lockdowns and vaccine administration - in either country. In both the U.K. and the U.S., regulators granted emergency use authorization to manufacturers such as Pfizer after their COVID-19 vaccines were proven in trials to be safe and effective. The manufacturers will continue monitoring participants in their final clinical trials, as the tweet says. 'Each of the companies wants to get full licensing,' Grabenstein said, adding that they are 'well on their way' toward doing so. 'The government wants them to earn their license.' However, the emergency use authorizations that greenlighted the vaccines don't make the U.S. and U.K. 'unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends,' experts agreed. Emergency use authorizations in the U.S. In the U.S., stay-at-home orders and other restrictions are handed down at the state and local levels, while the emergency use authorizations for the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines were provided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a federal agency. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration building in Silver Spring, Md., on Dec. 10, 2020. (AP) The emergency approval has 'nothing' to do with lockdowns, said Andrew Noymer, associate professor of population health and disease prevention at the University of California, Irvine. Instead, emergency use authorizations are temporary licenses granted while manufacturers collect more data and apply for full licenses, Noymer said. The FDA can grant them if the health and human services secretary has declared that a public health emergency justifies it. Alex Azar, the secretary under the Trump administration, made such a declaration Feb. 4, 2020. In a statement to PolitiFact, the FDA said that unless they are revoked, the emergency use authorizations will remain in effect until the public health emergency declaration is lifted. 'The vaccines can be used under an emergency use authorization as long as there is a declared emergency,' said Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at Johns Hopkins University. 'But a declared emergency does not require that there be 'lockdowns.' There can still be a declared emergency and vaccination without 'lockdowns.'' In 2009, for example, the FDA granted several emergency use authorizations related to the swine flu, but the country never locked down. Emergency use authorizations in the U.K. In the U.K., regulators at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency granted emergency approval to vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and Oxford University. Such temporary licenses are allowed under British law during a public health emergency and while the full licensing process runs its course. In 2020, the law was amended to make them 'as similar to a usual marketing authorization as possible,' an MHRA spokesperson said. The COVID-19 restrictions constituting a lockdown, however, were voted on by Parliament. As in the U.S., lockdowns have no bearing on those emergency approvals, experts said. 'I am 99.9999% certain that emergency use does not equal a period of lockdown, said John Edmunds, professor of epidemiology and population health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, adding that the concept of emergency use has been around for years. It wouldn't make sense for any government to 'bind its hands' by tying lockdowns to the ability to continue administering vaccines, Grabenstein added. The MHRA's conditions for authorizing the COVID-19 vaccines say the approvals 'will be valid until expressly withdrawn by MHRA or upon issue of a full market authorisation by the MHRA.' Given that language and other language on the MHRA's website, the duration of the temporary license appears to be within the MHRA's discretion, said Christopher Newdick, a professor of medical law and contract law at the University of Reading. 'It is not tied to the duration of the emergency lockdown described by the COVID regulations,' Newdick said. 'So the licensing status of the vaccines is subject to a different range of considerations to do with safety and efficacy and a different timescale.' | Our ruling Social media posts said 'they're unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends because the emergency ends with it.' That's inaccurate in both the U.S. and the U.K., where emergency approvals were granted to vaccine manufacturers separate from any decisions to impose restrictions meant to thwart the virus. The person behind the original tweet admitted: 'I have no idea if this is correct or not.' We rate this post False. | [
"108245-proof-09-46a276449edd02722b8e68be3df7ce35.jpg",
"108245-proof-18-AP_21035813460029.jpg"
]
|
'They're unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends because the emergency ends with it. | Contradiction | The U.S. and the U.K. approved the first COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use months ago, clearing the way for the millions of people to be inoculated. Now, social media users are falling for posts that claim, wrongly, that the vaccines' emergency approvals are a sign that government-imposed 'lockdown' measures are here to say. 'The vaccine is authorised for emergency use only and still in live clinical trials until 2023,' says a March 25 tweet from a British poster. 'They're unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends because the emergency ends with it. Hence why, lockdowns won't end anytime soon.' A screenshot of the March 25 tweet about vaccines and lockdowns. That's not true, public health experts said. In both the U.S. and the U.K., the authorizations for the vaccine are not tied to stay-at-home orders and other restrictions to limit the virus' spread. But the tweet spread widely online, with screenshots of it posted on Facebook and Instagram receiving thousands of interactions, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. 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.) Social media users left comments on Facebook and Instagram indicating that they thought the claim was about the U.S., but the person who authored the original tweet told PolitiFact he was posting from the U.K. So, PolitiFact spoke to experts and government regulatory agencies from both countries. A screenshot of an Instagram post sharing the March 25 tweet about vaccines and lockdowns. We found that no matter which side of the Atlantic Ocean you're on, it's inaccurate to say that 'they're unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends.' Asked for evidence to support the claim, the person behind the tweet did not provide any. He later said in a direct message on Twitter: 'To be clear, I have no idea if this is correct or not.' The state of the pandemic One problem with the tweet is the claim that 'lockdowns won't end anytime soon.' The U.K. is starting to ease the restrictions imposed by law in January to limit gatherings and minimize the virus' spread - restrictions that news outlets have referred to as a lockdown. But in the U.S., there is no nationwide lockdown and never was. Masks are currently required in about half the states, but businesses across the country are mostly open, and no state is enforcing a mandatory curfew or stay-at-home order, according to the New York Times. 'The U.S. government hasn't locked anything down,' said John Grabenstein, associate director for scientific communications at the Immunization Action Coalition. Ending lockdowns doesn't mean losing the ability to vaccinate The main problem with the tweet, however, is the inaccurate claim that lifting restrictions would mean losing the ability to continue vaccinating the population against COVID-19. There is no connection between lockdowns and vaccine administration - in either country. In both the U.K. and the U.S., regulators granted emergency use authorization to manufacturers such as Pfizer after their COVID-19 vaccines were proven in trials to be safe and effective. The manufacturers will continue monitoring participants in their final clinical trials, as the tweet says. 'Each of the companies wants to get full licensing,' Grabenstein said, adding that they are 'well on their way' toward doing so. 'The government wants them to earn their license.' However, the emergency use authorizations that greenlighted the vaccines don't make the U.S. and U.K. 'unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends,' experts agreed. Emergency use authorizations in the U.S. In the U.S., stay-at-home orders and other restrictions are handed down at the state and local levels, while the emergency use authorizations for the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines were provided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a federal agency. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration building in Silver Spring, Md., on Dec. 10, 2020. (AP) The emergency approval has 'nothing' to do with lockdowns, said Andrew Noymer, associate professor of population health and disease prevention at the University of California, Irvine. Instead, emergency use authorizations are temporary licenses granted while manufacturers collect more data and apply for full licenses, Noymer said. The FDA can grant them if the health and human services secretary has declared that a public health emergency justifies it. Alex Azar, the secretary under the Trump administration, made such a declaration Feb. 4, 2020. In a statement to PolitiFact, the FDA said that unless they are revoked, the emergency use authorizations will remain in effect until the public health emergency declaration is lifted. 'The vaccines can be used under an emergency use authorization as long as there is a declared emergency,' said Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at Johns Hopkins University. 'But a declared emergency does not require that there be 'lockdowns.' There can still be a declared emergency and vaccination without 'lockdowns.'' In 2009, for example, the FDA granted several emergency use authorizations related to the swine flu, but the country never locked down. Emergency use authorizations in the U.K. In the U.K., regulators at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency granted emergency approval to vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and Oxford University. Such temporary licenses are allowed under British law during a public health emergency and while the full licensing process runs its course. In 2020, the law was amended to make them 'as similar to a usual marketing authorization as possible,' an MHRA spokesperson said. The COVID-19 restrictions constituting a lockdown, however, were voted on by Parliament. As in the U.S., lockdowns have no bearing on those emergency approvals, experts said. 'I am 99.9999% certain that emergency use does not equal a period of lockdown, said John Edmunds, professor of epidemiology and population health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, adding that the concept of emergency use has been around for years. It wouldn't make sense for any government to 'bind its hands' by tying lockdowns to the ability to continue administering vaccines, Grabenstein added. The MHRA's conditions for authorizing the COVID-19 vaccines say the approvals 'will be valid until expressly withdrawn by MHRA or upon issue of a full market authorisation by the MHRA.' Given that language and other language on the MHRA's website, the duration of the temporary license appears to be within the MHRA's discretion, said Christopher Newdick, a professor of medical law and contract law at the University of Reading. 'It is not tied to the duration of the emergency lockdown described by the COVID regulations,' Newdick said. 'So the licensing status of the vaccines is subject to a different range of considerations to do with safety and efficacy and a different timescale.' | Our ruling Social media posts said 'they're unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends because the emergency ends with it.' That's inaccurate in both the U.S. and the U.K., where emergency approvals were granted to vaccine manufacturers separate from any decisions to impose restrictions meant to thwart the virus. The person behind the original tweet admitted: 'I have no idea if this is correct or not.' We rate this post False. | [
"108245-proof-09-46a276449edd02722b8e68be3df7ce35.jpg",
"108245-proof-18-AP_21035813460029.jpg"
]
|
'They're unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends because the emergency ends with it. | Contradiction | The U.S. and the U.K. approved the first COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use months ago, clearing the way for the millions of people to be inoculated. Now, social media users are falling for posts that claim, wrongly, that the vaccines' emergency approvals are a sign that government-imposed 'lockdown' measures are here to say. 'The vaccine is authorised for emergency use only and still in live clinical trials until 2023,' says a March 25 tweet from a British poster. 'They're unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends because the emergency ends with it. Hence why, lockdowns won't end anytime soon.' A screenshot of the March 25 tweet about vaccines and lockdowns. That's not true, public health experts said. In both the U.S. and the U.K., the authorizations for the vaccine are not tied to stay-at-home orders and other restrictions to limit the virus' spread. But the tweet spread widely online, with screenshots of it posted on Facebook and Instagram receiving thousands of interactions, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool. 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.) Social media users left comments on Facebook and Instagram indicating that they thought the claim was about the U.S., but the person who authored the original tweet told PolitiFact he was posting from the U.K. So, PolitiFact spoke to experts and government regulatory agencies from both countries. A screenshot of an Instagram post sharing the March 25 tweet about vaccines and lockdowns. We found that no matter which side of the Atlantic Ocean you're on, it's inaccurate to say that 'they're unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends.' Asked for evidence to support the claim, the person behind the tweet did not provide any. He later said in a direct message on Twitter: 'To be clear, I have no idea if this is correct or not.' The state of the pandemic One problem with the tweet is the claim that 'lockdowns won't end anytime soon.' The U.K. is starting to ease the restrictions imposed by law in January to limit gatherings and minimize the virus' spread - restrictions that news outlets have referred to as a lockdown. But in the U.S., there is no nationwide lockdown and never was. Masks are currently required in about half the states, but businesses across the country are mostly open, and no state is enforcing a mandatory curfew or stay-at-home order, according to the New York Times. 'The U.S. government hasn't locked anything down,' said John Grabenstein, associate director for scientific communications at the Immunization Action Coalition. Ending lockdowns doesn't mean losing the ability to vaccinate The main problem with the tweet, however, is the inaccurate claim that lifting restrictions would mean losing the ability to continue vaccinating the population against COVID-19. There is no connection between lockdowns and vaccine administration - in either country. In both the U.K. and the U.S., regulators granted emergency use authorization to manufacturers such as Pfizer after their COVID-19 vaccines were proven in trials to be safe and effective. The manufacturers will continue monitoring participants in their final clinical trials, as the tweet says. 'Each of the companies wants to get full licensing,' Grabenstein said, adding that they are 'well on their way' toward doing so. 'The government wants them to earn their license.' However, the emergency use authorizations that greenlighted the vaccines don't make the U.S. and U.K. 'unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends,' experts agreed. Emergency use authorizations in the U.S. In the U.S., stay-at-home orders and other restrictions are handed down at the state and local levels, while the emergency use authorizations for the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines were provided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a federal agency. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration building in Silver Spring, Md., on Dec. 10, 2020. (AP) The emergency approval has 'nothing' to do with lockdowns, said Andrew Noymer, associate professor of population health and disease prevention at the University of California, Irvine. Instead, emergency use authorizations are temporary licenses granted while manufacturers collect more data and apply for full licenses, Noymer said. The FDA can grant them if the health and human services secretary has declared that a public health emergency justifies it. Alex Azar, the secretary under the Trump administration, made such a declaration Feb. 4, 2020. In a statement to PolitiFact, the FDA said that unless they are revoked, the emergency use authorizations will remain in effect until the public health emergency declaration is lifted. 'The vaccines can be used under an emergency use authorization as long as there is a declared emergency,' said Joshua Sharfstein, vice dean for public health practice and community engagement at Johns Hopkins University. 'But a declared emergency does not require that there be 'lockdowns.' There can still be a declared emergency and vaccination without 'lockdowns.'' In 2009, for example, the FDA granted several emergency use authorizations related to the swine flu, but the country never locked down. Emergency use authorizations in the U.K. In the U.K., regulators at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency granted emergency approval to vaccines from Pfizer, Moderna and Oxford University. Such temporary licenses are allowed under British law during a public health emergency and while the full licensing process runs its course. In 2020, the law was amended to make them 'as similar to a usual marketing authorization as possible,' an MHRA spokesperson said. The COVID-19 restrictions constituting a lockdown, however, were voted on by Parliament. As in the U.S., lockdowns have no bearing on those emergency approvals, experts said. 'I am 99.9999% certain that emergency use does not equal a period of lockdown, said John Edmunds, professor of epidemiology and population health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, adding that the concept of emergency use has been around for years. It wouldn't make sense for any government to 'bind its hands' by tying lockdowns to the ability to continue administering vaccines, Grabenstein added. The MHRA's conditions for authorizing the COVID-19 vaccines say the approvals 'will be valid until expressly withdrawn by MHRA or upon issue of a full market authorisation by the MHRA.' Given that language and other language on the MHRA's website, the duration of the temporary license appears to be within the MHRA's discretion, said Christopher Newdick, a professor of medical law and contract law at the University of Reading. 'It is not tied to the duration of the emergency lockdown described by the COVID regulations,' Newdick said. 'So the licensing status of the vaccines is subject to a different range of considerations to do with safety and efficacy and a different timescale.' | Our ruling Social media posts said 'they're unable to administer vaccines if the lockdown ends because the emergency ends with it.' That's inaccurate in both the U.S. and the U.K., where emergency approvals were granted to vaccine manufacturers separate from any decisions to impose restrictions meant to thwart the virus. The person behind the original tweet admitted: 'I have no idea if this is correct or not.' We rate this post False. | [
"108245-proof-09-46a276449edd02722b8e68be3df7ce35.jpg",
"108245-proof-18-AP_21035813460029.jpg"
]
|
'It is the vaccinated, NOT the unvaccinated, spreading mutant variants. | Contradiction | A Facebook post authored by someone touting toxicology credentials joined the growing field of inaccurate claims that falsely blame the vaccine for a pandemic that has stretched into a second year. 'It is the vaccinated, NOT the unvaccinated, spreading mutant variants,' the post reads. The Aug. 13 post was a screenshot of information that appeared to be originally shared by Janci Lindsay, who describes herself as managing director of Toxicology Support Services, LLC. A website for that business states that Lindsay holds a doctorate in biochemistry and molecular biology. The post attributed to her read, 'This is from inoculating during the pandemic with a poor neutralizing 'vaccine.' This is what has happened with numerous other 'leaky' (non-neutralizing) vaccines.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This isn't the first time claims attributed to Lindsay have been fact-checked. Agence France Presse previously fact checked a video in which someone who identifies herself as Lindsay falsely said vaccines could end up sterilizing 'an entire generation.' A variant of a virus is one that has mutated in a way that bolsters its spread or severity compared with the original strain that emerged in Wuhan, China. RNA viruses like a coronavirus can mutate when they replicate, especially when circulating at high rates. Dr. Daniel B. Fagbuyi, an emergency room physician and former Obama administration appointee to the National Biodefense Science Board, said the Facebook claim's blanket statement that vaccinations are causing the unvaccinated to get sick misses a key point about when and how the variants developed and spread. 'If that were the case, based on all the other (COVID-19) cases, we wouldn't have seen all these variants before we got the vaccines,' Fagbuyi said. Fagbuyi mentioned the first variant of COVID-19, called B.1.1.7 or the alpha variant, as an example. The alpha variant first emerged in the United Kingdom in September 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It spread across 30 countries, including the United States. Likewise, the World Health Organization reports that other variants such as beta and gamma were first documented in May and November of 2020, respectively. All three of these strains appear to have emerged before the United Kingdom became the first country to approve a COVID-19 vaccine tested in a large clinical trial. While research has found that vaccinated people who become infected with COVID-19 can transmit the virus to others, there is no indication that they are doing it at a faster rate than unvaccinated people. On the contrary, Dr. Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, pointed out that the newest and most dangerous variant spread most rapidly through unvaccinated populations. 'The delta variant emerged in a largely unvaccinated country,' Adalja said, referring to India, where the variant drove soaring case rates starting in the spring of 2021. 'The more the virus spreads, the more chance there is for variants to emerge.' In her post, Lindsay pointed to Marek's disease in chickens as what she said is a 'classic example' of what is happening with the COVID-19 vaccine and variants. Marek's disease is a highly contagious form of herpes found in chicken dander, and is capable of causing widespread paralysis and death in unvaccinated chickens. A 2015 study showed that chickens immunized against Marek's disease lived longer, but infection wasn't prevented and the virus continued to evolve and spread to other chickens. But the person who wrote the Marek's disease study, Andrew Read, director of the Huck Institutes for the Life Sciences at Penn State University, said Lindsay's claim citing his study muddles the facts and misapplies his work. Marek's disease and COVID-19 are totally different viruses, with different vaccines and different hosts, he said. Read pointed to an article describing a scientific analysis of how rapidly the delta variant spread during an outbreak in Guangdong, China. The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, found that while it is possible for vaccinated people to transmit the delta variant, unvaccinated people or people who only had one dose of the vaccine were much more likely to transmit the virus than those who were fully vaccinated. 'We simply have no idea at the moment how much transmission is coming from vaccinated people, but to the extent that vaccines stop people getting infected in the first place and then shorten infectious periods and lower virus titers (levels of the virus), then, by definition, less spread is coming from vaccinated people,' Read said. Towards the end of her claim, Lindsay stated that vaccines should stop and be replaced with treatment of 'cheap, safe and effective hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin until the virus is driven out.' PolitiFact has previously fact-checked claims on both of these medicines, and reported that the FDA revoked its approval of hydroxychloroquine in June 2020 due to its ineffectiveness in treating COVID-19, and did not approve of ivermectin as a treatment because it is not a drug used to treat viral infections, and large doses of it can be dangerous. PolitiFact reached out to Lindsay for a request to comment, and she stood by her full claim. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that it is vaccinated people, not unvaccinated, who spread mutant variants of COVID-19. Alpha, beta, gamma and delta variants were first detected in unvaccinated populations. Most variants were detected before vaccines were even approved for use and they have accelerated in unvaccinated populations. While research has found that vaccinated people who become infected with COVID-19 are able to transmit the virus, studies also show that unvaccinated people are far more likely to contract and spread the delta variant than vaccinated people. We rate this claim False. PolitiFact staff researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report. | [
"108258-proof-14-30f7b380919d24eed1478ee137795ce8.jpg"
]
|
'It is the vaccinated, NOT the unvaccinated, spreading mutant variants. | Contradiction | A Facebook post authored by someone touting toxicology credentials joined the growing field of inaccurate claims that falsely blame the vaccine for a pandemic that has stretched into a second year. 'It is the vaccinated, NOT the unvaccinated, spreading mutant variants,' the post reads. The Aug. 13 post was a screenshot of information that appeared to be originally shared by Janci Lindsay, who describes herself as managing director of Toxicology Support Services, LLC. A website for that business states that Lindsay holds a doctorate in biochemistry and molecular biology. The post attributed to her read, 'This is from inoculating during the pandemic with a poor neutralizing 'vaccine.' This is what has happened with numerous other 'leaky' (non-neutralizing) vaccines.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This isn't the first time claims attributed to Lindsay have been fact-checked. Agence France Presse previously fact checked a video in which someone who identifies herself as Lindsay falsely said vaccines could end up sterilizing 'an entire generation.' A variant of a virus is one that has mutated in a way that bolsters its spread or severity compared with the original strain that emerged in Wuhan, China. RNA viruses like a coronavirus can mutate when they replicate, especially when circulating at high rates. Dr. Daniel B. Fagbuyi, an emergency room physician and former Obama administration appointee to the National Biodefense Science Board, said the Facebook claim's blanket statement that vaccinations are causing the unvaccinated to get sick misses a key point about when and how the variants developed and spread. 'If that were the case, based on all the other (COVID-19) cases, we wouldn't have seen all these variants before we got the vaccines,' Fagbuyi said. Fagbuyi mentioned the first variant of COVID-19, called B.1.1.7 or the alpha variant, as an example. The alpha variant first emerged in the United Kingdom in September 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It spread across 30 countries, including the United States. Likewise, the World Health Organization reports that other variants such as beta and gamma were first documented in May and November of 2020, respectively. All three of these strains appear to have emerged before the United Kingdom became the first country to approve a COVID-19 vaccine tested in a large clinical trial. While research has found that vaccinated people who become infected with COVID-19 can transmit the virus to others, there is no indication that they are doing it at a faster rate than unvaccinated people. On the contrary, Dr. Amesh Adalja, senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, pointed out that the newest and most dangerous variant spread most rapidly through unvaccinated populations. 'The delta variant emerged in a largely unvaccinated country,' Adalja said, referring to India, where the variant drove soaring case rates starting in the spring of 2021. 'The more the virus spreads, the more chance there is for variants to emerge.' In her post, Lindsay pointed to Marek's disease in chickens as what she said is a 'classic example' of what is happening with the COVID-19 vaccine and variants. Marek's disease is a highly contagious form of herpes found in chicken dander, and is capable of causing widespread paralysis and death in unvaccinated chickens. A 2015 study showed that chickens immunized against Marek's disease lived longer, but infection wasn't prevented and the virus continued to evolve and spread to other chickens. But the person who wrote the Marek's disease study, Andrew Read, director of the Huck Institutes for the Life Sciences at Penn State University, said Lindsay's claim citing his study muddles the facts and misapplies his work. Marek's disease and COVID-19 are totally different viruses, with different vaccines and different hosts, he said. Read pointed to an article describing a scientific analysis of how rapidly the delta variant spread during an outbreak in Guangdong, China. The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, found that while it is possible for vaccinated people to transmit the delta variant, unvaccinated people or people who only had one dose of the vaccine were much more likely to transmit the virus than those who were fully vaccinated. 'We simply have no idea at the moment how much transmission is coming from vaccinated people, but to the extent that vaccines stop people getting infected in the first place and then shorten infectious periods and lower virus titers (levels of the virus), then, by definition, less spread is coming from vaccinated people,' Read said. Towards the end of her claim, Lindsay stated that vaccines should stop and be replaced with treatment of 'cheap, safe and effective hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin until the virus is driven out.' PolitiFact has previously fact-checked claims on both of these medicines, and reported that the FDA revoked its approval of hydroxychloroquine in June 2020 due to its ineffectiveness in treating COVID-19, and did not approve of ivermectin as a treatment because it is not a drug used to treat viral infections, and large doses of it can be dangerous. PolitiFact reached out to Lindsay for a request to comment, and she stood by her full claim. | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed that it is vaccinated people, not unvaccinated, who spread mutant variants of COVID-19. Alpha, beta, gamma and delta variants were first detected in unvaccinated populations. Most variants were detected before vaccines were even approved for use and they have accelerated in unvaccinated populations. While research has found that vaccinated people who become infected with COVID-19 are able to transmit the virus, studies also show that unvaccinated people are far more likely to contract and spread the delta variant than vaccinated people. We rate this claim False. PolitiFact staff researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report. | [
"108258-proof-14-30f7b380919d24eed1478ee137795ce8.jpg"
]
|
'Trump supporters tackled an Antifa thug, unmasked him, duct taped him to an electrical box. | Contradiction | 'Outstanding,' begins a congratulatory message quoting an 'Antifa page.' 'Trump supporters tackled an Antifa thug, unmasked him, duct taped him to an electrical box, placed a dildo on his head & wrote 'I'm a unicorn' on him..' The image being shared on Facebook shows, well, a person taped to what looks like an electrical box with the words 'I'm an unicorn!!' written on the tape. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image isn't from the recent unrest stemming from the death of George Floyd, who was killed after a police officer pressed his knee into Floyd's neck. We did a reverse image search of the photo and found it online as early as 2015 with this caption: 'It's Friday b-.' It re-emerged in March 2018 with this caption: 'Me: I'm not gonna drink tonight guys. 4 hours later:' When Snopes fact-checked the image in 2017, the fact-checking website found that the image was part of a street art series created by an artist named Rallitox. A photo posted on Rallitox's Instagram shows the scene from a different angle, and 'Rallitox' can be seen written below 'I'm an unicorn!!' The caption says: 'Human sticker serie. I'm aN unicorn!! Berlin 2015.' We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
'In Nevada, they want to have a thing where you don't have to have any verification of the signature' on ballots. | Contradiction | As President Donald Trump has lobbed attacks on mail in voting this election year, the battleground state of Nevada has become a frequent target of his often misinformed claims on the subject. 'In Nevada, they want to have a thing where you don't have to have any verification of the signature. It is so terrible,' Trump said a New Hampshire rally Oct. 25. It wasn't immediately clear from his remarks, but Trump's campaign told us the president was referring to his campaign's recent litigation over signature verification procedures in Clark County, Nev., the state's most populous county. But we found no evidence that the state or county wants to get rid of signature verification. Trump campaign's recent lawsuit in Clark County In August, a day after Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak signed legislation known as AB 4 into law, the Trump campaign sued Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske seeking to block it. The pandemic era elections bill provided, among other things, that active voters would automatically receive ballots in the mail. At Cegavske's urging, a federal judge dismissed the Trump campaign's lawsuit. But Trump continued to attack Nevada's voting by mail system with false attacks about signature requirements. The website of Cegavske's office says that 'signature verification is performed on every ballot received. If the signature is missing or if the signature on the ballot return envelope does not match the signature on file for the voter, the ballot will not be counted until the voter verifies their signature.' The state has procedures in place for voters to 'cure' or fix their ballot if the signature was missing or didn't match. This is common for checking signatures across states. On Oct. 23, the Trump campaign filed another lawsuit, this time against Cegavske and the registrar of voters for Clark County related to ballot signatures. That's what the president was talking about in New Hampshire, his campaign said, when he again alleged the state doesn't 'want' any signature verification on ballots. 'We basically have no signature requirement because the system is so lax that virtually all signatures are currently counted in Clark County,' Adam Lexalt, the state's former attorney general and Trump campaign chair, told PolitiFact. This lawsuit alleges that Clark County election officials positioned observers in such a way that they can't fully see the review of ballots, including decisions related to ballots with signature issues. The lawsuit also says that county officials have used a low standard to verify signatures. Clark County is using the Agilis ballot sorting machine as a first step to match voters' signatures on their ballot envelopes. If the machine finds that the signature doesn't match the voter's signature on record, then it is reviewed by elections officials in person. Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, is the only Nevada county to use the machine to verify signatures. The Trump campaign lawsuit alleges that 'it is more likely that fraudulent and improper ballots are being tabulated by Clark County' but includes no proof that any fraudulent ballots were accepted. The lawsuit zeroes in on something referred to as the 'tolerance level' setting on the machines to determine whether signatures match. The lawsuit says the county registrar, Joseph Gloria, intentionally lowered the manufacturer's recommended tolerance level to 40 to decrease the number of rejected ballots. A setting of zero would allow through any ballot while the maximum setting is 100. A spokesperson for the county elections office, Dan Kulin, said that there is no manufacturer's recommended setting, but confirmed that Clark County uses a setting of 40. We reached out to the manufacturer to ask questions about the settings but didn't hear back. 'To determine what score to use, we ran tests of the system and concluded that 40 would accept all the signatures that are obvious matches,' Kulin said. 'Signatures that don't meet that score are reviewed by our manual processes and may be rejected.' The program compares the writing style, the slant of the letters, and how someone crosses their t's as part of determining the score of the signature. So far about 30% of the signatures are being automatically authenticated, Kulin said. For those that aren't authenticated by the machine, the signatures are verified by local elections workers. The Republicans' lawsuit, still pending, doesn't include any documentation from the manufacturer about the settings or proof that the setting used by Clark County is flawed. Instead, it points to the low number of rejected ballots as evidence: As of Oct. 22, 1.45% of ballots in Clark County had been returned for signature issues compared to 3.78% in Churchill County, which doesn't use the machine, according to the lawsuit. But the lawsuit cherrypicks by choosing Churchill, the county with the highest rate of ballots needing signature cures. | Our ruling Trump said 'in Nevada, they want to have a thing where you don't have to have any verification of the signature.' Trump's campaign said he was referring to a lawsuit challenging ballot processing procedures in Clark County. The Trump campaign's Oct. 23 lawsuit challenges the county's use of a machine to help flag signature issues on ballots. The case is pending, so it will be up to a judge to decide if any of the arguments have merit. Republicans argue that the fact that only 1.45% of ballots in Clark County needed signature cures translates to a watered down signature requirement. But criticizing the use of the county's procedures isn't evidence that the county wants no verification of signatures. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"108311-proof-30-51ee9cfeff0adb2edec152970fcd5c5b.jpg"
]
|
'In Nevada, they want to have a thing where you don't have to have any verification of the signature' on ballots. | Contradiction | As President Donald Trump has lobbed attacks on mail in voting this election year, the battleground state of Nevada has become a frequent target of his often misinformed claims on the subject. 'In Nevada, they want to have a thing where you don't have to have any verification of the signature. It is so terrible,' Trump said a New Hampshire rally Oct. 25. It wasn't immediately clear from his remarks, but Trump's campaign told us the president was referring to his campaign's recent litigation over signature verification procedures in Clark County, Nev., the state's most populous county. But we found no evidence that the state or county wants to get rid of signature verification. Trump campaign's recent lawsuit in Clark County In August, a day after Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak signed legislation known as AB 4 into law, the Trump campaign sued Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske seeking to block it. The pandemic era elections bill provided, among other things, that active voters would automatically receive ballots in the mail. At Cegavske's urging, a federal judge dismissed the Trump campaign's lawsuit. But Trump continued to attack Nevada's voting by mail system with false attacks about signature requirements. The website of Cegavske's office says that 'signature verification is performed on every ballot received. If the signature is missing or if the signature on the ballot return envelope does not match the signature on file for the voter, the ballot will not be counted until the voter verifies their signature.' The state has procedures in place for voters to 'cure' or fix their ballot if the signature was missing or didn't match. This is common for checking signatures across states. On Oct. 23, the Trump campaign filed another lawsuit, this time against Cegavske and the registrar of voters for Clark County related to ballot signatures. That's what the president was talking about in New Hampshire, his campaign said, when he again alleged the state doesn't 'want' any signature verification on ballots. 'We basically have no signature requirement because the system is so lax that virtually all signatures are currently counted in Clark County,' Adam Lexalt, the state's former attorney general and Trump campaign chair, told PolitiFact. This lawsuit alleges that Clark County election officials positioned observers in such a way that they can't fully see the review of ballots, including decisions related to ballots with signature issues. The lawsuit also says that county officials have used a low standard to verify signatures. Clark County is using the Agilis ballot sorting machine as a first step to match voters' signatures on their ballot envelopes. If the machine finds that the signature doesn't match the voter's signature on record, then it is reviewed by elections officials in person. Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, is the only Nevada county to use the machine to verify signatures. The Trump campaign lawsuit alleges that 'it is more likely that fraudulent and improper ballots are being tabulated by Clark County' but includes no proof that any fraudulent ballots were accepted. The lawsuit zeroes in on something referred to as the 'tolerance level' setting on the machines to determine whether signatures match. The lawsuit says the county registrar, Joseph Gloria, intentionally lowered the manufacturer's recommended tolerance level to 40 to decrease the number of rejected ballots. A setting of zero would allow through any ballot while the maximum setting is 100. A spokesperson for the county elections office, Dan Kulin, said that there is no manufacturer's recommended setting, but confirmed that Clark County uses a setting of 40. We reached out to the manufacturer to ask questions about the settings but didn't hear back. 'To determine what score to use, we ran tests of the system and concluded that 40 would accept all the signatures that are obvious matches,' Kulin said. 'Signatures that don't meet that score are reviewed by our manual processes and may be rejected.' The program compares the writing style, the slant of the letters, and how someone crosses their t's as part of determining the score of the signature. So far about 30% of the signatures are being automatically authenticated, Kulin said. For those that aren't authenticated by the machine, the signatures are verified by local elections workers. The Republicans' lawsuit, still pending, doesn't include any documentation from the manufacturer about the settings or proof that the setting used by Clark County is flawed. Instead, it points to the low number of rejected ballots as evidence: As of Oct. 22, 1.45% of ballots in Clark County had been returned for signature issues compared to 3.78% in Churchill County, which doesn't use the machine, according to the lawsuit. But the lawsuit cherrypicks by choosing Churchill, the county with the highest rate of ballots needing signature cures. | Our ruling Trump said 'in Nevada, they want to have a thing where you don't have to have any verification of the signature.' Trump's campaign said he was referring to a lawsuit challenging ballot processing procedures in Clark County. The Trump campaign's Oct. 23 lawsuit challenges the county's use of a machine to help flag signature issues on ballots. The case is pending, so it will be up to a judge to decide if any of the arguments have merit. Republicans argue that the fact that only 1.45% of ballots in Clark County needed signature cures translates to a watered down signature requirement. But criticizing the use of the county's procedures isn't evidence that the county wants no verification of signatures. We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | [
"108311-proof-30-51ee9cfeff0adb2edec152970fcd5c5b.jpg"
]
|
'Something less than 6% ... of this proposal that President Biden has put forward is actually focused on infrastructure. | Contradiction | As President Joe Biden seeks to win congressional support for his American Jobs Plan, Democrats and Republicans have been attacking each other over how they define the key element of the proposal: infrastructure. The third-ranking House Republican, Liz Cheney of Wyoming, appeared on CBS's 'Face the Nation' and argued that just a tiny fraction of Biden's proposal consists of 'infrastructure.' During the April 11 edition of the show, host Margaret Brennan reminded Cheney that in 2017, she supported President Donald Trump's infrastructure proposal. 'Nothing ever came of that, of course,' Brennan said. 'But you liked the concept. Why are you opposed to it now?' Cheney responded, 'Well, it's a very different proposal, obviously. Something less than 6%, as you mentioned, of this proposal that President Biden has put forward is actually focused on infrastructure.' We didn't see where Brennan 'mentioned' the 6% figure earlier in the interview, but Cheney's statement caught our eye, because other Republicans have cited a similar figure, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. The difference is that McConnell, McCarthy and Scott specified that the 6% figure referred to spending on roads, bridges and highways. They were correct: Biden's proposal calls for spending roughly that much on roads, bridges and highways. Cheney, on the other hand, used the broader term 'infrastructure,' a word that would seem to encompass other provisions in the proposal, from railways and waterways to airports and the electric grid. We checked with Cheney's office to see whether she had misspoken. In a statement to PolitiFact, they said she had not. 'Roads, bridges, and highways are what constitutes 'infrastructure,'' the statement said. It continued, 'When taken at what infrastructure is supposed to mean - rebuilding or investing in improvements for roads, bridges, and highways - under 6% of the Biden outline goes towards 'infrastructure.'' However, outside experts questioned that narrow interpretation. 'That's not my definition,' said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the right-of-center American Action Forum. 'Mine is broader than hers.' A BNSF Railway train hauling carloads of coal from the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming, seen east of Hardin, Mont., on July 15, 2020. (AP) What's in Biden's proposal? It's clear that some elements of Biden's proposal do not fit a traditional definition of infrastructure, such as $400 billion devoted to expanding access to long-term, home and community-based care under Medicaid. Supporters have defended such categorizations. On ABC's 'This Week,' Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said the definition of infrastructure 'evolves to meet the American people's aspirations.' But some experts see the administration as stretching the definition too far. 'Much of what the president is calling 'infrastructure' consists of exercises in industrial policy,' said James E. Moore II, director of the Transportation Engineering Program at the University of Southern California. Economists consider infrastructure spending to be 'money that generates a return, while industrial policy tends to be a losing proposition. The administration has picked a label for its spending plan that it hopes will deflect criticism.' Some other elements of the plan fall into a gray area, arguably fitting under some definitions of infrastructure. These include $590 billion for research and development and domestic manufacturing; $400 billion in clean energy tax credits; and $328 billion for capital investments in housing, schools, child care centers, veterans' hospitals and other federal buildings. But other provisions would fall under the traditional umbrella of infrastructure, beyond the $115 billion for roads, bridges, and highways. Here's a list, drawn from to an analysis of the proposal by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: These elements total $683 billion, which works out to about 26% of the $2.65 trillion proposal. That's more than four times the 6% Cheney considers to be infrastructure. The categories totaling $683 billion are 'not only infrastructure but critical infrastructure,' said Robert Greer, an associate professor in public service and administration at the Texas A&M University Bush School of Government and Public Service. 'As a Texan, we are acutely aware of energy system modernization issues given the recent rolling blackouts.' Adie Tomer, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program, agreed. 'There is no reason to exclude traditional infrastructure categories - transportation, water resources, energy, and telecommunications - when assessing the American Jobs Plan,' Tomer said. 'For decades, and in some case centuries, the federal government has supported direct investment in these physical capital systems and related policies like workforce development and planning grants.' When we asked the American Water Works Association what they thought of Cheney excluding their industry from her definition of 'infrastructure,' legislative director Tommy Holmes said, 'I have often heard 'roads and bridges' being used as shorthand for all infrastructure, but I have never been in a serious discussion of the nation's infrastructure that did not include the nation's drinking water and wastewater systems.' Heat comes off the pavement near high-tension electrical lines in Los Angeles on Aug. 15, 2020. (AP) What has Cheney considered infrastructure in the past? Cheney's statement on 'Face the Nation' is especially striking since she has a paper trail of defining 'infrastructure' more broadly. Here's what she's included in her discussion of infrastructure in the recent past: Railways and waterways: In September 2020, Cheney announced her support for the Building U.S Infrastructure through Limited Delays & Efficient Reviews Act, which would overhaul the review process for big projects under the National Environmental Policy Act. 'For too long, vital improvements to our roads, bridges, railways and waterways have stalled due to NEPA's outdated guidelines,' Cheney said. Cheney also co-sponsored the Critical Infrastructure Act of 2019, which addressed regulation of water infrastructure. Rural broadband: Cheney applauded the Federal Communications Commission's February 2020 authorization of money to expand rural broadband in Wyoming. 'We need to continue prioritizing this crucial infrastructure,' she wrote. She also released a statement in 2018 that supported the Farm Bill, touting rural broadband as one of the bill's 'important investments in infrastructure.' Water supply: In 2019, Cheney announced that she was co-sponsoring the Water Quality Certification Improvement Act, which, according to a news release, would clarify 'the permitting process for pipelines and other infrastructure projects.' And in a September 2017 newsletter for constituents, Cheney noted House passage of the Water Resources Development Act, which aided 'water infrastructure' such as the Fontenelle Reservoir in her home state. Transit and the energy grid: Cheney co-sponsored the Transit Infrastructure Vehicle Security Act, which bars transit rail-car purchases from certain countries, and the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, which defined the 'energy infrastructure of the United States' as including 'pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and renewable energy production.' In other words, just in the past few years, Cheney has either co-sponsored or touted her support for bills that defined infrastructure as encompassing railways, waterways, broadband, water distribution and the energy supply, including renewable energy. Biden's proposal includes all of those elements, but Cheney ignored them in her latest definition of infrastructure. 'Cheney was making a very legitimate criticism,' Moore said. 'It is unfortunate she exaggerated her case.' | Our ruling Cheney said, 'Something less than 6% ... of this proposal that President Biden has put forward is actually focused on infrastructure.' The figure she cited applies to spending on roads, bridges and highways, but excludes items in Biden's proposal that experts say are widely considered to be infrastructure, including public transit, rail, airports, ports, waterways, the electrical grid, drinking water systems and broadband. Moreover, her narrow definition of infrastructure contradicts her own repeated use of the word 'infrastructure' in relation to bills that cover a wide range of matters beyond roads, bridges and highways. We rate the statement Pants on Fire. | [
"108351-proof-39-946282d533eb4fdf3b7fb3805ee43172.jpg"
]
|
'Something less than 6% ... of this proposal that President Biden has put forward is actually focused on infrastructure. | Contradiction | As President Joe Biden seeks to win congressional support for his American Jobs Plan, Democrats and Republicans have been attacking each other over how they define the key element of the proposal: infrastructure. The third-ranking House Republican, Liz Cheney of Wyoming, appeared on CBS's 'Face the Nation' and argued that just a tiny fraction of Biden's proposal consists of 'infrastructure.' During the April 11 edition of the show, host Margaret Brennan reminded Cheney that in 2017, she supported President Donald Trump's infrastructure proposal. 'Nothing ever came of that, of course,' Brennan said. 'But you liked the concept. Why are you opposed to it now?' Cheney responded, 'Well, it's a very different proposal, obviously. Something less than 6%, as you mentioned, of this proposal that President Biden has put forward is actually focused on infrastructure.' We didn't see where Brennan 'mentioned' the 6% figure earlier in the interview, but Cheney's statement caught our eye, because other Republicans have cited a similar figure, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. The difference is that McConnell, McCarthy and Scott specified that the 6% figure referred to spending on roads, bridges and highways. They were correct: Biden's proposal calls for spending roughly that much on roads, bridges and highways. Cheney, on the other hand, used the broader term 'infrastructure,' a word that would seem to encompass other provisions in the proposal, from railways and waterways to airports and the electric grid. We checked with Cheney's office to see whether she had misspoken. In a statement to PolitiFact, they said she had not. 'Roads, bridges, and highways are what constitutes 'infrastructure,'' the statement said. It continued, 'When taken at what infrastructure is supposed to mean - rebuilding or investing in improvements for roads, bridges, and highways - under 6% of the Biden outline goes towards 'infrastructure.'' However, outside experts questioned that narrow interpretation. 'That's not my definition,' said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the right-of-center American Action Forum. 'Mine is broader than hers.' A BNSF Railway train hauling carloads of coal from the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming, seen east of Hardin, Mont., on July 15, 2020. (AP) What's in Biden's proposal? It's clear that some elements of Biden's proposal do not fit a traditional definition of infrastructure, such as $400 billion devoted to expanding access to long-term, home and community-based care under Medicaid. Supporters have defended such categorizations. On ABC's 'This Week,' Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said the definition of infrastructure 'evolves to meet the American people's aspirations.' But some experts see the administration as stretching the definition too far. 'Much of what the president is calling 'infrastructure' consists of exercises in industrial policy,' said James E. Moore II, director of the Transportation Engineering Program at the University of Southern California. Economists consider infrastructure spending to be 'money that generates a return, while industrial policy tends to be a losing proposition. The administration has picked a label for its spending plan that it hopes will deflect criticism.' Some other elements of the plan fall into a gray area, arguably fitting under some definitions of infrastructure. These include $590 billion for research and development and domestic manufacturing; $400 billion in clean energy tax credits; and $328 billion for capital investments in housing, schools, child care centers, veterans' hospitals and other federal buildings. But other provisions would fall under the traditional umbrella of infrastructure, beyond the $115 billion for roads, bridges, and highways. Here's a list, drawn from to an analysis of the proposal by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: These elements total $683 billion, which works out to about 26% of the $2.65 trillion proposal. That's more than four times the 6% Cheney considers to be infrastructure. The categories totaling $683 billion are 'not only infrastructure but critical infrastructure,' said Robert Greer, an associate professor in public service and administration at the Texas A&M University Bush School of Government and Public Service. 'As a Texan, we are acutely aware of energy system modernization issues given the recent rolling blackouts.' Adie Tomer, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program, agreed. 'There is no reason to exclude traditional infrastructure categories - transportation, water resources, energy, and telecommunications - when assessing the American Jobs Plan,' Tomer said. 'For decades, and in some case centuries, the federal government has supported direct investment in these physical capital systems and related policies like workforce development and planning grants.' When we asked the American Water Works Association what they thought of Cheney excluding their industry from her definition of 'infrastructure,' legislative director Tommy Holmes said, 'I have often heard 'roads and bridges' being used as shorthand for all infrastructure, but I have never been in a serious discussion of the nation's infrastructure that did not include the nation's drinking water and wastewater systems.' Heat comes off the pavement near high-tension electrical lines in Los Angeles on Aug. 15, 2020. (AP) What has Cheney considered infrastructure in the past? Cheney's statement on 'Face the Nation' is especially striking since she has a paper trail of defining 'infrastructure' more broadly. Here's what she's included in her discussion of infrastructure in the recent past: Railways and waterways: In September 2020, Cheney announced her support for the Building U.S Infrastructure through Limited Delays & Efficient Reviews Act, which would overhaul the review process for big projects under the National Environmental Policy Act. 'For too long, vital improvements to our roads, bridges, railways and waterways have stalled due to NEPA's outdated guidelines,' Cheney said. Cheney also co-sponsored the Critical Infrastructure Act of 2019, which addressed regulation of water infrastructure. Rural broadband: Cheney applauded the Federal Communications Commission's February 2020 authorization of money to expand rural broadband in Wyoming. 'We need to continue prioritizing this crucial infrastructure,' she wrote. She also released a statement in 2018 that supported the Farm Bill, touting rural broadband as one of the bill's 'important investments in infrastructure.' Water supply: In 2019, Cheney announced that she was co-sponsoring the Water Quality Certification Improvement Act, which, according to a news release, would clarify 'the permitting process for pipelines and other infrastructure projects.' And in a September 2017 newsletter for constituents, Cheney noted House passage of the Water Resources Development Act, which aided 'water infrastructure' such as the Fontenelle Reservoir in her home state. Transit and the energy grid: Cheney co-sponsored the Transit Infrastructure Vehicle Security Act, which bars transit rail-car purchases from certain countries, and the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, which defined the 'energy infrastructure of the United States' as including 'pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and renewable energy production.' In other words, just in the past few years, Cheney has either co-sponsored or touted her support for bills that defined infrastructure as encompassing railways, waterways, broadband, water distribution and the energy supply, including renewable energy. Biden's proposal includes all of those elements, but Cheney ignored them in her latest definition of infrastructure. 'Cheney was making a very legitimate criticism,' Moore said. 'It is unfortunate she exaggerated her case.' | Our ruling Cheney said, 'Something less than 6% ... of this proposal that President Biden has put forward is actually focused on infrastructure.' The figure she cited applies to spending on roads, bridges and highways, but excludes items in Biden's proposal that experts say are widely considered to be infrastructure, including public transit, rail, airports, ports, waterways, the electrical grid, drinking water systems and broadband. Moreover, her narrow definition of infrastructure contradicts her own repeated use of the word 'infrastructure' in relation to bills that cover a wide range of matters beyond roads, bridges and highways. We rate the statement Pants on Fire. | [
"108351-proof-39-946282d533eb4fdf3b7fb3805ee43172.jpg"
]
|
'Something less than 6% ... of this proposal that President Biden has put forward is actually focused on infrastructure. | Contradiction | As President Joe Biden seeks to win congressional support for his American Jobs Plan, Democrats and Republicans have been attacking each other over how they define the key element of the proposal: infrastructure. The third-ranking House Republican, Liz Cheney of Wyoming, appeared on CBS's 'Face the Nation' and argued that just a tiny fraction of Biden's proposal consists of 'infrastructure.' During the April 11 edition of the show, host Margaret Brennan reminded Cheney that in 2017, she supported President Donald Trump's infrastructure proposal. 'Nothing ever came of that, of course,' Brennan said. 'But you liked the concept. Why are you opposed to it now?' Cheney responded, 'Well, it's a very different proposal, obviously. Something less than 6%, as you mentioned, of this proposal that President Biden has put forward is actually focused on infrastructure.' We didn't see where Brennan 'mentioned' the 6% figure earlier in the interview, but Cheney's statement caught our eye, because other Republicans have cited a similar figure, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina. The difference is that McConnell, McCarthy and Scott specified that the 6% figure referred to spending on roads, bridges and highways. They were correct: Biden's proposal calls for spending roughly that much on roads, bridges and highways. Cheney, on the other hand, used the broader term 'infrastructure,' a word that would seem to encompass other provisions in the proposal, from railways and waterways to airports and the electric grid. We checked with Cheney's office to see whether she had misspoken. In a statement to PolitiFact, they said she had not. 'Roads, bridges, and highways are what constitutes 'infrastructure,'' the statement said. It continued, 'When taken at what infrastructure is supposed to mean - rebuilding or investing in improvements for roads, bridges, and highways - under 6% of the Biden outline goes towards 'infrastructure.'' However, outside experts questioned that narrow interpretation. 'That's not my definition,' said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the right-of-center American Action Forum. 'Mine is broader than hers.' A BNSF Railway train hauling carloads of coal from the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming, seen east of Hardin, Mont., on July 15, 2020. (AP) What's in Biden's proposal? It's clear that some elements of Biden's proposal do not fit a traditional definition of infrastructure, such as $400 billion devoted to expanding access to long-term, home and community-based care under Medicaid. Supporters have defended such categorizations. On ABC's 'This Week,' Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said the definition of infrastructure 'evolves to meet the American people's aspirations.' But some experts see the administration as stretching the definition too far. 'Much of what the president is calling 'infrastructure' consists of exercises in industrial policy,' said James E. Moore II, director of the Transportation Engineering Program at the University of Southern California. Economists consider infrastructure spending to be 'money that generates a return, while industrial policy tends to be a losing proposition. The administration has picked a label for its spending plan that it hopes will deflect criticism.' Some other elements of the plan fall into a gray area, arguably fitting under some definitions of infrastructure. These include $590 billion for research and development and domestic manufacturing; $400 billion in clean energy tax credits; and $328 billion for capital investments in housing, schools, child care centers, veterans' hospitals and other federal buildings. But other provisions would fall under the traditional umbrella of infrastructure, beyond the $115 billion for roads, bridges, and highways. Here's a list, drawn from to an analysis of the proposal by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: These elements total $683 billion, which works out to about 26% of the $2.65 trillion proposal. That's more than four times the 6% Cheney considers to be infrastructure. The categories totaling $683 billion are 'not only infrastructure but critical infrastructure,' said Robert Greer, an associate professor in public service and administration at the Texas A&M University Bush School of Government and Public Service. 'As a Texan, we are acutely aware of energy system modernization issues given the recent rolling blackouts.' Adie Tomer, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program, agreed. 'There is no reason to exclude traditional infrastructure categories - transportation, water resources, energy, and telecommunications - when assessing the American Jobs Plan,' Tomer said. 'For decades, and in some case centuries, the federal government has supported direct investment in these physical capital systems and related policies like workforce development and planning grants.' When we asked the American Water Works Association what they thought of Cheney excluding their industry from her definition of 'infrastructure,' legislative director Tommy Holmes said, 'I have often heard 'roads and bridges' being used as shorthand for all infrastructure, but I have never been in a serious discussion of the nation's infrastructure that did not include the nation's drinking water and wastewater systems.' Heat comes off the pavement near high-tension electrical lines in Los Angeles on Aug. 15, 2020. (AP) What has Cheney considered infrastructure in the past? Cheney's statement on 'Face the Nation' is especially striking since she has a paper trail of defining 'infrastructure' more broadly. Here's what she's included in her discussion of infrastructure in the recent past: Railways and waterways: In September 2020, Cheney announced her support for the Building U.S Infrastructure through Limited Delays & Efficient Reviews Act, which would overhaul the review process for big projects under the National Environmental Policy Act. 'For too long, vital improvements to our roads, bridges, railways and waterways have stalled due to NEPA's outdated guidelines,' Cheney said. Cheney also co-sponsored the Critical Infrastructure Act of 2019, which addressed regulation of water infrastructure. Rural broadband: Cheney applauded the Federal Communications Commission's February 2020 authorization of money to expand rural broadband in Wyoming. 'We need to continue prioritizing this crucial infrastructure,' she wrote. She also released a statement in 2018 that supported the Farm Bill, touting rural broadband as one of the bill's 'important investments in infrastructure.' Water supply: In 2019, Cheney announced that she was co-sponsoring the Water Quality Certification Improvement Act, which, according to a news release, would clarify 'the permitting process for pipelines and other infrastructure projects.' And in a September 2017 newsletter for constituents, Cheney noted House passage of the Water Resources Development Act, which aided 'water infrastructure' such as the Fontenelle Reservoir in her home state. Transit and the energy grid: Cheney co-sponsored the Transit Infrastructure Vehicle Security Act, which bars transit rail-car purchases from certain countries, and the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, which defined the 'energy infrastructure of the United States' as including 'pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and renewable energy production.' In other words, just in the past few years, Cheney has either co-sponsored or touted her support for bills that defined infrastructure as encompassing railways, waterways, broadband, water distribution and the energy supply, including renewable energy. Biden's proposal includes all of those elements, but Cheney ignored them in her latest definition of infrastructure. 'Cheney was making a very legitimate criticism,' Moore said. 'It is unfortunate she exaggerated her case.' | Our ruling Cheney said, 'Something less than 6% ... of this proposal that President Biden has put forward is actually focused on infrastructure.' The figure she cited applies to spending on roads, bridges and highways, but excludes items in Biden's proposal that experts say are widely considered to be infrastructure, including public transit, rail, airports, ports, waterways, the electrical grid, drinking water systems and broadband. Moreover, her narrow definition of infrastructure contradicts her own repeated use of the word 'infrastructure' in relation to bills that cover a wide range of matters beyond roads, bridges and highways. We rate the statement Pants on Fire. | [
"108351-proof-39-946282d533eb4fdf3b7fb3805ee43172.jpg"
]
|
'If you were forced to use a Sharpie' to fill out your ballot, 'that is voter fraud. | Contradiction | With Joe Biden edging closer to the 270 electoral college votes needed to win the presidency, but with ballots in battleground states still being counted, President Donald Trump and his supporters made false charges of 'surprise ballot dumps' and outright voter fraud. It seemed no claim of efforts to deny Trump a second term was too far-fetched - even the notion that election workers, in plain view at polling sites, intentionally gave pens to Trump voters that would invalidate their ballots. The text of one image shared widely on Facebook on Nov. 4, the day after the election, stated: 'If you were forced to use a Sharpie to fill your ballot, call the number below for your state. That is voter fraud.' 'That is voter fraud' appeared in red lettering in the image. The image included a Sharpie pen and phone numbers identified as election hotlines for 15 states, primarily those that were battlegrounds for Trump and the Democratic nominee, Joe Biden. (The first number we tried, for Ohio, was for a Trump campaign office. Democrats have their own 'voter protection' hotlines, too.) 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.) Experts say it is rare but not impossible that filling in an oval with a Sharpie marker could cause a 'bleed-through' that would cause a voting machine to initially not read a ballot. But in some states, election officials prefer Sharpies because they lead to ballots being processed more smoothly. And there is no evidence election workers gave out Sharpies with the aim to invalidate ballots, or that any widespread spoiling of Sharpie-penned ballots occurred. Matthew Weil, director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said he is 'not aware of cases where an election official said the Sharpie was fine and then the ballot was invalidated. Of course, every machine is different. But when the election officials themselves are saying this isn't a problem, I'm going to believe them.' Arizona's Sharpiegate As we found in a previous fact-check about Arizona, one version of the conspiracy theory is that Sharpies were foisted on Trump supporters because those markers wouldn't be read by election machines and those ballots would be invalidated. That's False. In Maricopa County, Ariz., home to metropolitan Phoenix, voters could use ink pens to fill out their ballots, but the county gave Sharpie markers to voters because ballots filled in with Sharpie pens are processed more precisely by voting machines. FactCheck.org, Lead Stories and other fact-checkers reached similar conclusions. So did the New York Times. A USA Today fact-check rated a similar claim in Michigan as false. Since then, the Arizona Attorney General's Office, saying it had received hundreds of complaints from residents, asked the Maricopa County Elections Department for information about the use of Sharpies and any instances of ballots being rejected because of bleed-throughs. But officials and experts have repeatedly knocked down #sharpiegate claims, which have been shared by the president's son, Eric Trump, among other Republicans. Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs tweeted on Nov. 4: 'IMPORTANT: If you voted a regular ballot in-person, your ballot will be counted, no matter what kind of pen you used (even a Sharpie)!' Here's what we know A letter dated Nov. 4 to voters from the Republican chairman and the only Democratic member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors explained why Sharpies were recommended and provided to voters. 'We did extensive testing on multiple different types of ink with our new vote tabulation equipment. Sharpies are recommended by the manufacturer because they provide the fastest-drying ink,' it said. 'The offset columns on ballots ensure that any bleed-through will not affect your vote.' The federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's website addressed the Sharpie falsehood in a 'Rumor vs. Reality' column about the election. 'If a ballot has issues that impact its ability to be scanned, it can be hand counted or duplicated, or adjudicated by election officials, who use defined procedures such as chain of custody to ensure ballot secrecy and integrity,' the website states. The Election Integrity Partnership, whose members include Stanford University and the University of Washington, was tracking #sharpiegate as it emerged on social media platforms. It called bleed-throughs rare and easily remedied per state 'voter intent' laws. 'There is no evidence of a plot to disenfranchise voters by passing out Sharpies at polling stations,' the group wrote. Katina Granger, spokeswoman for Election Systems and Software, a voting system vendor, told PolitiFact: 'We recommend black pens but, to be clear, black felt-tip pens such as a Sharpie are fine as long as there's not heavy bleed-through. Bleed-through is only an issue if the ink should bleed through to an oval on the back of the ballot. Should that occur, that is easily recognizable to the voter and the ballot is sorted out for further review.' | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed: 'If you were forced to use a Sharpie' to fill out your ballot, 'that is voter fraud.' Some in-person voters complained that election officials gave them Sharpie pens at their polling place and that the ink spoiled and invalidated their ballots. In some cases, Sharpies are actually recommended as the best type of pen to use on ballots, and election officials have taken steps to guard against ink 'bleed-through' on ballots. There is no evidence that elections officials used Sharpies to invalidate ballots. We rate the statement False. | [
"108353-proof-00-2420179156852e3e5a28d41f640b61d0.jpg"
]
|
'If you were forced to use a Sharpie' to fill out your ballot, 'that is voter fraud. | Contradiction | With Joe Biden edging closer to the 270 electoral college votes needed to win the presidency, but with ballots in battleground states still being counted, President Donald Trump and his supporters made false charges of 'surprise ballot dumps' and outright voter fraud. It seemed no claim of efforts to deny Trump a second term was too far-fetched - even the notion that election workers, in plain view at polling sites, intentionally gave pens to Trump voters that would invalidate their ballots. The text of one image shared widely on Facebook on Nov. 4, the day after the election, stated: 'If you were forced to use a Sharpie to fill your ballot, call the number below for your state. That is voter fraud.' 'That is voter fraud' appeared in red lettering in the image. The image included a Sharpie pen and phone numbers identified as election hotlines for 15 states, primarily those that were battlegrounds for Trump and the Democratic nominee, Joe Biden. (The first number we tried, for Ohio, was for a Trump campaign office. Democrats have their own 'voter protection' hotlines, too.) 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.) Experts say it is rare but not impossible that filling in an oval with a Sharpie marker could cause a 'bleed-through' that would cause a voting machine to initially not read a ballot. But in some states, election officials prefer Sharpies because they lead to ballots being processed more smoothly. And there is no evidence election workers gave out Sharpies with the aim to invalidate ballots, or that any widespread spoiling of Sharpie-penned ballots occurred. Matthew Weil, director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said he is 'not aware of cases where an election official said the Sharpie was fine and then the ballot was invalidated. Of course, every machine is different. But when the election officials themselves are saying this isn't a problem, I'm going to believe them.' Arizona's Sharpiegate As we found in a previous fact-check about Arizona, one version of the conspiracy theory is that Sharpies were foisted on Trump supporters because those markers wouldn't be read by election machines and those ballots would be invalidated. That's False. In Maricopa County, Ariz., home to metropolitan Phoenix, voters could use ink pens to fill out their ballots, but the county gave Sharpie markers to voters because ballots filled in with Sharpie pens are processed more precisely by voting machines. FactCheck.org, Lead Stories and other fact-checkers reached similar conclusions. So did the New York Times. A USA Today fact-check rated a similar claim in Michigan as false. Since then, the Arizona Attorney General's Office, saying it had received hundreds of complaints from residents, asked the Maricopa County Elections Department for information about the use of Sharpies and any instances of ballots being rejected because of bleed-throughs. But officials and experts have repeatedly knocked down #sharpiegate claims, which have been shared by the president's son, Eric Trump, among other Republicans. Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs tweeted on Nov. 4: 'IMPORTANT: If you voted a regular ballot in-person, your ballot will be counted, no matter what kind of pen you used (even a Sharpie)!' Here's what we know A letter dated Nov. 4 to voters from the Republican chairman and the only Democratic member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors explained why Sharpies were recommended and provided to voters. 'We did extensive testing on multiple different types of ink with our new vote tabulation equipment. Sharpies are recommended by the manufacturer because they provide the fastest-drying ink,' it said. 'The offset columns on ballots ensure that any bleed-through will not affect your vote.' The federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's website addressed the Sharpie falsehood in a 'Rumor vs. Reality' column about the election. 'If a ballot has issues that impact its ability to be scanned, it can be hand counted or duplicated, or adjudicated by election officials, who use defined procedures such as chain of custody to ensure ballot secrecy and integrity,' the website states. The Election Integrity Partnership, whose members include Stanford University and the University of Washington, was tracking #sharpiegate as it emerged on social media platforms. It called bleed-throughs rare and easily remedied per state 'voter intent' laws. 'There is no evidence of a plot to disenfranchise voters by passing out Sharpies at polling stations,' the group wrote. Katina Granger, spokeswoman for Election Systems and Software, a voting system vendor, told PolitiFact: 'We recommend black pens but, to be clear, black felt-tip pens such as a Sharpie are fine as long as there's not heavy bleed-through. Bleed-through is only an issue if the ink should bleed through to an oval on the back of the ballot. Should that occur, that is easily recognizable to the voter and the ballot is sorted out for further review.' | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed: 'If you were forced to use a Sharpie' to fill out your ballot, 'that is voter fraud.' Some in-person voters complained that election officials gave them Sharpie pens at their polling place and that the ink spoiled and invalidated their ballots. In some cases, Sharpies are actually recommended as the best type of pen to use on ballots, and election officials have taken steps to guard against ink 'bleed-through' on ballots. There is no evidence that elections officials used Sharpies to invalidate ballots. We rate the statement False. | [
"108353-proof-00-2420179156852e3e5a28d41f640b61d0.jpg"
]
|
'If you were forced to use a Sharpie' to fill out your ballot, 'that is voter fraud. | Contradiction | With Joe Biden edging closer to the 270 electoral college votes needed to win the presidency, but with ballots in battleground states still being counted, President Donald Trump and his supporters made false charges of 'surprise ballot dumps' and outright voter fraud. It seemed no claim of efforts to deny Trump a second term was too far-fetched - even the notion that election workers, in plain view at polling sites, intentionally gave pens to Trump voters that would invalidate their ballots. The text of one image shared widely on Facebook on Nov. 4, the day after the election, stated: 'If you were forced to use a Sharpie to fill your ballot, call the number below for your state. That is voter fraud.' 'That is voter fraud' appeared in red lettering in the image. The image included a Sharpie pen and phone numbers identified as election hotlines for 15 states, primarily those that were battlegrounds for Trump and the Democratic nominee, Joe Biden. (The first number we tried, for Ohio, was for a Trump campaign office. Democrats have their own 'voter protection' hotlines, too.) 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.) Experts say it is rare but not impossible that filling in an oval with a Sharpie marker could cause a 'bleed-through' that would cause a voting machine to initially not read a ballot. But in some states, election officials prefer Sharpies because they lead to ballots being processed more smoothly. And there is no evidence election workers gave out Sharpies with the aim to invalidate ballots, or that any widespread spoiling of Sharpie-penned ballots occurred. Matthew Weil, director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said he is 'not aware of cases where an election official said the Sharpie was fine and then the ballot was invalidated. Of course, every machine is different. But when the election officials themselves are saying this isn't a problem, I'm going to believe them.' Arizona's Sharpiegate As we found in a previous fact-check about Arizona, one version of the conspiracy theory is that Sharpies were foisted on Trump supporters because those markers wouldn't be read by election machines and those ballots would be invalidated. That's False. In Maricopa County, Ariz., home to metropolitan Phoenix, voters could use ink pens to fill out their ballots, but the county gave Sharpie markers to voters because ballots filled in with Sharpie pens are processed more precisely by voting machines. FactCheck.org, Lead Stories and other fact-checkers reached similar conclusions. So did the New York Times. A USA Today fact-check rated a similar claim in Michigan as false. Since then, the Arizona Attorney General's Office, saying it had received hundreds of complaints from residents, asked the Maricopa County Elections Department for information about the use of Sharpies and any instances of ballots being rejected because of bleed-throughs. But officials and experts have repeatedly knocked down #sharpiegate claims, which have been shared by the president's son, Eric Trump, among other Republicans. Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs tweeted on Nov. 4: 'IMPORTANT: If you voted a regular ballot in-person, your ballot will be counted, no matter what kind of pen you used (even a Sharpie)!' Here's what we know A letter dated Nov. 4 to voters from the Republican chairman and the only Democratic member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors explained why Sharpies were recommended and provided to voters. 'We did extensive testing on multiple different types of ink with our new vote tabulation equipment. Sharpies are recommended by the manufacturer because they provide the fastest-drying ink,' it said. 'The offset columns on ballots ensure that any bleed-through will not affect your vote.' The federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's website addressed the Sharpie falsehood in a 'Rumor vs. Reality' column about the election. 'If a ballot has issues that impact its ability to be scanned, it can be hand counted or duplicated, or adjudicated by election officials, who use defined procedures such as chain of custody to ensure ballot secrecy and integrity,' the website states. The Election Integrity Partnership, whose members include Stanford University and the University of Washington, was tracking #sharpiegate as it emerged on social media platforms. It called bleed-throughs rare and easily remedied per state 'voter intent' laws. 'There is no evidence of a plot to disenfranchise voters by passing out Sharpies at polling stations,' the group wrote. Katina Granger, spokeswoman for Election Systems and Software, a voting system vendor, told PolitiFact: 'We recommend black pens but, to be clear, black felt-tip pens such as a Sharpie are fine as long as there's not heavy bleed-through. Bleed-through is only an issue if the ink should bleed through to an oval on the back of the ballot. Should that occur, that is easily recognizable to the voter and the ballot is sorted out for further review.' | Our ruling A Facebook post claimed: 'If you were forced to use a Sharpie' to fill out your ballot, 'that is voter fraud.' Some in-person voters complained that election officials gave them Sharpie pens at their polling place and that the ink spoiled and invalidated their ballots. In some cases, Sharpies are actually recommended as the best type of pen to use on ballots, and election officials have taken steps to guard against ink 'bleed-through' on ballots. There is no evidence that elections officials used Sharpies to invalidate ballots. We rate the statement False. | [
"108353-proof-00-2420179156852e3e5a28d41f640b61d0.jpg"
]
|
'Gov Roy Cooper does not consider Type 1 diabetes an under lying health issue!' | Contradiction | A billboard in Johnston County suggests North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper is shortchanging people with type 1 diabetes. A WRAL viewer emailed a photo of the billboard on U.S. Highway 301 to PolitiFact. It says: 'Gov Roy Cooper does not consider Type 1 diabetes an under lying health issue! Think about that!' The billboard does not show who paid for it. Warren Stancil, the president of the billboard company, InterState Outdoor Inc., said he doesn't know the buyer's identity. 'This was an anonymous person who bought the ad space. All I know is what's in the message,' Stancil said in an email. The ad went up around Jan. 22, he said. Given the timing of the message in the midst of a vaccine rollout, we're assuming for the purposes of this check that the messenger is likely referring to where diabetics fall in North Carolina's inoculation schedule. The billboard's message touches on a controversial subject. To date, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not consider both types of diabetes to carry the same level of risk for COVID-19 complications. In North Carolina, meanwhile, the health department has grouped Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes together and people with either condition qualify for covid vaccines in Group 4, ahead of the general population. Type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 The CDC's webpage about how the virus affects people with medical conditions says people with Type 2 diabetes are at increased risk, while people with Type 1 diabetes 'might' be at increased risk. Under current CDC recommendations, people with Type 1 diabetes would be vaccinated with the general population. Advocacy groups such as the American Diabetes Association and JDRF (formerly known as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation) are lobbying the CDC to place higher priority on people with Type 1 diabetes. A study published in December found that Type 1 diabetes 'independently increases the adverse impacts of COVID-19,' while another recent study found that Black COVID-19 patients were more likely to develop a serious complication of Type 1 diabetes than white patients. Still, JDRF spokeswoman Cynthia Rice said that, as a result of the CDC's recommendations, 'many states' haven't prioritized people with Type 1 diabetes. So the American Diabetes Association has been contacting governors and state agencies across the country, spokeswoman Daisy Diaz told PolitiFact. Type 1 diabetes and North Carolina In North Carolina, the health department currently considers both types of diabetes to be 'chronic conditions.' Where does that put diabetics in North Carolina's vaccine rollout? Let's say someone has diabetes but isn't over age 65, doesn't work in an essential industry and doesn't meet any other criteria for moving up North Carolina's vaccine priority list. That person would be in Group 4 of the state's five groups: Group 1: Healthcare workers, long-term care staff and residents Group 2: Older adults Group 3: Frontline essential workers Group 4: Adults at increased risk of severe illness Group 5: Everyone else Asked about North Carolina's plan, Rice said: 'That is the policy we are seeking around the country, with Type 1 included with other disease that increase risk of severe illness from COVID.' Possible confusion While people with both types of diabetes are prioritized in North Carolina, old versions of the health department's website may have given people the wrong impression. Take for example the department's FAQ page about COVID-19 vaccines. Under the 'getting vaccinated' section, the department lists chronic conditions that make someone a higher priority for vaccination. The page currently lists both types of diabetes as chronic conditions. However, according to an internet archive, the page excluded Type 1 diabetes from its list of chronic conditions as recently as Feb. 12. The webpage quoted CDC guidance, mentioning only Type 2 diabetes as a chronic condition. That exclusion may be why some media outlets have mentioned only Type 2 diabetes when reporting on North Carolina's rollout. North Carolina has tried to follow most CDC recommendations, said SarahLewis Peel, a spokeswoman for the health department. However, Peel said, North Carolina has always intended to prioritize all diabetics for vaccines. People with both types of diabetes have been prioritized together since the state released its guidance for Group 4 on Jan. 25, she said. | Our ruling The billboard says 'Cooper does not consider Type 1 diabetes an (underlying) health issue!' North Carolina's vaccine rollout prioritizes people with type 1 diabetes ahead of the general population. So it's clear that Cooper, to some degree, considers the disease to be an underlying health issue. We rate this claim False. | [
"108355-proof-46-a19e0c8233b078402fc09d0319e64e3f.jpg"
]
|
'Gov Roy Cooper does not consider Type 1 diabetes an under lying health issue!' | Contradiction | A billboard in Johnston County suggests North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper is shortchanging people with type 1 diabetes. A WRAL viewer emailed a photo of the billboard on U.S. Highway 301 to PolitiFact. It says: 'Gov Roy Cooper does not consider Type 1 diabetes an under lying health issue! Think about that!' The billboard does not show who paid for it. Warren Stancil, the president of the billboard company, InterState Outdoor Inc., said he doesn't know the buyer's identity. 'This was an anonymous person who bought the ad space. All I know is what's in the message,' Stancil said in an email. The ad went up around Jan. 22, he said. Given the timing of the message in the midst of a vaccine rollout, we're assuming for the purposes of this check that the messenger is likely referring to where diabetics fall in North Carolina's inoculation schedule. The billboard's message touches on a controversial subject. To date, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not consider both types of diabetes to carry the same level of risk for COVID-19 complications. In North Carolina, meanwhile, the health department has grouped Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes together and people with either condition qualify for covid vaccines in Group 4, ahead of the general population. Type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 The CDC's webpage about how the virus affects people with medical conditions says people with Type 2 diabetes are at increased risk, while people with Type 1 diabetes 'might' be at increased risk. Under current CDC recommendations, people with Type 1 diabetes would be vaccinated with the general population. Advocacy groups such as the American Diabetes Association and JDRF (formerly known as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation) are lobbying the CDC to place higher priority on people with Type 1 diabetes. A study published in December found that Type 1 diabetes 'independently increases the adverse impacts of COVID-19,' while another recent study found that Black COVID-19 patients were more likely to develop a serious complication of Type 1 diabetes than white patients. Still, JDRF spokeswoman Cynthia Rice said that, as a result of the CDC's recommendations, 'many states' haven't prioritized people with Type 1 diabetes. So the American Diabetes Association has been contacting governors and state agencies across the country, spokeswoman Daisy Diaz told PolitiFact. Type 1 diabetes and North Carolina In North Carolina, the health department currently considers both types of diabetes to be 'chronic conditions.' Where does that put diabetics in North Carolina's vaccine rollout? Let's say someone has diabetes but isn't over age 65, doesn't work in an essential industry and doesn't meet any other criteria for moving up North Carolina's vaccine priority list. That person would be in Group 4 of the state's five groups: Group 1: Healthcare workers, long-term care staff and residents Group 2: Older adults Group 3: Frontline essential workers Group 4: Adults at increased risk of severe illness Group 5: Everyone else Asked about North Carolina's plan, Rice said: 'That is the policy we are seeking around the country, with Type 1 included with other disease that increase risk of severe illness from COVID.' Possible confusion While people with both types of diabetes are prioritized in North Carolina, old versions of the health department's website may have given people the wrong impression. Take for example the department's FAQ page about COVID-19 vaccines. Under the 'getting vaccinated' section, the department lists chronic conditions that make someone a higher priority for vaccination. The page currently lists both types of diabetes as chronic conditions. However, according to an internet archive, the page excluded Type 1 diabetes from its list of chronic conditions as recently as Feb. 12. The webpage quoted CDC guidance, mentioning only Type 2 diabetes as a chronic condition. That exclusion may be why some media outlets have mentioned only Type 2 diabetes when reporting on North Carolina's rollout. North Carolina has tried to follow most CDC recommendations, said SarahLewis Peel, a spokeswoman for the health department. However, Peel said, North Carolina has always intended to prioritize all diabetics for vaccines. People with both types of diabetes have been prioritized together since the state released its guidance for Group 4 on Jan. 25, she said. | Our ruling The billboard says 'Cooper does not consider Type 1 diabetes an (underlying) health issue!' North Carolina's vaccine rollout prioritizes people with type 1 diabetes ahead of the general population. So it's clear that Cooper, to some degree, considers the disease to be an underlying health issue. We rate this claim False. | [
"108355-proof-46-a19e0c8233b078402fc09d0319e64e3f.jpg"
]
|
'Gov Roy Cooper does not consider Type 1 diabetes an under lying health issue!' | Contradiction | A billboard in Johnston County suggests North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper is shortchanging people with type 1 diabetes. A WRAL viewer emailed a photo of the billboard on U.S. Highway 301 to PolitiFact. It says: 'Gov Roy Cooper does not consider Type 1 diabetes an under lying health issue! Think about that!' The billboard does not show who paid for it. Warren Stancil, the president of the billboard company, InterState Outdoor Inc., said he doesn't know the buyer's identity. 'This was an anonymous person who bought the ad space. All I know is what's in the message,' Stancil said in an email. The ad went up around Jan. 22, he said. Given the timing of the message in the midst of a vaccine rollout, we're assuming for the purposes of this check that the messenger is likely referring to where diabetics fall in North Carolina's inoculation schedule. The billboard's message touches on a controversial subject. To date, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not consider both types of diabetes to carry the same level of risk for COVID-19 complications. In North Carolina, meanwhile, the health department has grouped Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes together and people with either condition qualify for covid vaccines in Group 4, ahead of the general population. Type 1 diabetes and COVID-19 The CDC's webpage about how the virus affects people with medical conditions says people with Type 2 diabetes are at increased risk, while people with Type 1 diabetes 'might' be at increased risk. Under current CDC recommendations, people with Type 1 diabetes would be vaccinated with the general population. Advocacy groups such as the American Diabetes Association and JDRF (formerly known as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation) are lobbying the CDC to place higher priority on people with Type 1 diabetes. A study published in December found that Type 1 diabetes 'independently increases the adverse impacts of COVID-19,' while another recent study found that Black COVID-19 patients were more likely to develop a serious complication of Type 1 diabetes than white patients. Still, JDRF spokeswoman Cynthia Rice said that, as a result of the CDC's recommendations, 'many states' haven't prioritized people with Type 1 diabetes. So the American Diabetes Association has been contacting governors and state agencies across the country, spokeswoman Daisy Diaz told PolitiFact. Type 1 diabetes and North Carolina In North Carolina, the health department currently considers both types of diabetes to be 'chronic conditions.' Where does that put diabetics in North Carolina's vaccine rollout? Let's say someone has diabetes but isn't over age 65, doesn't work in an essential industry and doesn't meet any other criteria for moving up North Carolina's vaccine priority list. That person would be in Group 4 of the state's five groups: Group 1: Healthcare workers, long-term care staff and residents Group 2: Older adults Group 3: Frontline essential workers Group 4: Adults at increased risk of severe illness Group 5: Everyone else Asked about North Carolina's plan, Rice said: 'That is the policy we are seeking around the country, with Type 1 included with other disease that increase risk of severe illness from COVID.' Possible confusion While people with both types of diabetes are prioritized in North Carolina, old versions of the health department's website may have given people the wrong impression. Take for example the department's FAQ page about COVID-19 vaccines. Under the 'getting vaccinated' section, the department lists chronic conditions that make someone a higher priority for vaccination. The page currently lists both types of diabetes as chronic conditions. However, according to an internet archive, the page excluded Type 1 diabetes from its list of chronic conditions as recently as Feb. 12. The webpage quoted CDC guidance, mentioning only Type 2 diabetes as a chronic condition. That exclusion may be why some media outlets have mentioned only Type 2 diabetes when reporting on North Carolina's rollout. North Carolina has tried to follow most CDC recommendations, said SarahLewis Peel, a spokeswoman for the health department. However, Peel said, North Carolina has always intended to prioritize all diabetics for vaccines. People with both types of diabetes have been prioritized together since the state released its guidance for Group 4 on Jan. 25, she said. | Our ruling The billboard says 'Cooper does not consider Type 1 diabetes an (underlying) health issue!' North Carolina's vaccine rollout prioritizes people with type 1 diabetes ahead of the general population. So it's clear that Cooper, to some degree, considers the disease to be an underlying health issue. We rate this claim False. | [
"108355-proof-46-a19e0c8233b078402fc09d0319e64e3f.jpg"
]
|
'We're down near the low end of per capita deaths ... Most places are at 60 deaths per 100,000. We're at 29. | Contradiction | On the day the U.S. topped 100,000 COVID-19 deaths, CNBC hosts Joe Kernen and Andrew Ross Sorkin shouted over each other about the threat of the virus and its impact on the stock market. After Kernen said Sorkin had panicked about the coronavirus and spooked investors, Sorkin accused Kernen of dismissing the virus as a way to defend President Donald Trump. 'You didn't panic about anything,' Sorkin said during the May 27 dust-up on CNBC's 'Squawk Box.' '100,000 people died, Joe, and all you did was try to help your friend, the president.' Kernen responded that he has been trying to help investors 'keep their cool, keep their heads,' adding that 'as it turned out, that's what they should've done.' Then he explained why. 'We're down near the low end of per capita deaths,' Kernen said. '... Most places are at 60 deaths per 100,000. We're at 29.' The next day, the two told viewers that they had made amends, with Sorkin saying they were 'having the conversation that's happening at everybody's dinner table.' In case you're having the same argument over dinner tonight, we wanted to arm you with the facts: Kernen's claim on deaths per capita isn't completely accurate. While the U.S. is close to 29 deaths per 100,000 people, it is not 'near the low end of per capita deaths,' we found. Only a handful of countries have had more deaths per capita. RELATED: Trump's comparison of COVID-19 deaths in Germany, US is wrong The numbers A CNBC spokesperson cited data from Johns Hopkins University tracking deaths per 100,000 people, a metric that public health experts generally consider useful. As of May 26, the day before Kernen's claim, the U.S. had recorded 30.23 deaths per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins. That was better than 10 countries. It was worse than more than 130 others, including many nations of similar size. Specifically, the U.S. had more deaths per 100,000 people at the time of Kernen's comment than all but a handful of European countries: San Marino, Belgium, Andorra, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Sweden, the Netherlands and Ireland. Only San Marino (pop. 34,000), Belgium (pop. 11.6 million) and Andorra (pop. 77,000) had more than 60 deaths per 100,000 people. Spain, the United Kingdom and Italy had over 50 deaths per 100,000. Those figures have hardly changed as of May 27. The U.S. is at 30.69 deaths per 100,000 people, behind the same 10 European nations but ahead of the rest. Three other sources public health experts told us are reliable - the Kaiser Family Foundation, Our World in Data and Worldometer - show similar numbers. Each source shows the U.S. performing worse than the vast majority of countries. 'We have a very high death rate here compared to most countries in the world, and some of our states have among the highest death rates in the world,' said Brooke Nichols, assistant professor of global health at Boston University. The U.S., in particular, is 'a patchwork epidemic' because of its 'expansive, diverse geography and populations,' Nichols said. Different geographic areas experience varying outbreaks and death tolls due to a number of factors, such as the age of the population, how far along the epidemic curve the area is and how well the local health care systems have been able to manage, she said. If you compare individual U.S. states to other countries, Nichols said, the situation looks worse. Eleven states plus Washington, D.C have more deaths per million people than the U.S. as a whole, according to Worldometer data for May 28. Some states are comparable to the worst countries. As we've noted, another way to compare countries is to consider recent - rather than total - death counts per capita. But as of May 28, numerous countries have also had fewer daily deaths per capita based on a seven-day average than the U.S., per Our World in Data. | Our ruling Kernen said: 'We're down near the low end of per capita deaths ... Most places are at 60 deaths per 100,000. We're at 29.' The U.S. has hovered slightly above 29 COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people in recent days, but it is far from being 'down near the low end of per capita deaths.' Only a handful of countries are performing worse by that metric, and just three have recorded more than 60 deaths per 100,000. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"108361-proof-35-933c01f3e28ab7cc684c33eb95cf42ef.jpg"
]
|
'We're down near the low end of per capita deaths ... Most places are at 60 deaths per 100,000. We're at 29. | Contradiction | On the day the U.S. topped 100,000 COVID-19 deaths, CNBC hosts Joe Kernen and Andrew Ross Sorkin shouted over each other about the threat of the virus and its impact on the stock market. After Kernen said Sorkin had panicked about the coronavirus and spooked investors, Sorkin accused Kernen of dismissing the virus as a way to defend President Donald Trump. 'You didn't panic about anything,' Sorkin said during the May 27 dust-up on CNBC's 'Squawk Box.' '100,000 people died, Joe, and all you did was try to help your friend, the president.' Kernen responded that he has been trying to help investors 'keep their cool, keep their heads,' adding that 'as it turned out, that's what they should've done.' Then he explained why. 'We're down near the low end of per capita deaths,' Kernen said. '... Most places are at 60 deaths per 100,000. We're at 29.' The next day, the two told viewers that they had made amends, with Sorkin saying they were 'having the conversation that's happening at everybody's dinner table.' In case you're having the same argument over dinner tonight, we wanted to arm you with the facts: Kernen's claim on deaths per capita isn't completely accurate. While the U.S. is close to 29 deaths per 100,000 people, it is not 'near the low end of per capita deaths,' we found. Only a handful of countries have had more deaths per capita. RELATED: Trump's comparison of COVID-19 deaths in Germany, US is wrong The numbers A CNBC spokesperson cited data from Johns Hopkins University tracking deaths per 100,000 people, a metric that public health experts generally consider useful. As of May 26, the day before Kernen's claim, the U.S. had recorded 30.23 deaths per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins. That was better than 10 countries. It was worse than more than 130 others, including many nations of similar size. Specifically, the U.S. had more deaths per 100,000 people at the time of Kernen's comment than all but a handful of European countries: San Marino, Belgium, Andorra, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Sweden, the Netherlands and Ireland. Only San Marino (pop. 34,000), Belgium (pop. 11.6 million) and Andorra (pop. 77,000) had more than 60 deaths per 100,000 people. Spain, the United Kingdom and Italy had over 50 deaths per 100,000. Those figures have hardly changed as of May 27. The U.S. is at 30.69 deaths per 100,000 people, behind the same 10 European nations but ahead of the rest. Three other sources public health experts told us are reliable - the Kaiser Family Foundation, Our World in Data and Worldometer - show similar numbers. Each source shows the U.S. performing worse than the vast majority of countries. 'We have a very high death rate here compared to most countries in the world, and some of our states have among the highest death rates in the world,' said Brooke Nichols, assistant professor of global health at Boston University. The U.S., in particular, is 'a patchwork epidemic' because of its 'expansive, diverse geography and populations,' Nichols said. Different geographic areas experience varying outbreaks and death tolls due to a number of factors, such as the age of the population, how far along the epidemic curve the area is and how well the local health care systems have been able to manage, she said. If you compare individual U.S. states to other countries, Nichols said, the situation looks worse. Eleven states plus Washington, D.C have more deaths per million people than the U.S. as a whole, according to Worldometer data for May 28. Some states are comparable to the worst countries. As we've noted, another way to compare countries is to consider recent - rather than total - death counts per capita. But as of May 28, numerous countries have also had fewer daily deaths per capita based on a seven-day average than the U.S., per Our World in Data. | Our ruling Kernen said: 'We're down near the low end of per capita deaths ... Most places are at 60 deaths per 100,000. We're at 29.' The U.S. has hovered slightly above 29 COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people in recent days, but it is far from being 'down near the low end of per capita deaths.' Only a handful of countries are performing worse by that metric, and just three have recorded more than 60 deaths per 100,000. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"108361-proof-35-933c01f3e28ab7cc684c33eb95cf42ef.jpg"
]
|
'We're down near the low end of per capita deaths ... Most places are at 60 deaths per 100,000. We're at 29. | Contradiction | On the day the U.S. topped 100,000 COVID-19 deaths, CNBC hosts Joe Kernen and Andrew Ross Sorkin shouted over each other about the threat of the virus and its impact on the stock market. After Kernen said Sorkin had panicked about the coronavirus and spooked investors, Sorkin accused Kernen of dismissing the virus as a way to defend President Donald Trump. 'You didn't panic about anything,' Sorkin said during the May 27 dust-up on CNBC's 'Squawk Box.' '100,000 people died, Joe, and all you did was try to help your friend, the president.' Kernen responded that he has been trying to help investors 'keep their cool, keep their heads,' adding that 'as it turned out, that's what they should've done.' Then he explained why. 'We're down near the low end of per capita deaths,' Kernen said. '... Most places are at 60 deaths per 100,000. We're at 29.' The next day, the two told viewers that they had made amends, with Sorkin saying they were 'having the conversation that's happening at everybody's dinner table.' In case you're having the same argument over dinner tonight, we wanted to arm you with the facts: Kernen's claim on deaths per capita isn't completely accurate. While the U.S. is close to 29 deaths per 100,000 people, it is not 'near the low end of per capita deaths,' we found. Only a handful of countries have had more deaths per capita. RELATED: Trump's comparison of COVID-19 deaths in Germany, US is wrong The numbers A CNBC spokesperson cited data from Johns Hopkins University tracking deaths per 100,000 people, a metric that public health experts generally consider useful. As of May 26, the day before Kernen's claim, the U.S. had recorded 30.23 deaths per 100,000 people, according to Johns Hopkins. That was better than 10 countries. It was worse than more than 130 others, including many nations of similar size. Specifically, the U.S. had more deaths per 100,000 people at the time of Kernen's comment than all but a handful of European countries: San Marino, Belgium, Andorra, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Sweden, the Netherlands and Ireland. Only San Marino (pop. 34,000), Belgium (pop. 11.6 million) and Andorra (pop. 77,000) had more than 60 deaths per 100,000 people. Spain, the United Kingdom and Italy had over 50 deaths per 100,000. Those figures have hardly changed as of May 27. The U.S. is at 30.69 deaths per 100,000 people, behind the same 10 European nations but ahead of the rest. Three other sources public health experts told us are reliable - the Kaiser Family Foundation, Our World in Data and Worldometer - show similar numbers. Each source shows the U.S. performing worse than the vast majority of countries. 'We have a very high death rate here compared to most countries in the world, and some of our states have among the highest death rates in the world,' said Brooke Nichols, assistant professor of global health at Boston University. The U.S., in particular, is 'a patchwork epidemic' because of its 'expansive, diverse geography and populations,' Nichols said. Different geographic areas experience varying outbreaks and death tolls due to a number of factors, such as the age of the population, how far along the epidemic curve the area is and how well the local health care systems have been able to manage, she said. If you compare individual U.S. states to other countries, Nichols said, the situation looks worse. Eleven states plus Washington, D.C have more deaths per million people than the U.S. as a whole, according to Worldometer data for May 28. Some states are comparable to the worst countries. As we've noted, another way to compare countries is to consider recent - rather than total - death counts per capita. But as of May 28, numerous countries have also had fewer daily deaths per capita based on a seven-day average than the U.S., per Our World in Data. | Our ruling Kernen said: 'We're down near the low end of per capita deaths ... Most places are at 60 deaths per 100,000. We're at 29.' The U.S. has hovered slightly above 29 COVID-19 deaths per 100,000 people in recent days, but it is far from being 'down near the low end of per capita deaths.' Only a handful of countries are performing worse by that metric, and just three have recorded more than 60 deaths per 100,000. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"108361-proof-35-933c01f3e28ab7cc684c33eb95cf42ef.jpg"
]
|
'This is all about a certificate of vaccination where they get you a national ID, and then the AI can track you. | Contradiction | A nearly year-old video pushing a conspiracy theory that COVID-19 vaccinations will be used to track your movements utilizing artificial intelligence and a biological 'national ID' is again circulating on social media. The original video, which is over an hour long, claims without any evidence that COVID-19 - short for 'coronavirus disease 2019' - actually stands for 'certificate of vaccination ID AI.' The 'AI,' the video explains, is derived from the fact that 'A' is the first letter of the alphabet and 'I' is the ninth. The video was originally posted May 1, 2020, by pastor and YouTube evangelist Robert Breaker.. An edited and condensed version of the video was published on Facebook by an evangelical group on April 9. 'What the elites' desire and plan is is to inject you with a vaccine - and it's not just going to be a vaccine for your health, it's going to inject into you other things,' Breaker says in the video. 'And it's going to inject into you some things that are going to change your DNA ... it's got some sort of small nanotechnology. It's got some sort of small metal something in it, and what it does ... is they're planting 5G everywhere.' The April 9 post was flagged as part of efforts by Facebook to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) While the video in this post includes a number of conspiracy theories concerning the pandemic, we focused on its central claim - that the government will gain the ability to track you with a 'national ID.' The speaker in the video suggests that the ID is a unique biological signature of sorts contained in the vaccine itself and that some sort of AI system will be able to communicate with this so-called national ID via 'some sort of small nanotechnology.' Let's break this down in two parts. First, the federal government has said it will not mandate issuance of a proof-of-vaccination card or, in this case, a 'national ID.' While it's true there are businesses in the private sector that are considering proof of vaccination, it's a far cry from a government-imposed national mandate. Second, to further back up his claim, the speaker references a patent - patent number is WO2020060606 - that he says is owned by Microsoft and would allow third-parties to monitor the location and medical information of people who have been vaccinated. A search of publicly available records shows that Microsoft has filed an application for a patent that is still pending - but no actual patent, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. But the concept pitched in this application, a program used to pay people with cryptocurrency, has nothing to do with injecting anything into anyones' bodies. Finally, ingredients used in the vaccines approved by the FDA for emergency use are publicly listed for Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. Nothing in the lists suggests anything but the ordinary substances of vaccines. Beyond the falsehoods stated about the patent application, Breaker, the video's speaker, also says that vaccines contained 'nanotechnology' in the form of 'small metal' bits. We rated a similar claim Pants on Fire. Lipid nanoparticles make up part of the ingredient list for the mRNA vaccines, but the term 'nanoparticle' refers only to size. | Our ruling The claim here that Microsoft patented 5G-powered tracking 'nanotechnology' that were used in the development of any vaccines is also false.There is no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccinations, once injected, create an invisible, trackable ID in the bodies of those inoculated. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | []
|
'This is all about a certificate of vaccination where they get you a national ID, and then the AI can track you. | Contradiction | A nearly year-old video pushing a conspiracy theory that COVID-19 vaccinations will be used to track your movements utilizing artificial intelligence and a biological 'national ID' is again circulating on social media. The original video, which is over an hour long, claims without any evidence that COVID-19 - short for 'coronavirus disease 2019' - actually stands for 'certificate of vaccination ID AI.' The 'AI,' the video explains, is derived from the fact that 'A' is the first letter of the alphabet and 'I' is the ninth. The video was originally posted May 1, 2020, by pastor and YouTube evangelist Robert Breaker.. An edited and condensed version of the video was published on Facebook by an evangelical group on April 9. 'What the elites' desire and plan is is to inject you with a vaccine - and it's not just going to be a vaccine for your health, it's going to inject into you other things,' Breaker says in the video. 'And it's going to inject into you some things that are going to change your DNA ... it's got some sort of small nanotechnology. It's got some sort of small metal something in it, and what it does ... is they're planting 5G everywhere.' The April 9 post was flagged as part of efforts by Facebook to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) While the video in this post includes a number of conspiracy theories concerning the pandemic, we focused on its central claim - that the government will gain the ability to track you with a 'national ID.' The speaker in the video suggests that the ID is a unique biological signature of sorts contained in the vaccine itself and that some sort of AI system will be able to communicate with this so-called national ID via 'some sort of small nanotechnology.' Let's break this down in two parts. First, the federal government has said it will not mandate issuance of a proof-of-vaccination card or, in this case, a 'national ID.' While it's true there are businesses in the private sector that are considering proof of vaccination, it's a far cry from a government-imposed national mandate. Second, to further back up his claim, the speaker references a patent - patent number is WO2020060606 - that he says is owned by Microsoft and would allow third-parties to monitor the location and medical information of people who have been vaccinated. A search of publicly available records shows that Microsoft has filed an application for a patent that is still pending - but no actual patent, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. But the concept pitched in this application, a program used to pay people with cryptocurrency, has nothing to do with injecting anything into anyones' bodies. Finally, ingredients used in the vaccines approved by the FDA for emergency use are publicly listed for Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. Nothing in the lists suggests anything but the ordinary substances of vaccines. Beyond the falsehoods stated about the patent application, Breaker, the video's speaker, also says that vaccines contained 'nanotechnology' in the form of 'small metal' bits. We rated a similar claim Pants on Fire. Lipid nanoparticles make up part of the ingredient list for the mRNA vaccines, but the term 'nanoparticle' refers only to size. | Our ruling The claim here that Microsoft patented 5G-powered tracking 'nanotechnology' that were used in the development of any vaccines is also false.There is no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 vaccinations, once injected, create an invisible, trackable ID in the bodies of those inoculated. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! | []
|
'You didn't see Republicans when we had control of the Senate try to rig the game. | Contradiction | Texas Sen. Ted Cruz joined his Republican colleagues last week in criticizing Democratic measures that would expand the nine seats of the U.S. Supreme Court to 13. 'You didn't see Republicans when we had control of the Senate try to rig the game. You didn't see us try to pack the court,' Cruz told reporters outside the Supreme Court building on April 22. Cruz was referring to the political combat that took place in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia's sudden death in 2016. During his presidential bid, Cruz highlighted the importance of having a Republican president whose appointments could give the Supreme Court a conservative lean. Following Scalia's death, Cruz declared the 2016 presidential election a 'referendum on the Supreme Court' and joined Senate Republicans in blocking any nomination put forth by President Barack Obama. They blocked Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, for more than a year, arguing that the American public had a right to weigh in first via the election. (Garland is now serving as Biden's attorney general.) Four years later, Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, raced to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the court after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just weeks before the 2020 election. In other words, McConnell used divergent approaches to the Garland and Barrett nominations to benefit the Republicans. When asked why the GOP's actions don't qualify as partisan gamesmanship, Cruz's spokesperson Steve Guest doubled down on Cruz's statement. 'Absolutely nothing was rigged by Republicans. Presidents nominate judges. The Senate gives or withholds advice and consent. Those are the rules and Republicans followed them,' Guest said. As the Barrett nomination was under consideration, PolitiFact wrote Republicans did have the power to do what he did, but we gave McConnell a Full Flop for changing his position between 2016 and 2020. In both cases, McConnell offered a justification that confirmations have proceeded when the presidency and the Senate are in unified control and have stalled when the two are under divided control. However, this isn't a higher principle that led McConnell to his decision; it's a cherry-picked, after-the-fact justification for the raw exercise of power he undoubtedly has. Legal experts were unimpressed with Cruz's assertion that Republicans didn't 'rig the game' with the Garland and Barrett nominations. Paul M. Collins Jr., a professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, said that the refusal to hold an up-or-down vote on Garland's appointment in the hope that a Republican would win the 2016 presidential election 'involved an effort to temporarily alter the size of the court to advance the agenda of the Republican Party,' Collins said. Paul Finkelman, a legal historian who is currently president of Gratz College, agreed, saying it was 'a political manipulation of the system,' he said. 'And that is not how it's supposed to work.' Emily Berman, an associate professor of law at the University of Houston, said it's hard to not classify Republicans' 2016 maneuvering as 'rigging the game.' Deciding that there's an arbitrary deadline for judicial nominations during the Obama presidency, then ignoring that rule under the Trump presidency is, to Berman, a clear attempt to bring partisan preferences into the court. 'I don't know what else you call it. When you use your majority to make up the rules as you go along in ways that benefit your party, that's kind of the definition of rigging the game. You make the rules that lead to the outcome that you desire,' Berman said. Cruz was a major proponent of Republicans' 2016 blockade to Garland's confirmation. With less than a month before Election Day in 2016, Cruz went as far as to say that he was in favor of blocking a liberal nominee under Hillary Clinton indefinitely. While campaigning in Colorado for a Senate candidate, Cruz said that there is a 'long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices,' Politico reported. 'I would note, just recently, that Justice (Stephen) Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That's a debate that we are going to have,' Cruz said. | Our ruling Cruz said, 'You didn't see Republicans when we had control of the Senate try to rig the game.' Republicans treated Garland's nomination and Barrett's nomination differently because they held the Senate majority and were able to exercise their power in ways that benefited their party's goals. But that doesn't mean they weren't rigging the game. There was no consistency to the way they handled the two nominations - the approaches were exactly opposite. We rate this claim False. | [
"108387-proof-34-be16be2caea8da5dd5650e12581e0907.jpg"
]
|
'You didn't see Republicans when we had control of the Senate try to rig the game. | Contradiction | Texas Sen. Ted Cruz joined his Republican colleagues last week in criticizing Democratic measures that would expand the nine seats of the U.S. Supreme Court to 13. 'You didn't see Republicans when we had control of the Senate try to rig the game. You didn't see us try to pack the court,' Cruz told reporters outside the Supreme Court building on April 22. Cruz was referring to the political combat that took place in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia's sudden death in 2016. During his presidential bid, Cruz highlighted the importance of having a Republican president whose appointments could give the Supreme Court a conservative lean. Following Scalia's death, Cruz declared the 2016 presidential election a 'referendum on the Supreme Court' and joined Senate Republicans in blocking any nomination put forth by President Barack Obama. They blocked Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, for more than a year, arguing that the American public had a right to weigh in first via the election. (Garland is now serving as Biden's attorney general.) Four years later, Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, raced to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the court after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just weeks before the 2020 election. In other words, McConnell used divergent approaches to the Garland and Barrett nominations to benefit the Republicans. When asked why the GOP's actions don't qualify as partisan gamesmanship, Cruz's spokesperson Steve Guest doubled down on Cruz's statement. 'Absolutely nothing was rigged by Republicans. Presidents nominate judges. The Senate gives or withholds advice and consent. Those are the rules and Republicans followed them,' Guest said. As the Barrett nomination was under consideration, PolitiFact wrote Republicans did have the power to do what he did, but we gave McConnell a Full Flop for changing his position between 2016 and 2020. In both cases, McConnell offered a justification that confirmations have proceeded when the presidency and the Senate are in unified control and have stalled when the two are under divided control. However, this isn't a higher principle that led McConnell to his decision; it's a cherry-picked, after-the-fact justification for the raw exercise of power he undoubtedly has. Legal experts were unimpressed with Cruz's assertion that Republicans didn't 'rig the game' with the Garland and Barrett nominations. Paul M. Collins Jr., a professor of legal studies and political science at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, said that the refusal to hold an up-or-down vote on Garland's appointment in the hope that a Republican would win the 2016 presidential election 'involved an effort to temporarily alter the size of the court to advance the agenda of the Republican Party,' Collins said. Paul Finkelman, a legal historian who is currently president of Gratz College, agreed, saying it was 'a political manipulation of the system,' he said. 'And that is not how it's supposed to work.' Emily Berman, an associate professor of law at the University of Houston, said it's hard to not classify Republicans' 2016 maneuvering as 'rigging the game.' Deciding that there's an arbitrary deadline for judicial nominations during the Obama presidency, then ignoring that rule under the Trump presidency is, to Berman, a clear attempt to bring partisan preferences into the court. 'I don't know what else you call it. When you use your majority to make up the rules as you go along in ways that benefit your party, that's kind of the definition of rigging the game. You make the rules that lead to the outcome that you desire,' Berman said. Cruz was a major proponent of Republicans' 2016 blockade to Garland's confirmation. With less than a month before Election Day in 2016, Cruz went as far as to say that he was in favor of blocking a liberal nominee under Hillary Clinton indefinitely. While campaigning in Colorado for a Senate candidate, Cruz said that there is a 'long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices,' Politico reported. 'I would note, just recently, that Justice (Stephen) Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That's a debate that we are going to have,' Cruz said. | Our ruling Cruz said, 'You didn't see Republicans when we had control of the Senate try to rig the game.' Republicans treated Garland's nomination and Barrett's nomination differently because they held the Senate majority and were able to exercise their power in ways that benefited their party's goals. But that doesn't mean they weren't rigging the game. There was no consistency to the way they handled the two nominations - the approaches were exactly opposite. We rate this claim False. | [
"108387-proof-34-be16be2caea8da5dd5650e12581e0907.jpg"
]
|
Says all Vegas hotels but Trump's have donated food, rooms in COVID response. | Contradiction | Amid the pain of the coronavirus pandemic, one of the luxury hotels that bears President Donald Trump's name was attacked as lacking compassion. 'All Las Vegas hotels have donated food and rooms for emergency personnel except for one: Trump International Hotel Las Vegas,' a Facebook post claimed. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Not the only exception Unlike some other hotel groups operating in Las Vegas, Trump's hotel did not donate rooms, food or supplies, according to reporting by us and other media. But there's no reason to believe Trump's hotel was the only exception. Las Vegas is the nation's largest hotel market, with roughly 150,000 rooms and thousands more under construction, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority lists 277 lodging establishments in the city as of December 2019, not including time-shares. The American Hotel & Lodging Association says more than 16,000 U.S. hotels have signed up to participate in its initiative to link hotels offering rooms with first responders and health care workers seeking lodging. As of April 6, three days before the Facebook post, 36 Las Vegas hotels were participating, the association told the Review-Journal. The association didn't respond to our requests for details. Neither did the Las Vegas Hospitality Association, which counts 260 companies among its members. The 64-story, 1,282-room Trump International Hotel Las Vegas opened just off on The Strip in 2008. It's one of eight hotels and resorts that the Trump Organization owns in North America. Trump still owns the company. But after becoming president, he gave up his position as an officer and day-to-day control, and the company's assets were put into a trust that is managed by his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric. Coronavirus shuts down hotels Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak ordered a statewide shutdown of hotels, casinos and other non-essential businesses on March 17. Since then, several hotel groups operating in Las Vegas have announced donations of hotel rooms, food and supplies for workers dealing with the health crisis. Polo Towers, Cancun Resort and Desert Paradise Resort are among Diamond Resorts properties offering complimentary accommodations to medical personnel and first responders, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. Wynn Resorts told the newspaper it is offering financial aid, food and personal protective equipment to local medical facilities and nonprofits in Las Vegas. Nationally, Marriott announced it has committed to provide $10 million worth of free hotel stays for health care professionals in cities hard hit by COVID-19, including Las Vegas. The Trump Organization did not reply to our requests for information for this fact check. Trump has saluted hotels and other businesses for their role in helping Americans cope with the coronavirus crisis. But media reports say that his own company hasn't played much of a role. ProPublica reported April 2 that in its review of Trump Organization properties, it 'couldn't find any sign they were joining the effort to fight the coronavirus, even as the president urges other companies to do so.' The article said many Las Vegas hotels and casinos that closed because of the governor's order - including MGM, Wynn, Boyd Gaming, Station Casinos and Caesars - 'provided huge quantities of unused food' and cash to a local food bank. The food bank director said nothing had been donated by the Trump hotel. Politico reported April 9 that local and state officials around the country were asking hotels to volunteer to house patients or first responders. In the seven U.S. cities with Trump luxury hotels, including Las Vegas, no local officials said the Trump properties were in discussions to house overflow patients or medical personnel. In response to the pandemic, the Trump Organization laid off or furloughed about 1,500 employees at Trump hotels in the United States and Canada, including in Las Vegas, the Washington Post reported on April 3. The company employs about 4,000 people. Las Vegas-based Caesars Entertainment Corp. said April 2 it expects to furlough about 90% of its employees. The Wall Street Journal previously reported that Marriott, Hilton and Hyatt are among hotel owners furloughing tens of thousands of workers or slashing staff. | Our ruling A Facebook post attacks Trump's Las Vegas hotel as being the only one in the city that didn't offer food or rooms for emergency personnel. The Trump Organization hasn't provided any information, and searches by PolitiFact and other news organizations didn't turn up any evidence that Trump's properties have made such donations. Several other hotels in Las Vegas have made donations, but the Trump hotel does not appear to be the only exception. The city has hundreds of hotels, motels and inns, and a hotel industry trade group says 36 Las Vegas hotels were participating in its national initiative to offer rooms to first responders and health care workers. For a statement that contains an element of truth, but leaves a misleading impression, our rating is Mostly False. | []
|
Says all Vegas hotels but Trump's have donated food, rooms in COVID response. | Contradiction | Amid the pain of the coronavirus pandemic, one of the luxury hotels that bears President Donald Trump's name was attacked as lacking compassion. 'All Las Vegas hotels have donated food and rooms for emergency personnel except for one: Trump International Hotel Las Vegas,' a Facebook post claimed. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Not the only exception Unlike some other hotel groups operating in Las Vegas, Trump's hotel did not donate rooms, food or supplies, according to reporting by us and other media. But there's no reason to believe Trump's hotel was the only exception. Las Vegas is the nation's largest hotel market, with roughly 150,000 rooms and thousands more under construction, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority lists 277 lodging establishments in the city as of December 2019, not including time-shares. The American Hotel & Lodging Association says more than 16,000 U.S. hotels have signed up to participate in its initiative to link hotels offering rooms with first responders and health care workers seeking lodging. As of April 6, three days before the Facebook post, 36 Las Vegas hotels were participating, the association told the Review-Journal. The association didn't respond to our requests for details. Neither did the Las Vegas Hospitality Association, which counts 260 companies among its members. The 64-story, 1,282-room Trump International Hotel Las Vegas opened just off on The Strip in 2008. It's one of eight hotels and resorts that the Trump Organization owns in North America. Trump still owns the company. But after becoming president, he gave up his position as an officer and day-to-day control, and the company's assets were put into a trust that is managed by his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric. Coronavirus shuts down hotels Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak ordered a statewide shutdown of hotels, casinos and other non-essential businesses on March 17. Since then, several hotel groups operating in Las Vegas have announced donations of hotel rooms, food and supplies for workers dealing with the health crisis. Polo Towers, Cancun Resort and Desert Paradise Resort are among Diamond Resorts properties offering complimentary accommodations to medical personnel and first responders, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. Wynn Resorts told the newspaper it is offering financial aid, food and personal protective equipment to local medical facilities and nonprofits in Las Vegas. Nationally, Marriott announced it has committed to provide $10 million worth of free hotel stays for health care professionals in cities hard hit by COVID-19, including Las Vegas. The Trump Organization did not reply to our requests for information for this fact check. Trump has saluted hotels and other businesses for their role in helping Americans cope with the coronavirus crisis. But media reports say that his own company hasn't played much of a role. ProPublica reported April 2 that in its review of Trump Organization properties, it 'couldn't find any sign they were joining the effort to fight the coronavirus, even as the president urges other companies to do so.' The article said many Las Vegas hotels and casinos that closed because of the governor's order - including MGM, Wynn, Boyd Gaming, Station Casinos and Caesars - 'provided huge quantities of unused food' and cash to a local food bank. The food bank director said nothing had been donated by the Trump hotel. Politico reported April 9 that local and state officials around the country were asking hotels to volunteer to house patients or first responders. In the seven U.S. cities with Trump luxury hotels, including Las Vegas, no local officials said the Trump properties were in discussions to house overflow patients or medical personnel. In response to the pandemic, the Trump Organization laid off or furloughed about 1,500 employees at Trump hotels in the United States and Canada, including in Las Vegas, the Washington Post reported on April 3. The company employs about 4,000 people. Las Vegas-based Caesars Entertainment Corp. said April 2 it expects to furlough about 90% of its employees. The Wall Street Journal previously reported that Marriott, Hilton and Hyatt are among hotel owners furloughing tens of thousands of workers or slashing staff. | Our ruling A Facebook post attacks Trump's Las Vegas hotel as being the only one in the city that didn't offer food or rooms for emergency personnel. The Trump Organization hasn't provided any information, and searches by PolitiFact and other news organizations didn't turn up any evidence that Trump's properties have made such donations. Several other hotels in Las Vegas have made donations, but the Trump hotel does not appear to be the only exception. The city has hundreds of hotels, motels and inns, and a hotel industry trade group says 36 Las Vegas hotels were participating in its national initiative to offer rooms to first responders and health care workers. For a statement that contains an element of truth, but leaves a misleading impression, our rating is Mostly False. | []
|
Says a picture of stacked mailboxes is proof of voter suppression in Wisconsin | Contradiction | President Donald Trump has openly said he opposes emergency funding for the U.S. Postal Service because he doesn't want to see it used for mail-in voting. 'They need that money in order to make the Post Office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots,' Trump told Fox News on Aug. 13, 2020, reiterating his frequent and false claim that mail-in voting is rife with fraud. And that has opened the conspiracy floodgates. It gave life to a long-running claim his opponent, Democrat Joe Biden, and others have made for months that Trump wants to limit the Postal Service to restrain mail-in voting. (Democrats have long been perceived to benefit most from mail-in voting, and a Marquette Law School poll released Aug. 11, 2020, confirmed this in Wisconsin, showing Biden leading by 67 points among those planning to vote absentee by mail.) And it triggered an avalanche of allegations and news coverage about various Postal Service actions, from removing sorting machines to pulling mailboxes off the streets. One claim that drew a particularly large audience is built around a picture of stacks of mailboxes. The picture - described as originating in Wisconsin - has taken off across Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and elsewhere, being shared hundreds of thousands of times and viewed millions of times within a few days of the earliest posts on Aug. 14, 2020. The most widespread version on Facebook is a screenshot of an Aug. 15, 2020, tweet that describes the picture this way: 'Photo taken in Wisconsin. This is happening right before our eyes. They are sabotaging USPS to sabotage vote by mail. This is massive voter suppression and part of their plan to steal the election.' 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). Are these really mailboxes rounded up to suppress mail-in voting? Let's review the evidence. Picture taken at Hartford company The one accurate element in this claim is that the picture is from Wisconsin. The earliest version of this picture we could find - hat tip to twitter user @ushadrons, one of many online sleuths looking into this claim - surfaced at noon central time Aug. 14, 2020. It simply included the caption 'Whole thing looks terrible.' A followup comment noted it was from Wisconsin. Another Reddit user posted the same picture an hour later labeled as 'Harford, Wisconsin today,' misspelling the name of Hartford. Ensuing claims about voter suppression drew pushback from another user, who posted a picture of himself at the company gate, noting he lives one minute away in Hartford. His picture showed a man standing outside a very similar-looking fence with a Hartford Finishing Inc. sign on it and a very similar stack of mailboxes in the background. By all accounts, this location is correct. Hartford Finishing - in businesses since 1986 with about 220 current employees - has a contract with the Postal Service to refurbish old mailboxes. The business specializes in powder painting systems. Job ads the company posted in 2018 were for positions that specialize in 'blues postal mailboxes.' The Postal Service confirms the working relationship. The company did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment, but Street View images from Google Maps show stacks of mailboxes are a regular occurrence there. A picture taken in August 2019 shows stacks far larger than the one in the viral image, in fact. The fence and gate mechanism in Street View images from 2013 and 2019 match exactly the fence and gate shown on the viral image. The gate and buildings also match the image posted by the Reddit user in Hartford. Boxes pulled as part of routine maintenance The core question then is whether the existence of these boxes at the company proves any kind of voter suppression. That's the heart of the claim we're checking here and many others connected to this picture online. 'THEY AREN'T EVEN TRYING TO HIDE IT NOW,' actress Jeri Ryan said in a Facebook post sharing the Hartford image. One Twitter user claimed Postmaster General Louis DeJoy - a controversial recent Trump appointee - was committing a felony. Another called it 'clear evidence of illegal voting suppression.' But they're all wrong. Claims in this vein have surfaced around the country in response to images of other mailboxes stacked on the ground or on flatbed trucks. The Postal Service has said these are part of long-running, standard practices. Little-used boxes are removed (after a public notice is posted on them) and dilapidated boxes are replaced with new ones, while the old ones then go in for refinishing. Here's the full response from the Postal Service when we asked them about the Hartford picture. The Postal Service reviews collection box density every year on a routine basis to identify redundant/seldom used collection boxes as First-Class Mail volume continues to decline. Based on the density testing, boxes are identified for potential removal and notices are placed on boxes to give customers an opportunity to comment before the removal decision is made. This process is one of the many ways the Postal Service makes adjustments to our infrastructure to match our resources to declining mail volumes. Given the recent customer concerns the Postal Service will postpone removing boxes for a period of 90 days while we evaluate our customers' concerns. The photo in question is of a vendor we have done business with for several years. They are a contractor that repairs or destroys old collection boxes. They now make new collection boxes also. Photos such as this appear every couple of years. In response to the widespread social-media blowback, the Postal Service said Aug. 14, 2020, it was suspending all removal operations until after the election, the Washington Post reported. | Our ruling A viral picture circulating on social media says a picture of stacked mailboxes is proof of voter suppression in Wisconsin. The picture is from Wisconsin, taken at a Hartford company, but it's not proof of anything nefarious. USPS contracts with Hartford Finishing to repair or destroy old mailboxes. The mailboxes shown could have been removed - after a public notice - due to lack of use (following a long-established process), or they could have been replaced with new boxes due to their condition. We rate this claim False. | [
"108411-proof-08-0eb592970029a09ede5b1bbd0fad8d32.jpg"
]
|
Says a picture of stacked mailboxes is proof of voter suppression in Wisconsin | Contradiction | President Donald Trump has openly said he opposes emergency funding for the U.S. Postal Service because he doesn't want to see it used for mail-in voting. 'They need that money in order to make the Post Office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots,' Trump told Fox News on Aug. 13, 2020, reiterating his frequent and false claim that mail-in voting is rife with fraud. And that has opened the conspiracy floodgates. It gave life to a long-running claim his opponent, Democrat Joe Biden, and others have made for months that Trump wants to limit the Postal Service to restrain mail-in voting. (Democrats have long been perceived to benefit most from mail-in voting, and a Marquette Law School poll released Aug. 11, 2020, confirmed this in Wisconsin, showing Biden leading by 67 points among those planning to vote absentee by mail.) And it triggered an avalanche of allegations and news coverage about various Postal Service actions, from removing sorting machines to pulling mailboxes off the streets. One claim that drew a particularly large audience is built around a picture of stacks of mailboxes. The picture - described as originating in Wisconsin - has taken off across Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and elsewhere, being shared hundreds of thousands of times and viewed millions of times within a few days of the earliest posts on Aug. 14, 2020. The most widespread version on Facebook is a screenshot of an Aug. 15, 2020, tweet that describes the picture this way: 'Photo taken in Wisconsin. This is happening right before our eyes. They are sabotaging USPS to sabotage vote by mail. This is massive voter suppression and part of their plan to steal the election.' 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). Are these really mailboxes rounded up to suppress mail-in voting? Let's review the evidence. Picture taken at Hartford company The one accurate element in this claim is that the picture is from Wisconsin. The earliest version of this picture we could find - hat tip to twitter user @ushadrons, one of many online sleuths looking into this claim - surfaced at noon central time Aug. 14, 2020. It simply included the caption 'Whole thing looks terrible.' A followup comment noted it was from Wisconsin. Another Reddit user posted the same picture an hour later labeled as 'Harford, Wisconsin today,' misspelling the name of Hartford. Ensuing claims about voter suppression drew pushback from another user, who posted a picture of himself at the company gate, noting he lives one minute away in Hartford. His picture showed a man standing outside a very similar-looking fence with a Hartford Finishing Inc. sign on it and a very similar stack of mailboxes in the background. By all accounts, this location is correct. Hartford Finishing - in businesses since 1986 with about 220 current employees - has a contract with the Postal Service to refurbish old mailboxes. The business specializes in powder painting systems. Job ads the company posted in 2018 were for positions that specialize in 'blues postal mailboxes.' The Postal Service confirms the working relationship. The company did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment, but Street View images from Google Maps show stacks of mailboxes are a regular occurrence there. A picture taken in August 2019 shows stacks far larger than the one in the viral image, in fact. The fence and gate mechanism in Street View images from 2013 and 2019 match exactly the fence and gate shown on the viral image. The gate and buildings also match the image posted by the Reddit user in Hartford. Boxes pulled as part of routine maintenance The core question then is whether the existence of these boxes at the company proves any kind of voter suppression. That's the heart of the claim we're checking here and many others connected to this picture online. 'THEY AREN'T EVEN TRYING TO HIDE IT NOW,' actress Jeri Ryan said in a Facebook post sharing the Hartford image. One Twitter user claimed Postmaster General Louis DeJoy - a controversial recent Trump appointee - was committing a felony. Another called it 'clear evidence of illegal voting suppression.' But they're all wrong. Claims in this vein have surfaced around the country in response to images of other mailboxes stacked on the ground or on flatbed trucks. The Postal Service has said these are part of long-running, standard practices. Little-used boxes are removed (after a public notice is posted on them) and dilapidated boxes are replaced with new ones, while the old ones then go in for refinishing. Here's the full response from the Postal Service when we asked them about the Hartford picture. The Postal Service reviews collection box density every year on a routine basis to identify redundant/seldom used collection boxes as First-Class Mail volume continues to decline. Based on the density testing, boxes are identified for potential removal and notices are placed on boxes to give customers an opportunity to comment before the removal decision is made. This process is one of the many ways the Postal Service makes adjustments to our infrastructure to match our resources to declining mail volumes. Given the recent customer concerns the Postal Service will postpone removing boxes for a period of 90 days while we evaluate our customers' concerns. The photo in question is of a vendor we have done business with for several years. They are a contractor that repairs or destroys old collection boxes. They now make new collection boxes also. Photos such as this appear every couple of years. In response to the widespread social-media blowback, the Postal Service said Aug. 14, 2020, it was suspending all removal operations until after the election, the Washington Post reported. | Our ruling A viral picture circulating on social media says a picture of stacked mailboxes is proof of voter suppression in Wisconsin. The picture is from Wisconsin, taken at a Hartford company, but it's not proof of anything nefarious. USPS contracts with Hartford Finishing to repair or destroy old mailboxes. The mailboxes shown could have been removed - after a public notice - due to lack of use (following a long-established process), or they could have been replaced with new boxes due to their condition. We rate this claim False. | [
"108411-proof-08-0eb592970029a09ede5b1bbd0fad8d32.jpg"
]
|
Says a picture of stacked mailboxes is proof of voter suppression in Wisconsin | Contradiction | President Donald Trump has openly said he opposes emergency funding for the U.S. Postal Service because he doesn't want to see it used for mail-in voting. 'They need that money in order to make the Post Office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots,' Trump told Fox News on Aug. 13, 2020, reiterating his frequent and false claim that mail-in voting is rife with fraud. And that has opened the conspiracy floodgates. It gave life to a long-running claim his opponent, Democrat Joe Biden, and others have made for months that Trump wants to limit the Postal Service to restrain mail-in voting. (Democrats have long been perceived to benefit most from mail-in voting, and a Marquette Law School poll released Aug. 11, 2020, confirmed this in Wisconsin, showing Biden leading by 67 points among those planning to vote absentee by mail.) And it triggered an avalanche of allegations and news coverage about various Postal Service actions, from removing sorting machines to pulling mailboxes off the streets. One claim that drew a particularly large audience is built around a picture of stacks of mailboxes. The picture - described as originating in Wisconsin - has taken off across Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and elsewhere, being shared hundreds of thousands of times and viewed millions of times within a few days of the earliest posts on Aug. 14, 2020. The most widespread version on Facebook is a screenshot of an Aug. 15, 2020, tweet that describes the picture this way: 'Photo taken in Wisconsin. This is happening right before our eyes. They are sabotaging USPS to sabotage vote by mail. This is massive voter suppression and part of their plan to steal the election.' 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). Are these really mailboxes rounded up to suppress mail-in voting? Let's review the evidence. Picture taken at Hartford company The one accurate element in this claim is that the picture is from Wisconsin. The earliest version of this picture we could find - hat tip to twitter user @ushadrons, one of many online sleuths looking into this claim - surfaced at noon central time Aug. 14, 2020. It simply included the caption 'Whole thing looks terrible.' A followup comment noted it was from Wisconsin. Another Reddit user posted the same picture an hour later labeled as 'Harford, Wisconsin today,' misspelling the name of Hartford. Ensuing claims about voter suppression drew pushback from another user, who posted a picture of himself at the company gate, noting he lives one minute away in Hartford. His picture showed a man standing outside a very similar-looking fence with a Hartford Finishing Inc. sign on it and a very similar stack of mailboxes in the background. By all accounts, this location is correct. Hartford Finishing - in businesses since 1986 with about 220 current employees - has a contract with the Postal Service to refurbish old mailboxes. The business specializes in powder painting systems. Job ads the company posted in 2018 were for positions that specialize in 'blues postal mailboxes.' The Postal Service confirms the working relationship. The company did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment, but Street View images from Google Maps show stacks of mailboxes are a regular occurrence there. A picture taken in August 2019 shows stacks far larger than the one in the viral image, in fact. The fence and gate mechanism in Street View images from 2013 and 2019 match exactly the fence and gate shown on the viral image. The gate and buildings also match the image posted by the Reddit user in Hartford. Boxes pulled as part of routine maintenance The core question then is whether the existence of these boxes at the company proves any kind of voter suppression. That's the heart of the claim we're checking here and many others connected to this picture online. 'THEY AREN'T EVEN TRYING TO HIDE IT NOW,' actress Jeri Ryan said in a Facebook post sharing the Hartford image. One Twitter user claimed Postmaster General Louis DeJoy - a controversial recent Trump appointee - was committing a felony. Another called it 'clear evidence of illegal voting suppression.' But they're all wrong. Claims in this vein have surfaced around the country in response to images of other mailboxes stacked on the ground or on flatbed trucks. The Postal Service has said these are part of long-running, standard practices. Little-used boxes are removed (after a public notice is posted on them) and dilapidated boxes are replaced with new ones, while the old ones then go in for refinishing. Here's the full response from the Postal Service when we asked them about the Hartford picture. The Postal Service reviews collection box density every year on a routine basis to identify redundant/seldom used collection boxes as First-Class Mail volume continues to decline. Based on the density testing, boxes are identified for potential removal and notices are placed on boxes to give customers an opportunity to comment before the removal decision is made. This process is one of the many ways the Postal Service makes adjustments to our infrastructure to match our resources to declining mail volumes. Given the recent customer concerns the Postal Service will postpone removing boxes for a period of 90 days while we evaluate our customers' concerns. The photo in question is of a vendor we have done business with for several years. They are a contractor that repairs or destroys old collection boxes. They now make new collection boxes also. Photos such as this appear every couple of years. In response to the widespread social-media blowback, the Postal Service said Aug. 14, 2020, it was suspending all removal operations until after the election, the Washington Post reported. | Our ruling A viral picture circulating on social media says a picture of stacked mailboxes is proof of voter suppression in Wisconsin. The picture is from Wisconsin, taken at a Hartford company, but it's not proof of anything nefarious. USPS contracts with Hartford Finishing to repair or destroy old mailboxes. The mailboxes shown could have been removed - after a public notice - due to lack of use (following a long-established process), or they could have been replaced with new boxes due to their condition. We rate this claim False. | [
"108411-proof-08-0eb592970029a09ede5b1bbd0fad8d32.jpg"
]
|
Norway decided 'that (the coronavirus) should be treated like other respiratory diseases, such as the flu or cold, because... it is no more dangerous than those mentioned. | Contradiction | From the pandemic's early stages, coronavirus skeptics have downplayed the risks of the virus by misleadingly comparing it with the flu. A new version of this claim has popped up on a website, which says that Norway has recently shifted its approach to the virus, proving that it wasn't dangerous to begin with. 'Norway has reclassified COVID-19 as a common flu,' reads the headline of an article published on World Today News. 'Norway decides that (the coronavirus) should be treated like other respiratory diseases, such as the flu or cold, because, according to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, it is no more dangerous than those mentioned,' reads the body text. 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.) Norway lifted social distancing rules and other pandemic-era restrictions on Sept. 25, 2021. However, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health told PolitiFact that World Today News's claim is a misinterpretation of its position. 'It is not correct that the Norwegian Institute of Public Health has claimed that 'Covid-19 is no more dangerous than ordinary flu,'' said a spokesperson for the institute. The misunderstanding appears to have originated from comments that Geir Bukholm, the assistant director of the NIPH, made in an interview with Norwegian news outlet VG. 'We are now in a new phase where we must look at the coronavirus as one of several respiratory diseases with seasonal variation,' he told VG. However, in a different part of the interview, Bukholm explains that the reason for this new approach is Norway's high vaccination rate. Due to the fact that over 90% of Norway's population over the age of 18 has had one shot and 84% have been fully vaccinated, the nation has successfully alleviated the burden to its healthcare system, he says. Over the last week, Norway hospital systems have reported fewer than 15 COVID-19 hospitalizations per day. As a result, Bukholm continued, the coronavirus should now be viewed as similar in danger to other respiratory diseases 'in Norway and in many countries that have good vaccine coverage.' Because most vaccinated people infected with the virus experience only mild, cold-like symptoms, 'the coronavirus ... joins the ranks of other respiratory diseases such as colds and seasonal flu.' 'This does not mean that illness from coronavirus and the seasonal flu are similar,' the NIPH spokesperson told PolitiFact. 'On an individual level, people must receive the correct treatment for the specific disease. We will be continuously following the epidemiology of both COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases and will be prepared to react differently (if) circumstances worsen.' | Our ruling A website claimed that Norway decided 'that (the coronavirus) should be treated like other respiratory diseases, such as the flu or cold, because... it is no more dangerous than those mentioned.' The Norwegian Institute of Public Health said that this is a misinterpretation of its position. The assistant director of the institute said in an interview that Norway should shift the way it views the disease, because the vast majority of Norway's population has been fully vaccinated. He did not say that the coronavirus is no more dangerous than the flu but that most vaccinated people who are infected with the virus experience only cold-like symptoms. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Norway decided 'that (the coronavirus) should be treated like other respiratory diseases, such as the flu or cold, because... it is no more dangerous than those mentioned. | Contradiction | From the pandemic's early stages, coronavirus skeptics have downplayed the risks of the virus by misleadingly comparing it with the flu. A new version of this claim has popped up on a website, which says that Norway has recently shifted its approach to the virus, proving that it wasn't dangerous to begin with. 'Norway has reclassified COVID-19 as a common flu,' reads the headline of an article published on World Today News. 'Norway decides that (the coronavirus) should be treated like other respiratory diseases, such as the flu or cold, because, according to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, it is no more dangerous than those mentioned,' reads the body text. 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.) Norway lifted social distancing rules and other pandemic-era restrictions on Sept. 25, 2021. However, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health told PolitiFact that World Today News's claim is a misinterpretation of its position. 'It is not correct that the Norwegian Institute of Public Health has claimed that 'Covid-19 is no more dangerous than ordinary flu,'' said a spokesperson for the institute. The misunderstanding appears to have originated from comments that Geir Bukholm, the assistant director of the NIPH, made in an interview with Norwegian news outlet VG. 'We are now in a new phase where we must look at the coronavirus as one of several respiratory diseases with seasonal variation,' he told VG. However, in a different part of the interview, Bukholm explains that the reason for this new approach is Norway's high vaccination rate. Due to the fact that over 90% of Norway's population over the age of 18 has had one shot and 84% have been fully vaccinated, the nation has successfully alleviated the burden to its healthcare system, he says. Over the last week, Norway hospital systems have reported fewer than 15 COVID-19 hospitalizations per day. As a result, Bukholm continued, the coronavirus should now be viewed as similar in danger to other respiratory diseases 'in Norway and in many countries that have good vaccine coverage.' Because most vaccinated people infected with the virus experience only mild, cold-like symptoms, 'the coronavirus ... joins the ranks of other respiratory diseases such as colds and seasonal flu.' 'This does not mean that illness from coronavirus and the seasonal flu are similar,' the NIPH spokesperson told PolitiFact. 'On an individual level, people must receive the correct treatment for the specific disease. We will be continuously following the epidemiology of both COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases and will be prepared to react differently (if) circumstances worsen.' | Our ruling A website claimed that Norway decided 'that (the coronavirus) should be treated like other respiratory diseases, such as the flu or cold, because... it is no more dangerous than those mentioned.' The Norwegian Institute of Public Health said that this is a misinterpretation of its position. The assistant director of the institute said in an interview that Norway should shift the way it views the disease, because the vast majority of Norway's population has been fully vaccinated. He did not say that the coronavirus is no more dangerous than the flu but that most vaccinated people who are infected with the virus experience only cold-like symptoms. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Norway decided 'that (the coronavirus) should be treated like other respiratory diseases, such as the flu or cold, because... it is no more dangerous than those mentioned. | Contradiction | From the pandemic's early stages, coronavirus skeptics have downplayed the risks of the virus by misleadingly comparing it with the flu. A new version of this claim has popped up on a website, which says that Norway has recently shifted its approach to the virus, proving that it wasn't dangerous to begin with. 'Norway has reclassified COVID-19 as a common flu,' reads the headline of an article published on World Today News. 'Norway decides that (the coronavirus) should be treated like other respiratory diseases, such as the flu or cold, because, according to the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, it is no more dangerous than those mentioned,' reads the body text. 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.) Norway lifted social distancing rules and other pandemic-era restrictions on Sept. 25, 2021. However, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health told PolitiFact that World Today News's claim is a misinterpretation of its position. 'It is not correct that the Norwegian Institute of Public Health has claimed that 'Covid-19 is no more dangerous than ordinary flu,'' said a spokesperson for the institute. The misunderstanding appears to have originated from comments that Geir Bukholm, the assistant director of the NIPH, made in an interview with Norwegian news outlet VG. 'We are now in a new phase where we must look at the coronavirus as one of several respiratory diseases with seasonal variation,' he told VG. However, in a different part of the interview, Bukholm explains that the reason for this new approach is Norway's high vaccination rate. Due to the fact that over 90% of Norway's population over the age of 18 has had one shot and 84% have been fully vaccinated, the nation has successfully alleviated the burden to its healthcare system, he says. Over the last week, Norway hospital systems have reported fewer than 15 COVID-19 hospitalizations per day. As a result, Bukholm continued, the coronavirus should now be viewed as similar in danger to other respiratory diseases 'in Norway and in many countries that have good vaccine coverage.' Because most vaccinated people infected with the virus experience only mild, cold-like symptoms, 'the coronavirus ... joins the ranks of other respiratory diseases such as colds and seasonal flu.' 'This does not mean that illness from coronavirus and the seasonal flu are similar,' the NIPH spokesperson told PolitiFact. 'On an individual level, people must receive the correct treatment for the specific disease. We will be continuously following the epidemiology of both COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases and will be prepared to react differently (if) circumstances worsen.' | Our ruling A website claimed that Norway decided 'that (the coronavirus) should be treated like other respiratory diseases, such as the flu or cold, because... it is no more dangerous than those mentioned.' The Norwegian Institute of Public Health said that this is a misinterpretation of its position. The assistant director of the institute said in an interview that Norway should shift the way it views the disease, because the vast majority of Norway's population has been fully vaccinated. He did not say that the coronavirus is no more dangerous than the flu but that most vaccinated people who are infected with the virus experience only cold-like symptoms. We rate this claim False. | []
|
The New York Times 'published Tucker Carlson's home address and location. | Contradiction | On July 20, Fox News host Tucker Carlson told the audience of his show that the New York Times was planning to reveal his address in an article. 'Why is the New York Times doing a story on the location of my family's home?' he said. 'Well, you know why. To hurt us. To injure my wife and kids so I will shut up and stop disagreeing with them. They believe in force.' Carlson identified the reporter of the story as Murray Carpenter, a freelance writer who sometimes writes for the Times. By the following day, people were angrily sharing Carpenter's photo online. 'This puke from the NEW YORK TIMES has published Tucker Carlson's home address & location,' one post said. 'ANTIFA has shown up threatening his wife & kids. Let's make this CLEAR!! We will not stand for a POS like this & his photographer, going to lengths to destroy someone's life. PASS THIS ON, DON'T STOP. Until we stop this Puke.' 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.) Since Carlson's comments aired, social media accounts have started posting Carpenter's address and other personal information and some have encouraged people to harass him. But, as is germane to this fact-check, the New York Times hasn't published Carlson's address. 'While we do not confirm what may or may not publish in future editions, the Times has not and does not plan to expose any residence of Tucker Carlson's, which Carlson was aware of before tonight's broadcast,' a spokesperson told the Washington Post. The New York Times also responded to Carlson on Twitter, where he posted the segment from his show. (Aas of July 22, it had been retweeted more than 58,000 times.) '@nytimes does not plan to publish Tucker Carlson's residence, which Carlson was aware of before his broadcast tonight,' the New York Times tweeted. Activists protested outside of Carlson's home in Washington, D.C. in 2018 - he referred to them as 'screaming antifa lunatics' on his July 20 show. But the New York Times did not publish his address. We rate this Facebook post False. | But the New York Times did not publish his address. We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
The New York Times 'published Tucker Carlson's home address and location. | Contradiction | On July 20, Fox News host Tucker Carlson told the audience of his show that the New York Times was planning to reveal his address in an article. 'Why is the New York Times doing a story on the location of my family's home?' he said. 'Well, you know why. To hurt us. To injure my wife and kids so I will shut up and stop disagreeing with them. They believe in force.' Carlson identified the reporter of the story as Murray Carpenter, a freelance writer who sometimes writes for the Times. By the following day, people were angrily sharing Carpenter's photo online. 'This puke from the NEW YORK TIMES has published Tucker Carlson's home address & location,' one post said. 'ANTIFA has shown up threatening his wife & kids. Let's make this CLEAR!! We will not stand for a POS like this & his photographer, going to lengths to destroy someone's life. PASS THIS ON, DON'T STOP. Until we stop this Puke.' 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.) Since Carlson's comments aired, social media accounts have started posting Carpenter's address and other personal information and some have encouraged people to harass him. But, as is germane to this fact-check, the New York Times hasn't published Carlson's address. 'While we do not confirm what may or may not publish in future editions, the Times has not and does not plan to expose any residence of Tucker Carlson's, which Carlson was aware of before tonight's broadcast,' a spokesperson told the Washington Post. The New York Times also responded to Carlson on Twitter, where he posted the segment from his show. (Aas of July 22, it had been retweeted more than 58,000 times.) '@nytimes does not plan to publish Tucker Carlson's residence, which Carlson was aware of before his broadcast tonight,' the New York Times tweeted. Activists protested outside of Carlson's home in Washington, D.C. in 2018 - he referred to them as 'screaming antifa lunatics' on his July 20 show. But the New York Times did not publish his address. We rate this Facebook post False. | But the New York Times did not publish his address. We rate this Facebook post False. | []
|
Says Betsy Devos said 'only' 0.02% of kids are likely to die when they go back to school. | Contradiction | Numerous posts circulating on social media websites claim Education Secretary Betsy DeVos downplayed the risk of reopening schools by saying 'only' .02% of children are likely to die from COVID-19 when they return to school. This isn't true. There's no evidence that DeVos ever said this, and her office called the quote 'a total lie.' The claim, which has appeared in posts on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, reads: 'Betsy DeVos said 'only' 0.02% of kids are likely to die when they go back to school. That's 14,740 children.' | The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no record of DeVos making this comment, or anything close to it, in her numerous recent interviews and public appearances. (Whoever made up the quote also messed up the math: Even if all of the approximately 50.8 million public school students got infected, 0.02% percent would compute to around 10,160, not 14,740; and if we broadened the group to include kids in private school, the number still comes to only 11,320.) Several other media organizations have debunked the fake quote and DeVos' office denied the claim. 'The secretary has never and would never say such a thing,' spokesperson Angela Morabito told PolitiFact. 'This is a total lie. She would not be working to get kids back to school if it were unsafe.' Whether it's safe for children to physically return to school in August and September is a subject of intense debate in the country, as several scientists say there hasn't been enough research to determine how kids transmit the virus. RELATED: COVID-19 and children: What we know, what we don't RELATED: Key questions for reopening schools under COVID-19 The fabricated quote appeared online after DeVos made several public comments touting the safety of the Trump administration's goal of reopening schools in the fall, despite a record number of rising cases in several states. Some versions of the claim attributed it to a press conference, and while DeVos spoke at recent White House coronavirus task force briefings, she did not make this claim. She did downplay the risk of reopening schools in several recent interviews, however. On July 12, DeVos told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that there's 'nothing in the data that suggests that kids being in school is in any way dangerous.' Though the science on that point is far from settled, she repeated the claim that same day on CNN's State of the Union. 'We know that children get the virus at a far lower rate than any other part of the population,' DeVos told host Dana Bash. 'And, again, there's - there is no - nothing in the data that would suggest that kids being back in school is dangerous to them. And, in fact, it's - it's more a matter of their health and well-being that they be back in school.' Our ruling Social media posts claim that DeVos stated that 'only' .02% of kids would die if they returned to school. DeVos made several public appearances recently and touted the safety of reopening schools soon, but she never said this. We rate this Pants on Fire! | [
"108455-proof-00-9bb45ae5aca6269693994fdc64698468.jpg"
]
|
Says Betsy Devos said 'only' 0.02% of kids are likely to die when they go back to school. | Contradiction | Numerous posts circulating on social media websites claim Education Secretary Betsy DeVos downplayed the risk of reopening schools by saying 'only' .02% of children are likely to die from COVID-19 when they return to school. This isn't true. There's no evidence that DeVos ever said this, and her office called the quote 'a total lie.' The claim, which has appeared in posts on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, reads: 'Betsy DeVos said 'only' 0.02% of kids are likely to die when they go back to school. That's 14,740 children.' | The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no record of DeVos making this comment, or anything close to it, in her numerous recent interviews and public appearances. (Whoever made up the quote also messed up the math: Even if all of the approximately 50.8 million public school students got infected, 0.02% percent would compute to around 10,160, not 14,740; and if we broadened the group to include kids in private school, the number still comes to only 11,320.) Several other media organizations have debunked the fake quote and DeVos' office denied the claim. 'The secretary has never and would never say such a thing,' spokesperson Angela Morabito told PolitiFact. 'This is a total lie. She would not be working to get kids back to school if it were unsafe.' Whether it's safe for children to physically return to school in August and September is a subject of intense debate in the country, as several scientists say there hasn't been enough research to determine how kids transmit the virus. RELATED: COVID-19 and children: What we know, what we don't RELATED: Key questions for reopening schools under COVID-19 The fabricated quote appeared online after DeVos made several public comments touting the safety of the Trump administration's goal of reopening schools in the fall, despite a record number of rising cases in several states. Some versions of the claim attributed it to a press conference, and while DeVos spoke at recent White House coronavirus task force briefings, she did not make this claim. She did downplay the risk of reopening schools in several recent interviews, however. On July 12, DeVos told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that there's 'nothing in the data that suggests that kids being in school is in any way dangerous.' Though the science on that point is far from settled, she repeated the claim that same day on CNN's State of the Union. 'We know that children get the virus at a far lower rate than any other part of the population,' DeVos told host Dana Bash. 'And, again, there's - there is no - nothing in the data that would suggest that kids being back in school is dangerous to them. And, in fact, it's - it's more a matter of their health and well-being that they be back in school.' Our ruling Social media posts claim that DeVos stated that 'only' .02% of kids would die if they returned to school. DeVos made several public appearances recently and touted the safety of reopening schools soon, but she never said this. We rate this Pants on Fire! | [
"108455-proof-00-9bb45ae5aca6269693994fdc64698468.jpg"
]
|
Says he's the one who gave the nickname 'Mad Dog' to former Defense Secretary James Mattis. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump has often lashed out at those who criticize him, especially if they are former insiders. The pattern repeated itself on June 3, just hours after his first defense secretary, retired Gen. James Mattis, published criticism of Trump, writing that Trump 'is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people-does not even pretend to try.' In a tweet, Trump wrote, 'Probably the only thing Barack Obama & I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world's most overrated General. I asked for his letter of resignation, & felt great about it. His nickname was 'Chaos,' which I didn't like, & changed to 'Mad Dog.'' Probably the only thing Barack Obama & I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world's most overrated General. I asked for his letter of resignation, & felt great about it. His nickname was 'Chaos', which I didn't like, & changed to 'Mad Dog'...- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2020 It's not the first time Trump claimed to have given Mattis the nickname 'Mad Dog.' In a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2019, Trump said he told Mattis 'we're going to give you a new nickname, because 'Chaos' is not a good nickname. So we changed it to 'Mad Dog.'' In reality, though, Mattis' 'Mad Dog' nickname was in common circulation long before Trump tapped him for his cabinet. It dates back at least as far as 2004, and probably well before that. (The White House and the Trump campaign did not respond to inquiries for this article.) On April 16, 2004, the Los Angeles Times published an article filed from Iraq headlined, 'Marines' 'Mad Dog Mattis' Battles for Iraqis' Support.' The article said, 'Behind his back, troops call him 'Mad Dog Mattis,' high praise in Marine culture. 'He can swear as much as any enlisted man,' a corporal said.' Later that year, the Los Angeles Times published another article that referred to the nickname, saying that the general was 'known as 'Mad Dog Mattis' to his men.' The earliest instance of Trump calling Mattis 'Mad Dog' that we could find from searching Google and Nexis was on Nov. 20, 2016, when Trump tweeted, 'General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis, who is being considered for Secretary of Defense, was very impressive yesterday. A true General's General!' General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis, who is being considered for Secretary of Defense, was very impressive yesterday. A true General's General!- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 20, 2016 During the confirmation hearing for his nomination as Defense secretary in January 2017, Mattis told senators that the nickname 'was given to me by the press, and some of you may have experienced similar occasions with the press where perhaps they didn't get it quite right.' News reports have suggested that Mattis has not been a big fan of his nickname. Meanwhile, the nickname 'Chaos' that Trump referenced comes from the acronym for 'the colonel has an outstanding solution,' something his troops said as a gentle dig behind his back in the 1990s, according to the Marine Corps Times. | Our ruling Trump said that Mattis' 'nickname was 'Chaos,' which I didn't like, & changed to 'Mad Dog.'' This is the second time that Trump has said he gave Mattis his 'Mad Dog' nickname, but it's flat wrong. The nickname dates back at least as far as 2004, when it was used in the headline of a Los Angeles Times article - 12 years before Trump first used the nickname publicly as he was considering Mattis as his Defense Secretary. We rate the statement Pants on Fire. | [
"108460-proof-24-198b69bcd5a1e959d695e29b1b4feed6.jpg"
]
|
Says he's the one who gave the nickname 'Mad Dog' to former Defense Secretary James Mattis. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump has often lashed out at those who criticize him, especially if they are former insiders. The pattern repeated itself on June 3, just hours after his first defense secretary, retired Gen. James Mattis, published criticism of Trump, writing that Trump 'is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people-does not even pretend to try.' In a tweet, Trump wrote, 'Probably the only thing Barack Obama & I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world's most overrated General. I asked for his letter of resignation, & felt great about it. His nickname was 'Chaos,' which I didn't like, & changed to 'Mad Dog.'' Probably the only thing Barack Obama & I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world's most overrated General. I asked for his letter of resignation, & felt great about it. His nickname was 'Chaos', which I didn't like, & changed to 'Mad Dog'...- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2020 It's not the first time Trump claimed to have given Mattis the nickname 'Mad Dog.' In a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2019, Trump said he told Mattis 'we're going to give you a new nickname, because 'Chaos' is not a good nickname. So we changed it to 'Mad Dog.'' In reality, though, Mattis' 'Mad Dog' nickname was in common circulation long before Trump tapped him for his cabinet. It dates back at least as far as 2004, and probably well before that. (The White House and the Trump campaign did not respond to inquiries for this article.) On April 16, 2004, the Los Angeles Times published an article filed from Iraq headlined, 'Marines' 'Mad Dog Mattis' Battles for Iraqis' Support.' The article said, 'Behind his back, troops call him 'Mad Dog Mattis,' high praise in Marine culture. 'He can swear as much as any enlisted man,' a corporal said.' Later that year, the Los Angeles Times published another article that referred to the nickname, saying that the general was 'known as 'Mad Dog Mattis' to his men.' The earliest instance of Trump calling Mattis 'Mad Dog' that we could find from searching Google and Nexis was on Nov. 20, 2016, when Trump tweeted, 'General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis, who is being considered for Secretary of Defense, was very impressive yesterday. A true General's General!' General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis, who is being considered for Secretary of Defense, was very impressive yesterday. A true General's General!- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 20, 2016 During the confirmation hearing for his nomination as Defense secretary in January 2017, Mattis told senators that the nickname 'was given to me by the press, and some of you may have experienced similar occasions with the press where perhaps they didn't get it quite right.' News reports have suggested that Mattis has not been a big fan of his nickname. Meanwhile, the nickname 'Chaos' that Trump referenced comes from the acronym for 'the colonel has an outstanding solution,' something his troops said as a gentle dig behind his back in the 1990s, according to the Marine Corps Times. | Our ruling Trump said that Mattis' 'nickname was 'Chaos,' which I didn't like, & changed to 'Mad Dog.'' This is the second time that Trump has said he gave Mattis his 'Mad Dog' nickname, but it's flat wrong. The nickname dates back at least as far as 2004, when it was used in the headline of a Los Angeles Times article - 12 years before Trump first used the nickname publicly as he was considering Mattis as his Defense Secretary. We rate the statement Pants on Fire. | [
"108460-proof-24-198b69bcd5a1e959d695e29b1b4feed6.jpg"
]
|
Says he's the one who gave the nickname 'Mad Dog' to former Defense Secretary James Mattis. | Contradiction | President Donald Trump has often lashed out at those who criticize him, especially if they are former insiders. The pattern repeated itself on June 3, just hours after his first defense secretary, retired Gen. James Mattis, published criticism of Trump, writing that Trump 'is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people-does not even pretend to try.' In a tweet, Trump wrote, 'Probably the only thing Barack Obama & I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world's most overrated General. I asked for his letter of resignation, & felt great about it. His nickname was 'Chaos,' which I didn't like, & changed to 'Mad Dog.'' Probably the only thing Barack Obama & I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world's most overrated General. I asked for his letter of resignation, & felt great about it. His nickname was 'Chaos', which I didn't like, & changed to 'Mad Dog'...- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 4, 2020 It's not the first time Trump claimed to have given Mattis the nickname 'Mad Dog.' In a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2019, Trump said he told Mattis 'we're going to give you a new nickname, because 'Chaos' is not a good nickname. So we changed it to 'Mad Dog.'' In reality, though, Mattis' 'Mad Dog' nickname was in common circulation long before Trump tapped him for his cabinet. It dates back at least as far as 2004, and probably well before that. (The White House and the Trump campaign did not respond to inquiries for this article.) On April 16, 2004, the Los Angeles Times published an article filed from Iraq headlined, 'Marines' 'Mad Dog Mattis' Battles for Iraqis' Support.' The article said, 'Behind his back, troops call him 'Mad Dog Mattis,' high praise in Marine culture. 'He can swear as much as any enlisted man,' a corporal said.' Later that year, the Los Angeles Times published another article that referred to the nickname, saying that the general was 'known as 'Mad Dog Mattis' to his men.' The earliest instance of Trump calling Mattis 'Mad Dog' that we could find from searching Google and Nexis was on Nov. 20, 2016, when Trump tweeted, 'General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis, who is being considered for Secretary of Defense, was very impressive yesterday. A true General's General!' General James 'Mad Dog' Mattis, who is being considered for Secretary of Defense, was very impressive yesterday. A true General's General!- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 20, 2016 During the confirmation hearing for his nomination as Defense secretary in January 2017, Mattis told senators that the nickname 'was given to me by the press, and some of you may have experienced similar occasions with the press where perhaps they didn't get it quite right.' News reports have suggested that Mattis has not been a big fan of his nickname. Meanwhile, the nickname 'Chaos' that Trump referenced comes from the acronym for 'the colonel has an outstanding solution,' something his troops said as a gentle dig behind his back in the 1990s, according to the Marine Corps Times. | Our ruling Trump said that Mattis' 'nickname was 'Chaos,' which I didn't like, & changed to 'Mad Dog.'' This is the second time that Trump has said he gave Mattis his 'Mad Dog' nickname, but it's flat wrong. The nickname dates back at least as far as 2004, when it was used in the headline of a Los Angeles Times article - 12 years before Trump first used the nickname publicly as he was considering Mattis as his Defense Secretary. We rate the statement Pants on Fire. | [
"108460-proof-24-198b69bcd5a1e959d695e29b1b4feed6.jpg"
]
|
Says Kamala Harris 'advocated for restoring voting rights for the Boston bomber. | Contradiction | Joe Biden's choice of Kamala Harris as his vice presidential running mate drew an attack the same day from Republican Nancy Mace, who is running for a congressional seat in South Carolina. Mace's Aug. 11 tweet made a half dozen claims about Harris, a Democratic senator from California. One referred to the surviving bomber in the 2013 bombing at the Boston Marathon, who killed three people and wounded more than 260 others. Harris 'advocated for restoring voting rights for the Boston bomber,' Mace claimed. During her own campaign for the presidential nomination, she said she is open to the idea, but she didn't advocate for it. A tossup race; the bomber Mace, a state representative since 2018, describes herself as a single mom, businesswoman and former Waffle House waitress. The first woman to graduate from The Citadel military college in South Carolina, she is challenging first-term Democratic Rep. Joe Cunningham in the Nov. 3 election. As of Aug. 7, the Cook Political Report rated the race a tossup. On July 31, a federal appeals court threw out the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who had been convicted for his role in the marathon bombing, leaving in place a life sentence. His lawyers argued that the mastermind of the attack was his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed in a gunfight with police a few days after the April 15, 2013 bombing. Harris worked as a prosecutor in Alameda County (Oakland) and in San Francisco, then was elected San Francisco district attorney in 2003 and 2007. In 2010, she was elected California attorney general, then was re-elected in 2014. Harris open to letting the bomber vote A series of CNN town halls on April 22, 2019, with candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination for president included sessions with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Harris. Sanders said that he believes all prisoners - including 'terrible people' like the Boston Marathon bomber - should be allowed to vote. That prompted an exchange between Harris and host Don Lemon, who asked Harris what she thought of the idea. Harris: 'I agree that the right to vote is one of the very important components of citizenship and it is something that people should not be stripped of needlessly, which is why I have been long an advocate of making sure that the formerly incarcerated are not denied a right to vote, which is the case in so many states in our country, in some states permanently deprived of the right to vote. 'And these are policies that go back to Jim Crow. These are policies that go back to the heart of policies that have been about disenfranchisement, policies that continue until today, and we need to take it seriously.' Lemon: 'But people who are convicted, in prison, like the Boston Marathon bomber, on death row, people who are convicted of sexual assault - they should be able to vote?' Harris: 'I think we should have that conversation.' Harris elaborates On the campaign trail the next day, a reporter asked Harris to expand on her remarks about the Boston bomber, saying: 'What is your view on felons voting from prison?' In comments that her then-press secretary highlighted on Twitter, Harris replied by saying she would make a decision after giving the issue more thought: 'Listen, it's a complex issue, and I take it very seriously. Look, I'm running for president of the United States; I'm going to be very thoughtful and serious about the issues I weigh in on. And so I'm going to think about it, and I'm going to talk to experts, and I'm going to make a decision, and I'll let you know. I will tell you this: One, it's a complex issue, I'm fully aware of that. Two, we right now have got a lot of work to do with the people in our country who have served their time and have been prohibited from voting. 'Currently in our country there are 6 million people who have served their time and are still prohibited from voting, and that has been an area of focus for me for quite some time, and we have got to address that immediately. And so that is one of my first areas of focusing concern. 'But, do I think people who commit murder, or people who are terrorists, should be deprived of their rights? Yeah, I do. I'm a prosecutor, I believe there have to be serious consequences for the most extreme types of crimes.' | Our ruling Mace claimed that Harris 'advocated for restoring voting rights for the Boston bomber.' Harris has not said that she would advocate for giving the surviving Boston marathon bomber the right to vote, only that she is open to a conversation about it. She emphasized that people who had served their sentences and been released should be able to vote. Mace's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That meets our definition of Mostly False. | [
"108463-proof-09-d75301419cc953b95bb5cdbf36a177d2.jpg"
]
|
Says Kamala Harris 'advocated for restoring voting rights for the Boston bomber. | Contradiction | Joe Biden's choice of Kamala Harris as his vice presidential running mate drew an attack the same day from Republican Nancy Mace, who is running for a congressional seat in South Carolina. Mace's Aug. 11 tweet made a half dozen claims about Harris, a Democratic senator from California. One referred to the surviving bomber in the 2013 bombing at the Boston Marathon, who killed three people and wounded more than 260 others. Harris 'advocated for restoring voting rights for the Boston bomber,' Mace claimed. During her own campaign for the presidential nomination, she said she is open to the idea, but she didn't advocate for it. A tossup race; the bomber Mace, a state representative since 2018, describes herself as a single mom, businesswoman and former Waffle House waitress. The first woman to graduate from The Citadel military college in South Carolina, she is challenging first-term Democratic Rep. Joe Cunningham in the Nov. 3 election. As of Aug. 7, the Cook Political Report rated the race a tossup. On July 31, a federal appeals court threw out the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who had been convicted for his role in the marathon bombing, leaving in place a life sentence. His lawyers argued that the mastermind of the attack was his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed in a gunfight with police a few days after the April 15, 2013 bombing. Harris worked as a prosecutor in Alameda County (Oakland) and in San Francisco, then was elected San Francisco district attorney in 2003 and 2007. In 2010, she was elected California attorney general, then was re-elected in 2014. Harris open to letting the bomber vote A series of CNN town halls on April 22, 2019, with candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination for president included sessions with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Harris. Sanders said that he believes all prisoners - including 'terrible people' like the Boston Marathon bomber - should be allowed to vote. That prompted an exchange between Harris and host Don Lemon, who asked Harris what she thought of the idea. Harris: 'I agree that the right to vote is one of the very important components of citizenship and it is something that people should not be stripped of needlessly, which is why I have been long an advocate of making sure that the formerly incarcerated are not denied a right to vote, which is the case in so many states in our country, in some states permanently deprived of the right to vote. 'And these are policies that go back to Jim Crow. These are policies that go back to the heart of policies that have been about disenfranchisement, policies that continue until today, and we need to take it seriously.' Lemon: 'But people who are convicted, in prison, like the Boston Marathon bomber, on death row, people who are convicted of sexual assault - they should be able to vote?' Harris: 'I think we should have that conversation.' Harris elaborates On the campaign trail the next day, a reporter asked Harris to expand on her remarks about the Boston bomber, saying: 'What is your view on felons voting from prison?' In comments that her then-press secretary highlighted on Twitter, Harris replied by saying she would make a decision after giving the issue more thought: 'Listen, it's a complex issue, and I take it very seriously. Look, I'm running for president of the United States; I'm going to be very thoughtful and serious about the issues I weigh in on. And so I'm going to think about it, and I'm going to talk to experts, and I'm going to make a decision, and I'll let you know. I will tell you this: One, it's a complex issue, I'm fully aware of that. Two, we right now have got a lot of work to do with the people in our country who have served their time and have been prohibited from voting. 'Currently in our country there are 6 million people who have served their time and are still prohibited from voting, and that has been an area of focus for me for quite some time, and we have got to address that immediately. And so that is one of my first areas of focusing concern. 'But, do I think people who commit murder, or people who are terrorists, should be deprived of their rights? Yeah, I do. I'm a prosecutor, I believe there have to be serious consequences for the most extreme types of crimes.' | Our ruling Mace claimed that Harris 'advocated for restoring voting rights for the Boston bomber.' Harris has not said that she would advocate for giving the surviving Boston marathon bomber the right to vote, only that she is open to a conversation about it. She emphasized that people who had served their sentences and been released should be able to vote. Mace's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That meets our definition of Mostly False. | [
"108463-proof-09-d75301419cc953b95bb5cdbf36a177d2.jpg"
]
|
Says Kamala Harris 'advocated for restoring voting rights for the Boston bomber. | Contradiction | Joe Biden's choice of Kamala Harris as his vice presidential running mate drew an attack the same day from Republican Nancy Mace, who is running for a congressional seat in South Carolina. Mace's Aug. 11 tweet made a half dozen claims about Harris, a Democratic senator from California. One referred to the surviving bomber in the 2013 bombing at the Boston Marathon, who killed three people and wounded more than 260 others. Harris 'advocated for restoring voting rights for the Boston bomber,' Mace claimed. During her own campaign for the presidential nomination, she said she is open to the idea, but she didn't advocate for it. A tossup race; the bomber Mace, a state representative since 2018, describes herself as a single mom, businesswoman and former Waffle House waitress. The first woman to graduate from The Citadel military college in South Carolina, she is challenging first-term Democratic Rep. Joe Cunningham in the Nov. 3 election. As of Aug. 7, the Cook Political Report rated the race a tossup. On July 31, a federal appeals court threw out the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who had been convicted for his role in the marathon bombing, leaving in place a life sentence. His lawyers argued that the mastermind of the attack was his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed in a gunfight with police a few days after the April 15, 2013 bombing. Harris worked as a prosecutor in Alameda County (Oakland) and in San Francisco, then was elected San Francisco district attorney in 2003 and 2007. In 2010, she was elected California attorney general, then was re-elected in 2014. Harris open to letting the bomber vote A series of CNN town halls on April 22, 2019, with candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination for president included sessions with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Harris. Sanders said that he believes all prisoners - including 'terrible people' like the Boston Marathon bomber - should be allowed to vote. That prompted an exchange between Harris and host Don Lemon, who asked Harris what she thought of the idea. Harris: 'I agree that the right to vote is one of the very important components of citizenship and it is something that people should not be stripped of needlessly, which is why I have been long an advocate of making sure that the formerly incarcerated are not denied a right to vote, which is the case in so many states in our country, in some states permanently deprived of the right to vote. 'And these are policies that go back to Jim Crow. These are policies that go back to the heart of policies that have been about disenfranchisement, policies that continue until today, and we need to take it seriously.' Lemon: 'But people who are convicted, in prison, like the Boston Marathon bomber, on death row, people who are convicted of sexual assault - they should be able to vote?' Harris: 'I think we should have that conversation.' Harris elaborates On the campaign trail the next day, a reporter asked Harris to expand on her remarks about the Boston bomber, saying: 'What is your view on felons voting from prison?' In comments that her then-press secretary highlighted on Twitter, Harris replied by saying she would make a decision after giving the issue more thought: 'Listen, it's a complex issue, and I take it very seriously. Look, I'm running for president of the United States; I'm going to be very thoughtful and serious about the issues I weigh in on. And so I'm going to think about it, and I'm going to talk to experts, and I'm going to make a decision, and I'll let you know. I will tell you this: One, it's a complex issue, I'm fully aware of that. Two, we right now have got a lot of work to do with the people in our country who have served their time and have been prohibited from voting. 'Currently in our country there are 6 million people who have served their time and are still prohibited from voting, and that has been an area of focus for me for quite some time, and we have got to address that immediately. And so that is one of my first areas of focusing concern. 'But, do I think people who commit murder, or people who are terrorists, should be deprived of their rights? Yeah, I do. I'm a prosecutor, I believe there have to be serious consequences for the most extreme types of crimes.' | Our ruling Mace claimed that Harris 'advocated for restoring voting rights for the Boston bomber.' Harris has not said that she would advocate for giving the surviving Boston marathon bomber the right to vote, only that she is open to a conversation about it. She emphasized that people who had served their sentences and been released should be able to vote. Mace's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That meets our definition of Mostly False. | [
"108463-proof-09-d75301419cc953b95bb5cdbf36a177d2.jpg"
]
|
'Europe COMPLETELY BANS the Moderna vaccine for young people. | Contradiction | 'Europe COMPLETELY BANS the Moderna vaccine for young people due to HIGH RISK of heart inflammation,' reads the title of a video that's being shared on social media. A few countries have limited Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine among young people there, but by no means has the entire continent banned it. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) On Oct. 6, Sweden said it was pausing administering the Moderna vaccine to people born in 1991 or later, and Denmark said they were pausing giving it to people younger than 18, because of the risk of possible rare cardiovascular side effects. On Oct. 7, Finland followed suit and said it would give Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine to men and boys born in 1991 and later instead of the Moderna vaccine. Norwegian officials also said they recommended men under the age of 30 get the Pfizer vaccine, not Moderna. And on Oct. 8, Icelandic officials said they were temporarily suspended use of the Moderna vaccine before reversing the position slightly on Oct. 12, saying that it would only be used for booster shots for people 60 and older. Five of 44 European countries have recently limited the use of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine. To claim that the continent has completely banned the vaccine among young people is wrong. We rate this post False. | We rate this post False. | []
|
It's illegal for a college, public school or employer to 'mandate' the vaccine because it was authorized for emergency use. | Contradiction | A viral Facebook post claims it is illegal for schools and employers to mandate vaccination against COVID-19, citing the vaccines' emergency use authorization status. With all adults in the United States now eligible for COVID-19 vaccination, businesses and schools are continuously assessing how to safely allow for employees and students to return to in-person operations. 'If any college, public school, employer, etc tries to 'mandate' the latest prick it's completely illegal for them to do so,' the April 21 all-caps post reads. 'The prick has been released under the EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) & is not FDA approved. It cannot be mandated.' The post was flagged as part of efforts by Facebook to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post is inaccurate. A growing number of employers and colleges across the country are mandating that workers and students get vaccinated. And while their decisions could face legal challenges, scholars say courts have found such institutions to be on solid footing. First, emergency use authorization is a declaration made by the secretary of health and human services that allows for emergency use of drugs or products during a public health emergency such as a pandemic. To qualify for emergency use, the new drugs must be fully tested in clinical trials involving tens of thousands of participants. Drug makers have to submit reports on the outcomes and effects on every participant. The chemistry behind the drug, details of the manufacturing process, and the details of the quality controls in place are also required. Second, there are no legal mechanisms in place that would prevent any institution, whether an employer or school, from mandating COVID-19 shots, though exemptions can be made for those with certain disabilities or sincerely held religious beliefs, as provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As PolitiFact has reported, vaccination records are already required for certain jobs, school registration and travel abroad. The World Health Organization requires travelers to be inoculated against yellow fever, and some countries have additional vaccination requirements, such as for the poliovirus. Immigrants to the U.S. must be vaccinated against a slew of diseases. Dr. Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, whose research at the University of California Hastings School of Law focuses on legal issues related to vaccines, told PolitiFact in an interview that while some may test this in court, institutions that are mandating the vaccine are 'not doing anything wrong.' In February, Rubinstein Reiss wrote a post for Harvard Law's bioethics blog arguing that, although there was some room for legal interpretation, a vaccine mandate would meet little resistance in a court of law. 'Employment in the United States is at-will, and employers can fire employees for almost any reason, with few exceptions from anti-discrimination laws,' she wrote. 'Employers can certainly fire employees for violating a health and safety requirement, or for outright refusing to follow it. Vaccine mandates in the workplace are such a requirement, and have been used for a long time, for example, to require influenza vaccines for health care providers.' The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in March 2020 updated its guidance concerning worker-protection laws to state that employers could dismiss employees who opt to not get vaccinated due to religion or disability so long as the employer has exhausted all 'reasonable accomodations.' Similarly, as of April 27, at least 108 U.S. colleges and universities - both public and private - were requiring students and staff to be fully vaccinated against the novel coronavirus before returning to campus this fall, according to a Chronicle of Higher Education database. They include the University of California system, Yale University, University of Notre Dame and University of Michigan. A California court in December 2020 upheld the University of California system's mandate from July of the same year that all returning students taking classes in person receive the flu vaccine. Citing data from the American College Health Association, The Wall Street Journal reported last fall that in a sample of 86 higher education institutions, roughly 14% required flu shots, and nearly 70% were beefing up efforts to encourage participation among students and staff. | Our ruling There are no legal or legislative mechanisms that broadly prohibit employers or schools from mandating vaccinations. It is not illegal for them to do so, though federal law stipulates that exemptions can be made for those with conflicting religious convictions and certain disabilities. We rate this claim False. RELATED STORY: No, Biden didn't promote 'mandatory' COVID-19 vaccines in primetime address | []
|
The Moderna vaccine contains an ingredient that is 'for research use only, not meant for human or veterinary use. | Contradiction | Although more than a billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccines have been administered across the globe, misinformation continues to persist about them - whether it's about their safety or their ingredients. A video making the rounds on social media claims the vaccine manufactured by Moderna contains an ingredient that is harmful to humans. A version of the video on Instagram shows a man Googling the phrase 'active ingredient of Moderna vaccine.' The man then clicks on a link from Hackensack Meridian Health, a New Jersey hospital network, that takes him to a page titled 'A Simple breakdown of the Ingredients in the COVID Vaccines.' As he scrolls down the page, the man stops at an entry listing some of the ingredients in the vaccine. He reads the entry for different lipids contained in the vaccine and wonders aloud about one listed as 'SM-102.' He then pulls up a safety data sheet from a biotech company claiming the lipid is 'for research use only, not meant for human or veterinary use.' Instagram is owned by Facebook and the post was flagged as part of the company's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) While the Moderna vaccine does contain the SM-102 lipid, the man misinterpreted the safety data sheet. Lipids are used in both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines as a way to protect the mRNA that is used in them. The lipids surround the mRNA in a fatty shell, allowing it to enter cells. The company that provided the data sheet referenced in the video, Cayman Chemical, sells chemicals to pharmaceutical companies for research in developing new medicines. But this safety data sheet was from a product listing for a version of the lipid that has been dissolved in a solution of chloroform, a highly toxic compound often used in chemical manufacturing. The safety warnings and risks listed on the sheet are for the chloroform used in the solution - not the SM-102 lipid itself. The Moderna vaccine does not contain any chloroform. The SM-102 lipid is safe for humans. | Our ruling A video shared on Instagram claimed that a lipid used in the Moderna vaccine was unsafe for humans and is meant to be only used in research. The video showed a safety sheet provided by a biotech company listing the dangers associated with the lipid. However, the safety sheet was not for the lipid itself but a version dissolved in a solution of chloroform that's sold to pharmaceutical companies for research purposes. The dangers listed on the sheet are for the chloroform, which is a toxic substance. The Moderna vaccine does not contain any chloroform - and none of its ingredients are deemed toxic to humans. We rate this claim False. | []
|
The Moderna vaccine contains an ingredient that is 'for research use only, not meant for human or veterinary use. | Contradiction | Although more than a billion doses of the COVID-19 vaccines have been administered across the globe, misinformation continues to persist about them - whether it's about their safety or their ingredients. A video making the rounds on social media claims the vaccine manufactured by Moderna contains an ingredient that is harmful to humans. A version of the video on Instagram shows a man Googling the phrase 'active ingredient of Moderna vaccine.' The man then clicks on a link from Hackensack Meridian Health, a New Jersey hospital network, that takes him to a page titled 'A Simple breakdown of the Ingredients in the COVID Vaccines.' As he scrolls down the page, the man stops at an entry listing some of the ingredients in the vaccine. He reads the entry for different lipids contained in the vaccine and wonders aloud about one listed as 'SM-102.' He then pulls up a safety data sheet from a biotech company claiming the lipid is 'for research use only, not meant for human or veterinary use.' Instagram is owned by Facebook and the post was flagged as part of the company's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) While the Moderna vaccine does contain the SM-102 lipid, the man misinterpreted the safety data sheet. Lipids are used in both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines as a way to protect the mRNA that is used in them. The lipids surround the mRNA in a fatty shell, allowing it to enter cells. The company that provided the data sheet referenced in the video, Cayman Chemical, sells chemicals to pharmaceutical companies for research in developing new medicines. But this safety data sheet was from a product listing for a version of the lipid that has been dissolved in a solution of chloroform, a highly toxic compound often used in chemical manufacturing. The safety warnings and risks listed on the sheet are for the chloroform used in the solution - not the SM-102 lipid itself. The Moderna vaccine does not contain any chloroform. The SM-102 lipid is safe for humans. | Our ruling A video shared on Instagram claimed that a lipid used in the Moderna vaccine was unsafe for humans and is meant to be only used in research. The video showed a safety sheet provided by a biotech company listing the dangers associated with the lipid. However, the safety sheet was not for the lipid itself but a version dissolved in a solution of chloroform that's sold to pharmaceutical companies for research purposes. The dangers listed on the sheet are for the chloroform, which is a toxic substance. The Moderna vaccine does not contain any chloroform - and none of its ingredients are deemed toxic to humans. We rate this claim False. | []
|
Broken voting machines in Russellville, Ark., tried to automatically tally votes meant for Donald Trump as votes for Joe Biden. | Contradiction | A pair of Arkansas voters who claimed they ran into trouble with a voting machine at the end of October are at the center of a Facebook post going viral roughly two weeks later. According to the story told on Facebook, two machines used at early voting polling centers in Russellville, Ark., were automatically counting ballots cast for President Donald Trump as votes for former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president. 'My two friends just voted at the Expo at Russellville,' a Facebook user wrote in a now-hidden Oct. 20 post that's been screenshotted and shared by others. 'When one of them voted for Trump and then waited to see how the machine tallied, it showed Biden!' 'She spoke to the officials there,' the screenshotted post continued. 'They tested the machines and two were registering Biden every time. They pulled those two machines. Folks, check your machine and paper before you leave your space. And speak up if it's wrong!' The story was picked up by a local Fox-affiliate, which described the Oct. 20 incident as an 'error' that was promptly corrected by poll workers who removed the machine. But the screenshotted Facebook post misrepresented what happened, and elections security experts told PolitiFact the incident isn't indicative of a wider problem. 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 machine didn't record a vote inaccurately The incident took place at the Pope County Election Headquarters, where Freddie Harris, chair of the Pope County Election Commission, was serving as a poll worker; it was not at a local business expo. And it didn't involve multiple machines. 'I happened to be standing there when it happened,' Harris said. The issue affected a man who arrived at the polling site with his wife. After poll workers moved the machine to a back room, Harris said the voter used another machine to cast his ballot as intended and flashed the workers a thumbs up on his way out the door. But Harris said the hiccup had been 'overexaggerated' online and in the local press. 'It did not happen as reported,' Harris told PolitiFact. 'But the machine did freeze up, and Biden's name was lit up on the screen. And we pulled the machine and put it in the back.' In reality, the machine never recorded or looked like it would record a vote for Biden, Harris said, contradicting the claim in the Facebook post as well as the local Fox station's report. Instead, the touch-screen froze, preventing the man from scrolling to vote for Trump. 'It did not check Biden,' Harris said. 'The screen froze on the first screen. Biden's name happens to be on the first screen, and you have to hit 'more' to go to the second screen.' 'It did not compute to Biden,' Harris said. 'It did not take anything away from Trump.' The issue was 'the result of a large number of candidates displayed and inadvertent touches as the voter scrolls down using the 'more' button to see all candidates,' said Katina Granger, a spokesperson for Election Systems & Software, the Nebraska company behind the technology. The screenshotted Facebook post was also wrong to claim that the incident involved multiple machines, and that it took place at a local business expo held at the River Valley Boys & Girls Club in Russellville. The Boys & Girls club isn't a polling location for the city, Harris said. Poll workers can handle scattered machine problems The incident was the first time Pope County had run into trouble with a voting machine, Harris said. She said voters should have 'no worries' about problems with their votes. The county's machines, known as ExpressVote systems, use 'touch-screen technology that produces a paper record for tabulation,' according to Election Systems & Software's website. The paper record is helpful, elections security experts said, because it gives voters a chance to review their selections and election officials a printed record to refer back to if necessary. 'While this issue is uncommon, voters should review their selections on the paper ballot and verify that their vote was recorded accurately before submitting for tabulation,' said Granger, the Election Systems & Software spokesperson. Elections security experts said that while individual touch-screens are sometimes finicky or calibrated poorly, voters should not take isolated incidents as signs that the technology is flawed or untrustworthy, or as an indication that people behind the scenes are trying to alter their vote. 'I think this is a single, solitary problem with this one machine,' said Matthew Weil, director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'We should be a little cautious of ascribing any ill intent or extrapolating this to be a bigger problem with the entire technology.' 'It's probably not anything nefarious, and there are scattered reports of this kind of problem in every election,' added Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan. The nation's voting technology is 'far better than people understand it to be,' Weil said, adding that 'people should be very confident in the process.' Poll workers are trained to deal with issues that come up, and voters who encounter problems should seek their help, Weil said. In Russellville, the poll workers were able to remedy the situation once they were alerted to it, and no ballots were cast in the wrong name. | Our ruling A Facebook post said broken voting machines in Russellville, Arkansas, tried to automatically tally votes meant for Donald Trump as votes for Joe Biden. A machine in Pope County did freeze on a voter in a way that prevented him from scrolling to cast his vote for Trump, said an elections official who was there when the incident took place. But the machine never computed a vote for Biden or checked the box next to his name. The hiccup was quickly resolved and the voter was able to cast his ballot as intended. The incident involved just one machine, not two, Harris said. Election security experts said the isolated incident should not be extrapolated to suggest all elections technology is faulty. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical fact that would give a different impression. We rate this post Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Broken voting machines in Russellville, Ark., tried to automatically tally votes meant for Donald Trump as votes for Joe Biden. | Contradiction | A pair of Arkansas voters who claimed they ran into trouble with a voting machine at the end of October are at the center of a Facebook post going viral roughly two weeks later. According to the story told on Facebook, two machines used at early voting polling centers in Russellville, Ark., were automatically counting ballots cast for President Donald Trump as votes for former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president. 'My two friends just voted at the Expo at Russellville,' a Facebook user wrote in a now-hidden Oct. 20 post that's been screenshotted and shared by others. 'When one of them voted for Trump and then waited to see how the machine tallied, it showed Biden!' 'She spoke to the officials there,' the screenshotted post continued. 'They tested the machines and two were registering Biden every time. They pulled those two machines. Folks, check your machine and paper before you leave your space. And speak up if it's wrong!' The story was picked up by a local Fox-affiliate, which described the Oct. 20 incident as an 'error' that was promptly corrected by poll workers who removed the machine. But the screenshotted Facebook post misrepresented what happened, and elections security experts told PolitiFact the incident isn't indicative of a wider problem. 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 machine didn't record a vote inaccurately The incident took place at the Pope County Election Headquarters, where Freddie Harris, chair of the Pope County Election Commission, was serving as a poll worker; it was not at a local business expo. And it didn't involve multiple machines. 'I happened to be standing there when it happened,' Harris said. The issue affected a man who arrived at the polling site with his wife. After poll workers moved the machine to a back room, Harris said the voter used another machine to cast his ballot as intended and flashed the workers a thumbs up on his way out the door. But Harris said the hiccup had been 'overexaggerated' online and in the local press. 'It did not happen as reported,' Harris told PolitiFact. 'But the machine did freeze up, and Biden's name was lit up on the screen. And we pulled the machine and put it in the back.' In reality, the machine never recorded or looked like it would record a vote for Biden, Harris said, contradicting the claim in the Facebook post as well as the local Fox station's report. Instead, the touch-screen froze, preventing the man from scrolling to vote for Trump. 'It did not check Biden,' Harris said. 'The screen froze on the first screen. Biden's name happens to be on the first screen, and you have to hit 'more' to go to the second screen.' 'It did not compute to Biden,' Harris said. 'It did not take anything away from Trump.' The issue was 'the result of a large number of candidates displayed and inadvertent touches as the voter scrolls down using the 'more' button to see all candidates,' said Katina Granger, a spokesperson for Election Systems & Software, the Nebraska company behind the technology. The screenshotted Facebook post was also wrong to claim that the incident involved multiple machines, and that it took place at a local business expo held at the River Valley Boys & Girls Club in Russellville. The Boys & Girls club isn't a polling location for the city, Harris said. Poll workers can handle scattered machine problems The incident was the first time Pope County had run into trouble with a voting machine, Harris said. She said voters should have 'no worries' about problems with their votes. The county's machines, known as ExpressVote systems, use 'touch-screen technology that produces a paper record for tabulation,' according to Election Systems & Software's website. The paper record is helpful, elections security experts said, because it gives voters a chance to review their selections and election officials a printed record to refer back to if necessary. 'While this issue is uncommon, voters should review their selections on the paper ballot and verify that their vote was recorded accurately before submitting for tabulation,' said Granger, the Election Systems & Software spokesperson. Elections security experts said that while individual touch-screens are sometimes finicky or calibrated poorly, voters should not take isolated incidents as signs that the technology is flawed or untrustworthy, or as an indication that people behind the scenes are trying to alter their vote. 'I think this is a single, solitary problem with this one machine,' said Matthew Weil, director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'We should be a little cautious of ascribing any ill intent or extrapolating this to be a bigger problem with the entire technology.' 'It's probably not anything nefarious, and there are scattered reports of this kind of problem in every election,' added Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan. The nation's voting technology is 'far better than people understand it to be,' Weil said, adding that 'people should be very confident in the process.' Poll workers are trained to deal with issues that come up, and voters who encounter problems should seek their help, Weil said. In Russellville, the poll workers were able to remedy the situation once they were alerted to it, and no ballots were cast in the wrong name. | Our ruling A Facebook post said broken voting machines in Russellville, Arkansas, tried to automatically tally votes meant for Donald Trump as votes for Joe Biden. A machine in Pope County did freeze on a voter in a way that prevented him from scrolling to cast his vote for Trump, said an elections official who was there when the incident took place. But the machine never computed a vote for Biden or checked the box next to his name. The hiccup was quickly resolved and the voter was able to cast his ballot as intended. The incident involved just one machine, not two, Harris said. Election security experts said the isolated incident should not be extrapolated to suggest all elections technology is faulty. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical fact that would give a different impression. We rate this post Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
Broken voting machines in Russellville, Ark., tried to automatically tally votes meant for Donald Trump as votes for Joe Biden. | Contradiction | A pair of Arkansas voters who claimed they ran into trouble with a voting machine at the end of October are at the center of a Facebook post going viral roughly two weeks later. According to the story told on Facebook, two machines used at early voting polling centers in Russellville, Ark., were automatically counting ballots cast for President Donald Trump as votes for former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president. 'My two friends just voted at the Expo at Russellville,' a Facebook user wrote in a now-hidden Oct. 20 post that's been screenshotted and shared by others. 'When one of them voted for Trump and then waited to see how the machine tallied, it showed Biden!' 'She spoke to the officials there,' the screenshotted post continued. 'They tested the machines and two were registering Biden every time. They pulled those two machines. Folks, check your machine and paper before you leave your space. And speak up if it's wrong!' The story was picked up by a local Fox-affiliate, which described the Oct. 20 incident as an 'error' that was promptly corrected by poll workers who removed the machine. But the screenshotted Facebook post misrepresented what happened, and elections security experts told PolitiFact the incident isn't indicative of a wider problem. 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 machine didn't record a vote inaccurately The incident took place at the Pope County Election Headquarters, where Freddie Harris, chair of the Pope County Election Commission, was serving as a poll worker; it was not at a local business expo. And it didn't involve multiple machines. 'I happened to be standing there when it happened,' Harris said. The issue affected a man who arrived at the polling site with his wife. After poll workers moved the machine to a back room, Harris said the voter used another machine to cast his ballot as intended and flashed the workers a thumbs up on his way out the door. But Harris said the hiccup had been 'overexaggerated' online and in the local press. 'It did not happen as reported,' Harris told PolitiFact. 'But the machine did freeze up, and Biden's name was lit up on the screen. And we pulled the machine and put it in the back.' In reality, the machine never recorded or looked like it would record a vote for Biden, Harris said, contradicting the claim in the Facebook post as well as the local Fox station's report. Instead, the touch-screen froze, preventing the man from scrolling to vote for Trump. 'It did not check Biden,' Harris said. 'The screen froze on the first screen. Biden's name happens to be on the first screen, and you have to hit 'more' to go to the second screen.' 'It did not compute to Biden,' Harris said. 'It did not take anything away from Trump.' The issue was 'the result of a large number of candidates displayed and inadvertent touches as the voter scrolls down using the 'more' button to see all candidates,' said Katina Granger, a spokesperson for Election Systems & Software, the Nebraska company behind the technology. The screenshotted Facebook post was also wrong to claim that the incident involved multiple machines, and that it took place at a local business expo held at the River Valley Boys & Girls Club in Russellville. The Boys & Girls club isn't a polling location for the city, Harris said. Poll workers can handle scattered machine problems The incident was the first time Pope County had run into trouble with a voting machine, Harris said. She said voters should have 'no worries' about problems with their votes. The county's machines, known as ExpressVote systems, use 'touch-screen technology that produces a paper record for tabulation,' according to Election Systems & Software's website. The paper record is helpful, elections security experts said, because it gives voters a chance to review their selections and election officials a printed record to refer back to if necessary. 'While this issue is uncommon, voters should review their selections on the paper ballot and verify that their vote was recorded accurately before submitting for tabulation,' said Granger, the Election Systems & Software spokesperson. Elections security experts said that while individual touch-screens are sometimes finicky or calibrated poorly, voters should not take isolated incidents as signs that the technology is flawed or untrustworthy, or as an indication that people behind the scenes are trying to alter their vote. 'I think this is a single, solitary problem with this one machine,' said Matthew Weil, director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'We should be a little cautious of ascribing any ill intent or extrapolating this to be a bigger problem with the entire technology.' 'It's probably not anything nefarious, and there are scattered reports of this kind of problem in every election,' added Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan. The nation's voting technology is 'far better than people understand it to be,' Weil said, adding that 'people should be very confident in the process.' Poll workers are trained to deal with issues that come up, and voters who encounter problems should seek their help, Weil said. In Russellville, the poll workers were able to remedy the situation once they were alerted to it, and no ballots were cast in the wrong name. | Our ruling A Facebook post said broken voting machines in Russellville, Arkansas, tried to automatically tally votes meant for Donald Trump as votes for Joe Biden. A machine in Pope County did freeze on a voter in a way that prevented him from scrolling to cast his vote for Trump, said an elections official who was there when the incident took place. But the machine never computed a vote for Biden or checked the box next to his name. The hiccup was quickly resolved and the voter was able to cast his ballot as intended. The incident involved just one machine, not two, Harris said. Election security experts said the isolated incident should not be extrapolated to suggest all elections technology is faulty. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical fact that would give a different impression. We rate this post Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more. | []
|
'Military COVID infected: 118,984. Military COVID deaths: 6,114. | Contradiction | During a speech in Warren, Mich., Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden criticized President Donald Trump's handling of the coronavirus pandemic by reminding listeners of the death toll from the virus. 'U.S. troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan: 53,188,' Biden said. 'U.S. COVID infected in America: 6,344,700. U.S. COVID deaths: 189,506. Military COVID infected: 118,984. Military COVID deaths: 6,114. Folks, every one of these lives matter. Every one of these lives left somebody behind grieving.' However, the Defense Department has publicly announced that through early September, seven servicemembers have died from the coronavirus and nearly 38,500 had been infected - numbers far below what Biden cited. There have also been 50 civilian deaths, seven deaths of dependents and 20 contractor deaths due to the virus, Military Times reported. When we checked with Biden's campaign team, they said he got the numbers wrong. The campaign said Biden said 'military' when he meant to say 'Michigan.' The numbers Biden cited roughly align with Michigan's coronavirus totals. According to the COVID Tracking Project, the number of deaths in Michigan through Sept. 8 was 6,811, and the number of cases was 119,863. Total cases and deaths can vary depending on the source and the time of day the data is drawn. We rate Biden's statement False. | We rate Biden's statement False. | [
"108532-proof-04-ded895f48af6a48659885fdac2db5415.jpg"
]
|
'The five most-endangered hospitals in the country are all in (North Carolina). | Contradiction | For years now, Democrats in North Carolina have called on the legislature's Republican majority to expand Medicaid. Not only would expansion provide healthcare access to more North Carolinians, Democrats say it would also help bail out hospitals in rural parts of the state that are struggling to make ends meet. State Sen. Jeff Jackson brought up ailing hospitals during a forum for Democratic U.S. Senate candidates in Greensboro on Oct. 11. Jackson is one of several Democrats hoping to secure the party's nomination and win Richard Burr's Senate seat in 2022, when Burr plans to retire. At the Indivisible NC forum, a moderator asked the candidates what they would do to reduce patient costs associated with going to the emergency department. Erica Smith and Richard Watkins talked about increasing access to preventative healthcare through Medicare For All. Jackson emphasized the need to help rural hospitals. And he suggested the situation is more dire in North Carolina than most other states in the country. 'The five most-endangered hospitals in the country are all in our state,' he told the crowd after the 22-minute mark of this video. Is it true that the five most financially vulnerable hospitals are all in North Carolina? Jackson has a point that some of North Carolina's rural hospitals, specifically, are struggling. In fact, experts say some are financially vulnerable - and are among the most struggling in the nation. But Jackson gave a misleading impression when he suggested they alone are at the top of a list of 'the most endangered,' or that North Carolina's situation is worse than other states. Jackson's claim Jackson's campaign said he was referring to a 2020 report by The Chartis Group, a firm that studies healthcare and has analyzed available hospital data. The group developed a statistical model that identifies 'key indicators most likely to impact a hospital's ability to sustain operations during the critical tipping point window.' Of the 216 hospitals Chartis considered to be the 'most vulnerable,' six are located in North Carolina. Jackson 'meant to say that six of the most endangered hospitals in the country are in North Carolina,' campaign spokesman Dylan Arant told PolitiFact NC. Several other states have more hospitals in the 'most vulnerable' category than North Carolina, including: Texas (41), Oklahoma (17), Tennessee (15), Mississippi (14) Georgia (13), Alabama (12), Kansas (12), and Missouri (11). While researchers specifically mention those states and others for having the worst situations, they don't single-out the Tar Heel state in their report. North Carolina is only listed among the group's charts. A newer 2021 report from Chartis shows North Carolina with 15 vulnerable hospitals. It again identified about 10 other states - Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas - with a higher number of vulnerable hospitals than North Carolina. Other states also had higher percentages of vulnerable rural hospitals, as well as rural hospitals with worse financial operating margins. Billy Balfour, spokesman for The Chartis Group, said that while its Center for Rural Health analyzes the financial health of rural hospitals, 'we don't rank hospitals based on vulnerability nor do we disclose the names of hospitals identified as vulnerable.' We were curious whether any group of experts tracks the financial health of hospitals and ranks them by how 'endangered' they might be. Representatives for the American Hospital Association, North Carolina Healthcare Association and the National Rural Health Association all said no. Neither does the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit known for its research on healthcare. The University of North Carolina's Cecil Sheps Center for Health Services Research is another one of the most reputable health research groups in the country. The Sheps Center keeps track of financially-distressed hospitals across the country. But it does not rank hospitals by how 'endangered' they are, either, said Mark Holmes, the center's director. What available data show Rural hospitals, particularly in the South, are in more financial trouble than hospitals near urban areas, experts say. And some argue that expanding Medicaid can help. Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a mix of state and federal funding from the Medicaid program provided health coverage for low-income families with dependent children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities. Additional funding under ACA, also known as Obamacare, allowed states to expand their Medicaid coverage to a wider range of people, including low-income adults without children. North Carolina is one of 12 states that so far has not accepted the additional funding to expand coverage. Hospitals in states that haven't expanded Medicaid (such as North Carolina) now have higher rates of unrecoverable debt and charity care, according to a 2019 American Hospital Association report. The association found that 80% of rural hospital closures since 2014 have occurred in non-expansion states. 'The pandemic has exacerbated financial challenges for many hospitals, especially for rural hospitals,' Cynthia Charles, a vice president for North Carolina's Healthcare Association, told PolitiFact NC. 'Some of them are having to make some difficult financial decisions,' she said. 'It would help struggling hospitals if the state would expand Medicaid, something being discussed as part of the state budget process.' North Carolina is home to a few hospitals suffering financial distress. In the Sheps Center's most recent 2019 report on financially-distressed rural hospitals, researchers found that Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Oklahoma each had 16 or more hospitals facing a 'high risk' of financial distress. North Carolina has nine rural hospitals at a 'mid-to-high' risk for financial distress and four at a 'high-level' risk for financial distress. North Carolina's total of four hospitals at high-risk was tied for the lowest number among all southern states. 'It is pretty difficult to systematically examine hospitals for their finances,' said Holmes, the Sheps Center's director. 'One can use 'cost reports' required for all hospitals accepting Medicare, but this is no substitute for knowing the details of the hospital.' 'Although we track these using (the financial distress index), it's a model and models are not crystal balls and it would be dangerous to use them that way,' Holmes said. | Our ruling Jackson said: 'The five most-endangered hospitals in the country are all in our state.' North Carolina does have financially vulnerable hospitals. A 2020 report from The Chartis Group found six North Carolina hospitals to be among 216 of the nation's 'most vulnerable.' A Sheps Center also found financially-vulnerable hospitals in North Carolina. But there is no ranking among these hospitals. And, based on available data, it's inaccurate for Jackson to suggest that the situation is more dire for rural hospitals in North Carolina than it is for those in other states. Jackson's spokesman acknowledged that Jackson misspoke. What Jackson did say has an element of truth, but certainly leaves out critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"108580-proof-01-4d377b8aae8ecdd6f89075fdb0c0c2c8.jpg"
]
|
'The five most-endangered hospitals in the country are all in (North Carolina). | Contradiction | For years now, Democrats in North Carolina have called on the legislature's Republican majority to expand Medicaid. Not only would expansion provide healthcare access to more North Carolinians, Democrats say it would also help bail out hospitals in rural parts of the state that are struggling to make ends meet. State Sen. Jeff Jackson brought up ailing hospitals during a forum for Democratic U.S. Senate candidates in Greensboro on Oct. 11. Jackson is one of several Democrats hoping to secure the party's nomination and win Richard Burr's Senate seat in 2022, when Burr plans to retire. At the Indivisible NC forum, a moderator asked the candidates what they would do to reduce patient costs associated with going to the emergency department. Erica Smith and Richard Watkins talked about increasing access to preventative healthcare through Medicare For All. Jackson emphasized the need to help rural hospitals. And he suggested the situation is more dire in North Carolina than most other states in the country. 'The five most-endangered hospitals in the country are all in our state,' he told the crowd after the 22-minute mark of this video. Is it true that the five most financially vulnerable hospitals are all in North Carolina? Jackson has a point that some of North Carolina's rural hospitals, specifically, are struggling. In fact, experts say some are financially vulnerable - and are among the most struggling in the nation. But Jackson gave a misleading impression when he suggested they alone are at the top of a list of 'the most endangered,' or that North Carolina's situation is worse than other states. Jackson's claim Jackson's campaign said he was referring to a 2020 report by The Chartis Group, a firm that studies healthcare and has analyzed available hospital data. The group developed a statistical model that identifies 'key indicators most likely to impact a hospital's ability to sustain operations during the critical tipping point window.' Of the 216 hospitals Chartis considered to be the 'most vulnerable,' six are located in North Carolina. Jackson 'meant to say that six of the most endangered hospitals in the country are in North Carolina,' campaign spokesman Dylan Arant told PolitiFact NC. Several other states have more hospitals in the 'most vulnerable' category than North Carolina, including: Texas (41), Oklahoma (17), Tennessee (15), Mississippi (14) Georgia (13), Alabama (12), Kansas (12), and Missouri (11). While researchers specifically mention those states and others for having the worst situations, they don't single-out the Tar Heel state in their report. North Carolina is only listed among the group's charts. A newer 2021 report from Chartis shows North Carolina with 15 vulnerable hospitals. It again identified about 10 other states - Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas - with a higher number of vulnerable hospitals than North Carolina. Other states also had higher percentages of vulnerable rural hospitals, as well as rural hospitals with worse financial operating margins. Billy Balfour, spokesman for The Chartis Group, said that while its Center for Rural Health analyzes the financial health of rural hospitals, 'we don't rank hospitals based on vulnerability nor do we disclose the names of hospitals identified as vulnerable.' We were curious whether any group of experts tracks the financial health of hospitals and ranks them by how 'endangered' they might be. Representatives for the American Hospital Association, North Carolina Healthcare Association and the National Rural Health Association all said no. Neither does the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit known for its research on healthcare. The University of North Carolina's Cecil Sheps Center for Health Services Research is another one of the most reputable health research groups in the country. The Sheps Center keeps track of financially-distressed hospitals across the country. But it does not rank hospitals by how 'endangered' they are, either, said Mark Holmes, the center's director. What available data show Rural hospitals, particularly in the South, are in more financial trouble than hospitals near urban areas, experts say. And some argue that expanding Medicaid can help. Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a mix of state and federal funding from the Medicaid program provided health coverage for low-income families with dependent children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities. Additional funding under ACA, also known as Obamacare, allowed states to expand their Medicaid coverage to a wider range of people, including low-income adults without children. North Carolina is one of 12 states that so far has not accepted the additional funding to expand coverage. Hospitals in states that haven't expanded Medicaid (such as North Carolina) now have higher rates of unrecoverable debt and charity care, according to a 2019 American Hospital Association report. The association found that 80% of rural hospital closures since 2014 have occurred in non-expansion states. 'The pandemic has exacerbated financial challenges for many hospitals, especially for rural hospitals,' Cynthia Charles, a vice president for North Carolina's Healthcare Association, told PolitiFact NC. 'Some of them are having to make some difficult financial decisions,' she said. 'It would help struggling hospitals if the state would expand Medicaid, something being discussed as part of the state budget process.' North Carolina is home to a few hospitals suffering financial distress. In the Sheps Center's most recent 2019 report on financially-distressed rural hospitals, researchers found that Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Oklahoma each had 16 or more hospitals facing a 'high risk' of financial distress. North Carolina has nine rural hospitals at a 'mid-to-high' risk for financial distress and four at a 'high-level' risk for financial distress. North Carolina's total of four hospitals at high-risk was tied for the lowest number among all southern states. 'It is pretty difficult to systematically examine hospitals for their finances,' said Holmes, the Sheps Center's director. 'One can use 'cost reports' required for all hospitals accepting Medicare, but this is no substitute for knowing the details of the hospital.' 'Although we track these using (the financial distress index), it's a model and models are not crystal balls and it would be dangerous to use them that way,' Holmes said. | Our ruling Jackson said: 'The five most-endangered hospitals in the country are all in our state.' North Carolina does have financially vulnerable hospitals. A 2020 report from The Chartis Group found six North Carolina hospitals to be among 216 of the nation's 'most vulnerable.' A Sheps Center also found financially-vulnerable hospitals in North Carolina. But there is no ranking among these hospitals. And, based on available data, it's inaccurate for Jackson to suggest that the situation is more dire for rural hospitals in North Carolina than it is for those in other states. Jackson's spokesman acknowledged that Jackson misspoke. What Jackson did say has an element of truth, but certainly leaves out critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"108580-proof-01-4d377b8aae8ecdd6f89075fdb0c0c2c8.jpg"
]
|
'The five most-endangered hospitals in the country are all in (North Carolina). | Contradiction | For years now, Democrats in North Carolina have called on the legislature's Republican majority to expand Medicaid. Not only would expansion provide healthcare access to more North Carolinians, Democrats say it would also help bail out hospitals in rural parts of the state that are struggling to make ends meet. State Sen. Jeff Jackson brought up ailing hospitals during a forum for Democratic U.S. Senate candidates in Greensboro on Oct. 11. Jackson is one of several Democrats hoping to secure the party's nomination and win Richard Burr's Senate seat in 2022, when Burr plans to retire. At the Indivisible NC forum, a moderator asked the candidates what they would do to reduce patient costs associated with going to the emergency department. Erica Smith and Richard Watkins talked about increasing access to preventative healthcare through Medicare For All. Jackson emphasized the need to help rural hospitals. And he suggested the situation is more dire in North Carolina than most other states in the country. 'The five most-endangered hospitals in the country are all in our state,' he told the crowd after the 22-minute mark of this video. Is it true that the five most financially vulnerable hospitals are all in North Carolina? Jackson has a point that some of North Carolina's rural hospitals, specifically, are struggling. In fact, experts say some are financially vulnerable - and are among the most struggling in the nation. But Jackson gave a misleading impression when he suggested they alone are at the top of a list of 'the most endangered,' or that North Carolina's situation is worse than other states. Jackson's claim Jackson's campaign said he was referring to a 2020 report by The Chartis Group, a firm that studies healthcare and has analyzed available hospital data. The group developed a statistical model that identifies 'key indicators most likely to impact a hospital's ability to sustain operations during the critical tipping point window.' Of the 216 hospitals Chartis considered to be the 'most vulnerable,' six are located in North Carolina. Jackson 'meant to say that six of the most endangered hospitals in the country are in North Carolina,' campaign spokesman Dylan Arant told PolitiFact NC. Several other states have more hospitals in the 'most vulnerable' category than North Carolina, including: Texas (41), Oklahoma (17), Tennessee (15), Mississippi (14) Georgia (13), Alabama (12), Kansas (12), and Missouri (11). While researchers specifically mention those states and others for having the worst situations, they don't single-out the Tar Heel state in their report. North Carolina is only listed among the group's charts. A newer 2021 report from Chartis shows North Carolina with 15 vulnerable hospitals. It again identified about 10 other states - Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas - with a higher number of vulnerable hospitals than North Carolina. Other states also had higher percentages of vulnerable rural hospitals, as well as rural hospitals with worse financial operating margins. Billy Balfour, spokesman for The Chartis Group, said that while its Center for Rural Health analyzes the financial health of rural hospitals, 'we don't rank hospitals based on vulnerability nor do we disclose the names of hospitals identified as vulnerable.' We were curious whether any group of experts tracks the financial health of hospitals and ranks them by how 'endangered' they might be. Representatives for the American Hospital Association, North Carolina Healthcare Association and the National Rural Health Association all said no. Neither does the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit known for its research on healthcare. The University of North Carolina's Cecil Sheps Center for Health Services Research is another one of the most reputable health research groups in the country. The Sheps Center keeps track of financially-distressed hospitals across the country. But it does not rank hospitals by how 'endangered' they are, either, said Mark Holmes, the center's director. What available data show Rural hospitals, particularly in the South, are in more financial trouble than hospitals near urban areas, experts say. And some argue that expanding Medicaid can help. Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a mix of state and federal funding from the Medicaid program provided health coverage for low-income families with dependent children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities. Additional funding under ACA, also known as Obamacare, allowed states to expand their Medicaid coverage to a wider range of people, including low-income adults without children. North Carolina is one of 12 states that so far has not accepted the additional funding to expand coverage. Hospitals in states that haven't expanded Medicaid (such as North Carolina) now have higher rates of unrecoverable debt and charity care, according to a 2019 American Hospital Association report. The association found that 80% of rural hospital closures since 2014 have occurred in non-expansion states. 'The pandemic has exacerbated financial challenges for many hospitals, especially for rural hospitals,' Cynthia Charles, a vice president for North Carolina's Healthcare Association, told PolitiFact NC. 'Some of them are having to make some difficult financial decisions,' she said. 'It would help struggling hospitals if the state would expand Medicaid, something being discussed as part of the state budget process.' North Carolina is home to a few hospitals suffering financial distress. In the Sheps Center's most recent 2019 report on financially-distressed rural hospitals, researchers found that Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Oklahoma each had 16 or more hospitals facing a 'high risk' of financial distress. North Carolina has nine rural hospitals at a 'mid-to-high' risk for financial distress and four at a 'high-level' risk for financial distress. North Carolina's total of four hospitals at high-risk was tied for the lowest number among all southern states. 'It is pretty difficult to systematically examine hospitals for their finances,' said Holmes, the Sheps Center's director. 'One can use 'cost reports' required for all hospitals accepting Medicare, but this is no substitute for knowing the details of the hospital.' 'Although we track these using (the financial distress index), it's a model and models are not crystal balls and it would be dangerous to use them that way,' Holmes said. | Our ruling Jackson said: 'The five most-endangered hospitals in the country are all in our state.' North Carolina does have financially vulnerable hospitals. A 2020 report from The Chartis Group found six North Carolina hospitals to be among 216 of the nation's 'most vulnerable.' A Sheps Center also found financially-vulnerable hospitals in North Carolina. But there is no ranking among these hospitals. And, based on available data, it's inaccurate for Jackson to suggest that the situation is more dire for rural hospitals in North Carolina than it is for those in other states. Jackson's spokesman acknowledged that Jackson misspoke. What Jackson did say has an element of truth, but certainly leaves out critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False. | [
"108580-proof-01-4d377b8aae8ecdd6f89075fdb0c0c2c8.jpg"
]
|
'There's no court session between now and the end of this election. | Contradiction | Two days after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden gave a speech at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. In it, he argued that Ginsburg's seat should not be filled in a rush, just weeks before a presidential election. In the speech, Biden said the Constitution 'was designed to give voters one chance, one chance to have their voice heard in who serves on the court. And by the way, there's no court session between now and the end of this election.' The second sentence was seemingly an additional argument for slowing down the process. It seemed to be an ad-lib, since it didn't appear in the prepared remarks sent out by his campaign. But it was incorrect. On its website, the Supreme Court lists five days of oral arguments scheduled for October: the 5th, 6th, 7th, 13th and 14th. It also lists oral arguments for Nov. 2 and Nov. 3. Nov. 3 is Election Day. Among the scheduled oral arguments are: • Tanzin vs. Tanvir, a religious freedom case. • Google LLC vs. Oracle America Inc., a copyright protection case between Silicon Valley giants. • Torres vs. Madrid, a Fourth Amendment seizure case. • Pereida vs. Barr, a case about the definition of a crime for purposes of deportation. • Jones vs. Mississippi, a juvenile sentencing case. The Biden campaign did not respond to an inquiry for this article. | Our ruling Biden said, 'There's no court session between now and the end of this election.' That's disproven by the Supreme Court's own website, which lists five days of oral arguments in October and two more in November before the polls close. We rate the statement False. | [
"108597-proof-34-6863a3755b8787637d373f581d153f3e.jpg"
]
|
'Coolmath Games is being taken down cause it was run by the Mexican drug cartel?' | Contradiction | Have you unwittingly been part of a criminal enterprise while playing your favorite online logic and skill games? One Facebook post would have you believe the answer is 'yes.' 'Coolmath Games is being taken down cause it was run by the Mexican drug cartel?' reads the screenshot of a tweet that was shared on Facebook. It goes on to say, in all capital letters, 'Hold up so my lil 10-year-old a-- was helping the drug cartel while playing the pizzeria games???' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) But fear not. It isn't time to say goodbye to Coolmath Games - and the site doesn't have any known ties to the Mexican drug cartel. This is not the first time rumors about Coolmath Games - which was launched in 1997 to 'make math enjoyable for people who thought it couldn't be fun' - have popped up online. In December 2020, the website had to repeatedly assure its users that Adobe's decision to stop supporting Flash Player would not be Coolmath Games' killing blow. 'In case you haven't heard, we're alive & thriving,' Coolmath Games said in an Instagram post on Dec. 11, 2020. The same post linked to a Coolmath Games webpage that explained why the end of Flash games wouldn't 'have much effect' on the site or the games available. A few online publications debunked the claims that Coolmath Games was coming to an end. To address the rumors, Coolmath Games set up a page on its site titled, 'Coolmath Games Isn't Shutting Down.' The tweet about a connection to the Mexican drug cartel emerged around the same time as the Flash games rumor. The tweet has since been deleted, but not before someone captured a screenshot of the tweet and Coolmath Games' response. 'Cannot believe we actually have to say this, but... This is absolutely false,' Coolmath Games tweeted on Dec. 29, 2020. 'C'mon guys. Really?' There is no evidence that Coolmath Games has connections of any sort to organized crime or a Mexican drug cartel. We searched for news clips using multiple search engines. The only connection between Coolmath Games and a drug cartel appeared to come from screenshots of the unsubstantiated tweet. | Our ruling A post claims Coolmath Games is 'being taken down' because it was run by 'the Mexican drug cartel.' Coolmath Games has denied rumors that the website was shutting down, and there is also no evidence that the gaming website has connections to or is being run by 'the Mexican drug cartel.' We rate this post False. | []
|
'Coolmath Games is being taken down cause it was run by the Mexican drug cartel?' | Contradiction | Have you unwittingly been part of a criminal enterprise while playing your favorite online logic and skill games? One Facebook post would have you believe the answer is 'yes.' 'Coolmath Games is being taken down cause it was run by the Mexican drug cartel?' reads the screenshot of a tweet that was shared on Facebook. It goes on to say, in all capital letters, 'Hold up so my lil 10-year-old a-- was helping the drug cartel while playing the pizzeria games???' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) But fear not. It isn't time to say goodbye to Coolmath Games - and the site doesn't have any known ties to the Mexican drug cartel. This is not the first time rumors about Coolmath Games - which was launched in 1997 to 'make math enjoyable for people who thought it couldn't be fun' - have popped up online. In December 2020, the website had to repeatedly assure its users that Adobe's decision to stop supporting Flash Player would not be Coolmath Games' killing blow. 'In case you haven't heard, we're alive & thriving,' Coolmath Games said in an Instagram post on Dec. 11, 2020. The same post linked to a Coolmath Games webpage that explained why the end of Flash games wouldn't 'have much effect' on the site or the games available. A few online publications debunked the claims that Coolmath Games was coming to an end. To address the rumors, Coolmath Games set up a page on its site titled, 'Coolmath Games Isn't Shutting Down.' The tweet about a connection to the Mexican drug cartel emerged around the same time as the Flash games rumor. The tweet has since been deleted, but not before someone captured a screenshot of the tweet and Coolmath Games' response. 'Cannot believe we actually have to say this, but... This is absolutely false,' Coolmath Games tweeted on Dec. 29, 2020. 'C'mon guys. Really?' There is no evidence that Coolmath Games has connections of any sort to organized crime or a Mexican drug cartel. We searched for news clips using multiple search engines. The only connection between Coolmath Games and a drug cartel appeared to come from screenshots of the unsubstantiated tweet. | Our ruling A post claims Coolmath Games is 'being taken down' because it was run by 'the Mexican drug cartel.' Coolmath Games has denied rumors that the website was shutting down, and there is also no evidence that the gaming website has connections to or is being run by 'the Mexican drug cartel.' We rate this post False. | []
|
An image shows President Joe Biden touching Olivia Rodrigo's shoulders during a White House press briefing. | Contradiction | Teen singer and actress Olivia Rodrigo visited the White House on July 14 to encourage younger Americans to get the COVID-19 vaccination. During her visit, she recorded videos for a social media push, met with President Joe Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci, and dropped in on a White House press briefing. Rodrigo's White House appearance sparked plenty of news headlines, fashion analysis and memes. But one manipulated photo on social media gave us déjà vu, because it was altered to make Biden look creepy. The photo came from Rodrigo's drop-in at a White House press briefing with press secretary Jen Psaki, which lasted just a few minutes. In reality, Biden wasn't there. But someone out there decided to photoshop Biden into the picture behind Rodrigo, squeezing her shoulders as Psaki looked on. 'Psaki face says it all,' a Facebook user wrote July 15. The photo was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Here's a legitimate photo of Rodrigo and Psaki from the press briefing. (Here's a video.) After a quick intro by Psaki, Rodrigo walked up the mic and told reporters how she was honored to speak up for the COVID-19 vaccines. 'I'm in awe of the work President Biden and Dr. Fauci have done and was happy to help lend my support to this important initiative,' Rodrigo said. Biden wasn't in the room. The 'Drivers License' singer and the president met in a closed setting, later releasing this image from the Oval Office putting on aviators. View this post on Instagram A post shared by President Joe Biden (@potus) 'Thanks for stopping by, Olivia, and for using your voice to urge young people to get vaccinated,' reads the caption from the POTUS Instagram account. The photo of Biden in the manipulated image appears to be lifted from a swearing-in ceremony for former Defense Secretary Ash Carter in 2015. His wife, Stephanie Carter, said Biden was squeezing her shoulders in support because she was 'uncharacteristically nervous,' and the photo had been misconstrued. We rate this viral image Pants on Fire! RELATED FACT-CHECK: Fact-checking the pedophilia attacks against Joe Biden | We rate this viral image Pants on Fire! RELATED FACT-CHECK: Fact-checking the pedophilia attacks against Joe Biden | [
"108619-proof-22-c01e1a9f68a747c1b0c69b9b683cbc30.jpg"
]
|
A video shows an animal chip scanner detecting a microchip where a woman was vaccinated. | Contradiction | A popular video circulating online appears to show a microchip reader used for pets detecting a chip in the arm of a woman who says she was vaccinated for COVID-19. 'They are literally tagging and tracking everybody taking the Jab,' someone wrote in sharing the video on Facebook. An Instagram post of the same video says it's a HomeAgain pet chip reader that can 'read a wide range of technologies.' @jasmine_0708 umm what 😳🤯 #vaccine #vaccinesideeffect #chipped #chipfinder #covidvaccine #covidvaccinesideeffects ♬ original sound - jasmine But the video isn't legitimate. It was intended as a 'joke,' according to the person who created 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 original video was posted on TikTok on June 15 with the hashtags '#chipped' and #covidvaccinessideeffects.' It shows a woman in a veterinary facility appearing to demonstrate how a pet microchip reader displays a chip ID when it's held next to her vaccinated arm. When her right arm is scanned the words 'no ID found'' appear on the reader. But when the scanner is moved to her right arm, which she says is her vaccinated arm, the scanner registers a number - 985141003154180. But after the video started to circulate and people began to take it seriously, the creator posted a comment to clarify, saying the video was a joke and it's 'obviously a dog chip.' 'You guys believe anything on the internet,' she said in a second comment. We looked up the chip ID number shown in the video on petmicrochiplookup.org and found that it belongs to an unregistered HomeAgain pet microchip. We rate this Pants on Fire! | We rate this Pants on Fire! | [
"108641-proof-01-79505.jpg"
]
|
A video shows an animal chip scanner detecting a microchip where a woman was vaccinated. | Contradiction | A popular video circulating online appears to show a microchip reader used for pets detecting a chip in the arm of a woman who says she was vaccinated for COVID-19. 'They are literally tagging and tracking everybody taking the Jab,' someone wrote in sharing the video on Facebook. An Instagram post of the same video says it's a HomeAgain pet chip reader that can 'read a wide range of technologies.' @jasmine_0708 umm what 😳🤯 #vaccine #vaccinesideeffect #chipped #chipfinder #covidvaccine #covidvaccinesideeffects ♬ original sound - jasmine But the video isn't legitimate. It was intended as a 'joke,' according to the person who created 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 original video was posted on TikTok on June 15 with the hashtags '#chipped' and #covidvaccinessideeffects.' It shows a woman in a veterinary facility appearing to demonstrate how a pet microchip reader displays a chip ID when it's held next to her vaccinated arm. When her right arm is scanned the words 'no ID found'' appear on the reader. But when the scanner is moved to her right arm, which she says is her vaccinated arm, the scanner registers a number - 985141003154180. But after the video started to circulate and people began to take it seriously, the creator posted a comment to clarify, saying the video was a joke and it's 'obviously a dog chip.' 'You guys believe anything on the internet,' she said in a second comment. We looked up the chip ID number shown in the video on petmicrochiplookup.org and found that it belongs to an unregistered HomeAgain pet microchip. We rate this Pants on Fire! | We rate this Pants on Fire! | [
"108641-proof-01-79505.jpg"
]
|
The deaths at the Astroworld festival were part of a satanic ritual. | Contradiction | In the hours since news broke that eight people were killed and dozens more hospitalized after sustaining injuries amid mayhem at the Astroworld Festival in Houston on Nov. 5, the city's paper of record has aggressively reported and written about the tragedy: how rapper Travis Scott kept performing for 37 minutes as a 'mass casualty' unfolded, whether the festival followed its own plan for mass casualty events, and how the whole thing unfolded. The Houston Chronicle's coverage does not mention the devil. But an unfounded conspiracy theory is spreading online that says the deaths that night were part of a satanic ritual. 'The concert last night was a straight up satanic ritual and Scott didn't even stop playing as people were dying and chaos broke out,' one Facebook post claimed. '8 people were killed at Travis Scott Astroworld Satanic concert,' another post said. 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 conspiracy theory has gained traction among some people on TikTok and believers of the QAnon movement, the Daily Beast reported. But it has no credible basis. The Chronicle reported that while much is still unknown, police and fire officials said a massive crowd started surging toward the stage around 9 p.m. leaving some panicked, struggling to breathe or underfoot, after they fell. Houston Police Chief Troy Finner said 'a criminal investigation' into the incident is underway. Live Nation, which produced the festival, has a history of safety violations, according to the Chronicle, and has previously been sued over injuries at previous events. Houston officials and concert organizers also anticipated that the crowd could be difficult to control, the New York Times reported. They added dozens more Houston police officers and private security hired by Live Nation. Experts who have studied deaths caused by crowd surges found they often happen when too many people are in too small a space, according to the Associated Press. 'When a crowd surges, the force can be strong enough to bend steel,' the AP said. 'It can also hit people from two directions: one from the rear of the crowd pushing forward and another from the front of the crowd trying to escape. If some people have fallen, causing a pileup, pressure can even come from above. Caught in the middle are people's lungs' Like the Houston Chronicle, the AP and the Times - or any other credible news organization - didn't report on any evidence of a satanic ritual at Astroworld. The only such news coverage explores how this narrative has emerged. But as officials are investigating and assigning blame for what happened over the weekend, a popular rapper executing a death rite in front of 50,000 fans doesn't register in reality. On Nov. 6, Scott tweeted that he was 'devastated' by what took place on Nov. 5. A Houston native, Scott launched the festival in 2018 and named it for his album 'Astroworld.' He has been known to weave religious themes into his work, including collaborating with Kanye West on Christian rap. 'My prayers go out to the families and all those impacted by what happened at Astroworld Festival,' Scott said in his statement. We rate this post Pants on Fire. | We rate this post Pants on Fire. | [
"108648-proof-24-61845a7df0967bc4bf7c5a7f7ccb6934.jpeg"
]
|
The voting bill known as H.R. 1 'would force states to adopt universal mail-in ballots. | Contradiction | As a Democratic-backed bill on elections and voting worked its way through Congress, former Vice President Mike Pence wrote an op-ed critical of the measure. H.R. 1 combines proposals for voter registration, absentee voting, in-person voting, campaign finance and ethics related to federal elections. The House passed the bill on March 3, largely along party lines. On the same day, Pence raised multiple objections to the bill in a column that appeared in the Daily Signal, a publication of the conservative Heritage Foundation. The one we will check here is that 'the bill would force states to adopt universal mail-in ballots.' That's not what the bill would do. The bill's focus is on lifting state restrictions on voters who voluntarily choose to cast their ballot by mail. Put simply, it merely requires states to give everyone access to voting by mail if they want to use it. 'Every state already uses some form of mail-in ballot,' said Matthew Weil, director of the elections project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'The differences among states right now revolve around how many voters qualify to use them.' Voting experts told PolitiFact that Pence's phrase, 'universal mail-in balloting,' isn't a commonly used term. The term 'all-mail elections' is more common. This system is currently used in Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington state, and Utah. California recently moved to extend this policy temporarily. Other states that used this process for 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic have not extended it permanently. In all-mail elections, ballots are automatically mailed to every registered voter. 'The voter marks the ballot, puts it in a secrecy envelope or sleeve and then into a separate mailing envelope, signs an affidavit on the exterior of the mailing envelope, and returns the package via mail or by dropping it off,' according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some of the all-mail election states offer an in-person alternative for voting as well, but they are used far less frequently than the mail ballots. This isn't the only way to conduct mail voting. In many states, any qualified voter may vote absentee without offering an excuse. In the remaining states, an excuse is required. Some states offer a permanent absentee-ballot list: voters who ask to be added to the list automatically receive an absentee ballot for future elections. What does H.R. 1 say about 'all-mail elections'? Nothing in H.R. 1 or the amendments that passed the House forces states to adopt 'universal mail-in ballots.' The law says that states cannot 'impose any additional conditions or requirements' on an eligible voter's ability to cast an absentee ballot by mail in federal elections. In addition, the bill nixes state laws requiring identification for mail ballots beyond a voter's signature, including notarized statements. The bill allows states to set a 'reasonable deadline' for requesting a mail ballot and returning it to elections officials. And it requires states to treat a mail-in ballot application for one election to stand as an application for all subsequent federal elections. We contacted the Heritage Foundation, where Pence is a distinguished visiting fellow, to ask for their supporting evidence. They said the bill would enact the 'essential equivalent' of all-mail voting by requiring states to send applications to receive an absentee ballot by mail to all registered voters and by setting a preference for absentee ballot as the permanent default for voters who choose to do so. Experts disagree. 'Nothing in H.R. 1 requires 'universal mail-in ballots,'' under the definition used in Oregon, Washington, and the other states, Weil said. There's no question that these H.R. 1 provisions do make demands on some states -- those that require an excuse to vote absentee, those that mandate voter identification beyond signatures for mail ballots, and those that don't have the option of choosing permanent mail voting. But none of these provisions amount to 'universal mail-in' voting. Under H.R. 1, states are not required to send everyone a mail ballot. Instead, the bill makes voting by mail an option, not compulsory. One section of the bill - 'Methods for Requesting Ballot' - makes clear that such ballots aren't required to be sent automatically to voters. In addition, voting in person won't be eliminated under H.R. 1, either early voting or on Election Day. The phrase 'polling place' appears 82 times in the bill, and it includes a section that would require each state to offer in-person early voting. 'H.R. 1 requires early in-person and Election Day voting access,' said Danielle Lang, co-director for voting rights and redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center. 'It merely requires all Americans to have access to a vote by mail option if they want to use it.' | Our ruling Pence said H.R. 1 'would force states to adopt universal mail-in ballots.' This is incorrect. H.R. 1 would not force every state to conduct elections almost entirely by mail, as several do now by sending ballots automatically to every registered voter. Rather, the bill would ease the process of voting by mail for those who want to use it, by lifting rules that require an excuse to vote absentee and mandating proof of identification beyond a signature. It would not require anyone to stop using either early in-person voting or in-person voting on Election Day. We rate the statement False. PolitiFact reporter Amy Sherman contributed to this report. | [
"108649-proof-02-937c0628713b05875d44bd4065150673.jpg"
]
|
The voting bill known as H.R. 1 'would force states to adopt universal mail-in ballots. | Contradiction | As a Democratic-backed bill on elections and voting worked its way through Congress, former Vice President Mike Pence wrote an op-ed critical of the measure. H.R. 1 combines proposals for voter registration, absentee voting, in-person voting, campaign finance and ethics related to federal elections. The House passed the bill on March 3, largely along party lines. On the same day, Pence raised multiple objections to the bill in a column that appeared in the Daily Signal, a publication of the conservative Heritage Foundation. The one we will check here is that 'the bill would force states to adopt universal mail-in ballots.' That's not what the bill would do. The bill's focus is on lifting state restrictions on voters who voluntarily choose to cast their ballot by mail. Put simply, it merely requires states to give everyone access to voting by mail if they want to use it. 'Every state already uses some form of mail-in ballot,' said Matthew Weil, director of the elections project at the Bipartisan Policy Center. 'The differences among states right now revolve around how many voters qualify to use them.' Voting experts told PolitiFact that Pence's phrase, 'universal mail-in balloting,' isn't a commonly used term. The term 'all-mail elections' is more common. This system is currently used in Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington state, and Utah. California recently moved to extend this policy temporarily. Other states that used this process for 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic have not extended it permanently. In all-mail elections, ballots are automatically mailed to every registered voter. 'The voter marks the ballot, puts it in a secrecy envelope or sleeve and then into a separate mailing envelope, signs an affidavit on the exterior of the mailing envelope, and returns the package via mail or by dropping it off,' according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some of the all-mail election states offer an in-person alternative for voting as well, but they are used far less frequently than the mail ballots. This isn't the only way to conduct mail voting. In many states, any qualified voter may vote absentee without offering an excuse. In the remaining states, an excuse is required. Some states offer a permanent absentee-ballot list: voters who ask to be added to the list automatically receive an absentee ballot for future elections. What does H.R. 1 say about 'all-mail elections'? Nothing in H.R. 1 or the amendments that passed the House forces states to adopt 'universal mail-in ballots.' The law says that states cannot 'impose any additional conditions or requirements' on an eligible voter's ability to cast an absentee ballot by mail in federal elections. In addition, the bill nixes state laws requiring identification for mail ballots beyond a voter's signature, including notarized statements. The bill allows states to set a 'reasonable deadline' for requesting a mail ballot and returning it to elections officials. And it requires states to treat a mail-in ballot application for one election to stand as an application for all subsequent federal elections. We contacted the Heritage Foundation, where Pence is a distinguished visiting fellow, to ask for their supporting evidence. They said the bill would enact the 'essential equivalent' of all-mail voting by requiring states to send applications to receive an absentee ballot by mail to all registered voters and by setting a preference for absentee ballot as the permanent default for voters who choose to do so. Experts disagree. 'Nothing in H.R. 1 requires 'universal mail-in ballots,'' under the definition used in Oregon, Washington, and the other states, Weil said. There's no question that these H.R. 1 provisions do make demands on some states -- those that require an excuse to vote absentee, those that mandate voter identification beyond signatures for mail ballots, and those that don't have the option of choosing permanent mail voting. But none of these provisions amount to 'universal mail-in' voting. Under H.R. 1, states are not required to send everyone a mail ballot. Instead, the bill makes voting by mail an option, not compulsory. One section of the bill - 'Methods for Requesting Ballot' - makes clear that such ballots aren't required to be sent automatically to voters. In addition, voting in person won't be eliminated under H.R. 1, either early voting or on Election Day. The phrase 'polling place' appears 82 times in the bill, and it includes a section that would require each state to offer in-person early voting. 'H.R. 1 requires early in-person and Election Day voting access,' said Danielle Lang, co-director for voting rights and redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center. 'It merely requires all Americans to have access to a vote by mail option if they want to use it.' | Our ruling Pence said H.R. 1 'would force states to adopt universal mail-in ballots.' This is incorrect. H.R. 1 would not force every state to conduct elections almost entirely by mail, as several do now by sending ballots automatically to every registered voter. Rather, the bill would ease the process of voting by mail for those who want to use it, by lifting rules that require an excuse to vote absentee and mandating proof of identification beyond a signature. It would not require anyone to stop using either early in-person voting or in-person voting on Election Day. We rate the statement False. PolitiFact reporter Amy Sherman contributed to this report. | [
"108649-proof-02-937c0628713b05875d44bd4065150673.jpg"
]
|
Says President Donald Trump is trying to make $451 billion in Medicare cuts 'in the middle of a deadly pandemic. | Contradiction | Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC, announced a new digital and TV ad series criticizing President Donald Trump's response to the coronavirus pandemic. Among the ads is a 15-second spot, titled 'Pause,' that alleges Trump is trying to cut Medicare during the global health emergency. 'Our lives are on pause. We're worried about our health. So why is Trump still trying to cut our Medicare? $451 billion in cuts in the middle of a deadly pandemic. Trump is putting us at risk,' the commercial's narrator says. The PAC, which was formed in 2011 to support President Barack Obama's reelection campaign, has been tapped by Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, as his preferred choice among Democratic super PACS for big-donor giving. This ad caught our attention for two reasons. First, the term 'Medicare cuts' has long been volleyed between both Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the White House - and often has proven to be a powerful political tool. Second, the connection between 'cuts' to Medicare and the coronavirus pandemic was a new concept we wanted to explore. We reached out to Priorities USA Action to ask for the basis of these statements. Josh Schwerin, a PAC spokesperson, sent us a links to news articles and confirmed that the '$451 billion in cuts' referred to Trump's 2021 proposed budget for Medicare. Asked to pinpoint where the $451 billion came from, Schwerin pointed us to a February ABC News article that said the president's budget plan would 'whack away at federal spending on health care over the next 10 years ... including $451 billion less spent on Medicare.' He also sent us links to a February Washington Blade article and February press release from Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.) - both of which also cited that figure. Cuts or a reduction in spending? An argument that's been around In fall 2010, a few months after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, Republicans aired midterm campaign ads attacking Democrats for 'cutting' or 'gutting' Medicare. The reason was the law included a $500 billion reduction in projected spending for Medicare over 10 years, which would be used to help fund the ACA. The Obama administration said the reductions in spending would come from lowering payments to Medicare Advantage plans and providers and would not affect the level of care that Medicare beneficiaries received. They also said it would help make the Medicare system more financially stable. Now, almost 10 years later, Democrats are using the same language to criticize the White House's long-term plan for Medicare spending. ''Cuts' is a term that has been thrown around for many years,' said Tricia Neuman, executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. 'This is a semantic issue that often gets politicized, often in an election year.' (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation). Neuman explained that what is being considered here is a reduction in the projected increase in spending over a certain period. This reduction is based on estimates of how much the government is projected to spend on programs - factoring in proposed policy changes - for the following 10 years, taking into account current levels of spending, assumptions about economic growth and trends in use of Medicare coverage, said Neuman. Trump's 2021 budget blueprint for Medicare estimated that spending would increase each of the 10 years. But the estimate also suggested that the administration's proposed policy changes would reduce the spending increase compared with estimates of what would be spent if the changes were not implemented. 'Let's say Medicare spends $100 in 2020 and is projected to spend $200 in 2021,' Neuman said. 'If the budget said we're going to reduce the growth in spending by $25, that's a reduction in an increase. But other people might call that a cut.' The number itself and what it means We reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Medicare, for its take on that $451 billion figure, but have not heard back. Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the actual figure could be anywhere from $400 billion to $600 billion, depending on how calculations are done. His analysis relied on the executive branch's Office of Management and Budget calculations and landed on a figure close to $505 billion. Other variables, such as 'likely savings from drug price reform' - yet to be enacted - move it closer to $600 billion. The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities came up with a similar estimate: $501 billion. The Congressional Budget Office's estimate not including savings generated from proposed drug pricing reforms was closer to $400 billion. In all cases, though, the reductions in Medicare spending would be achieved through proposals such as lowering payments to providers and paying the same amount for the same health service offered in different settings, among other things. Goldwein said these proposals for Medicare reform are largely bipartisan and 'either mimic or build upon' those advanced during the Obama era. He also said that, in his organization's view, the 'cuts' are savings to the Medicare program and beneficiaries, who would see lower premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs. The policy experts said it's likely the reductions in spending wouldn't directly affect the care that Medicare beneficiaries receive. But provider groups have complained that lower reimbursements might drive some doctors to leave Medicare. Hospitals have argued against the proposal for equalizing payments for similar services because they say their overhead expenses are higher than those of a doctor's office or off-site clinic and their higher rates help finance other necessary services. Timing matters The Priorities USA Action ad also alleges that Trump is trying to cut Medicare 'in the middle of a deadly pandemic.' But the timeline of events doesn't support this statement. The White House released the 2021 budget proposal on Feb. 10 - well before the COVID-19 outbreak had become a part of our national consciousness. The first domestic case of COVID-19 was announced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Jan. 21. The World Health Organization declared the outbreak of the novel coronavirus a 'public health emergency of international concern' on Jan. 30. On Feb. 10, the day the budget was released, the CDC put out a press release stating there were 13 cases of the disease in the U.S. CNN also published an article that day stating the vast majority of COVID-19 cases and deaths had occurred in China. Authorities didn't announce the first U.S. death from COVID-19 until Feb. 29. The WHO declared a pandemic on March 11. 'These budget proposals were probably developed well before the pandemic hit the U.S. and hit it hard,' said Neuman. However, she added, 'the administration hasn't disavowed these proposals, but they also haven't pushed them forward.' Joseph Antos, a scholar in health care and retirement policy at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said it was a 'ridiculous statement to connect cutting Medicare spending to the COVID crisis.' 'The implication of the video that this is going on actively while we're in the middle of this crisis, that's dead wrong,' said Antos. | Our ruling The Priorities ad said Trump is trying to make $451 billion in Medicare cuts 'in the middle of a deadly pandemic.' This is an exaggerated attack, even before the pandemic is layered on top of it. The dollar figure itself is 'in the ballpark' of what the policy proposals would generate in spending reductions, giving this ad a sliver of truth. However, in the Trump budget, the amount is spread out over ten years -- important context that was omitted. What's in Trump's budget proposal is not a direct cut to Medicare benefits. Instead, Priorities uses the age-old political tactic - employed on both sides of the aisle - of holding up a reduction in projected spending growth as a 'cut.' Moreover, the ad leaves the impression that Trump is trying to whack Medicare for seniors at a time when panic is particularly high because of the coronavirus. But that connection to the pandemic is also misleading. The presidential budget was released weeks before most of the nation began to comprehend the threat of COVID-19. The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts and context that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | []
|
Says President Donald Trump is trying to make $451 billion in Medicare cuts 'in the middle of a deadly pandemic. | Contradiction | Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC, announced a new digital and TV ad series criticizing President Donald Trump's response to the coronavirus pandemic. Among the ads is a 15-second spot, titled 'Pause,' that alleges Trump is trying to cut Medicare during the global health emergency. 'Our lives are on pause. We're worried about our health. So why is Trump still trying to cut our Medicare? $451 billion in cuts in the middle of a deadly pandemic. Trump is putting us at risk,' the commercial's narrator says. The PAC, which was formed in 2011 to support President Barack Obama's reelection campaign, has been tapped by Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, as his preferred choice among Democratic super PACS for big-donor giving. This ad caught our attention for two reasons. First, the term 'Medicare cuts' has long been volleyed between both Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the White House - and often has proven to be a powerful political tool. Second, the connection between 'cuts' to Medicare and the coronavirus pandemic was a new concept we wanted to explore. We reached out to Priorities USA Action to ask for the basis of these statements. Josh Schwerin, a PAC spokesperson, sent us a links to news articles and confirmed that the '$451 billion in cuts' referred to Trump's 2021 proposed budget for Medicare. Asked to pinpoint where the $451 billion came from, Schwerin pointed us to a February ABC News article that said the president's budget plan would 'whack away at federal spending on health care over the next 10 years ... including $451 billion less spent on Medicare.' He also sent us links to a February Washington Blade article and February press release from Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.) - both of which also cited that figure. Cuts or a reduction in spending? An argument that's been around In fall 2010, a few months after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, Republicans aired midterm campaign ads attacking Democrats for 'cutting' or 'gutting' Medicare. The reason was the law included a $500 billion reduction in projected spending for Medicare over 10 years, which would be used to help fund the ACA. The Obama administration said the reductions in spending would come from lowering payments to Medicare Advantage plans and providers and would not affect the level of care that Medicare beneficiaries received. They also said it would help make the Medicare system more financially stable. Now, almost 10 years later, Democrats are using the same language to criticize the White House's long-term plan for Medicare spending. ''Cuts' is a term that has been thrown around for many years,' said Tricia Neuman, executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. 'This is a semantic issue that often gets politicized, often in an election year.' (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation). Neuman explained that what is being considered here is a reduction in the projected increase in spending over a certain period. This reduction is based on estimates of how much the government is projected to spend on programs - factoring in proposed policy changes - for the following 10 years, taking into account current levels of spending, assumptions about economic growth and trends in use of Medicare coverage, said Neuman. Trump's 2021 budget blueprint for Medicare estimated that spending would increase each of the 10 years. But the estimate also suggested that the administration's proposed policy changes would reduce the spending increase compared with estimates of what would be spent if the changes were not implemented. 'Let's say Medicare spends $100 in 2020 and is projected to spend $200 in 2021,' Neuman said. 'If the budget said we're going to reduce the growth in spending by $25, that's a reduction in an increase. But other people might call that a cut.' The number itself and what it means We reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Medicare, for its take on that $451 billion figure, but have not heard back. Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the actual figure could be anywhere from $400 billion to $600 billion, depending on how calculations are done. His analysis relied on the executive branch's Office of Management and Budget calculations and landed on a figure close to $505 billion. Other variables, such as 'likely savings from drug price reform' - yet to be enacted - move it closer to $600 billion. The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities came up with a similar estimate: $501 billion. The Congressional Budget Office's estimate not including savings generated from proposed drug pricing reforms was closer to $400 billion. In all cases, though, the reductions in Medicare spending would be achieved through proposals such as lowering payments to providers and paying the same amount for the same health service offered in different settings, among other things. Goldwein said these proposals for Medicare reform are largely bipartisan and 'either mimic or build upon' those advanced during the Obama era. He also said that, in his organization's view, the 'cuts' are savings to the Medicare program and beneficiaries, who would see lower premiums and out-of-pocket medical costs. The policy experts said it's likely the reductions in spending wouldn't directly affect the care that Medicare beneficiaries receive. But provider groups have complained that lower reimbursements might drive some doctors to leave Medicare. Hospitals have argued against the proposal for equalizing payments for similar services because they say their overhead expenses are higher than those of a doctor's office or off-site clinic and their higher rates help finance other necessary services. Timing matters The Priorities USA Action ad also alleges that Trump is trying to cut Medicare 'in the middle of a deadly pandemic.' But the timeline of events doesn't support this statement. The White House released the 2021 budget proposal on Feb. 10 - well before the COVID-19 outbreak had become a part of our national consciousness. The first domestic case of COVID-19 was announced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Jan. 21. The World Health Organization declared the outbreak of the novel coronavirus a 'public health emergency of international concern' on Jan. 30. On Feb. 10, the day the budget was released, the CDC put out a press release stating there were 13 cases of the disease in the U.S. CNN also published an article that day stating the vast majority of COVID-19 cases and deaths had occurred in China. Authorities didn't announce the first U.S. death from COVID-19 until Feb. 29. The WHO declared a pandemic on March 11. 'These budget proposals were probably developed well before the pandemic hit the U.S. and hit it hard,' said Neuman. However, she added, 'the administration hasn't disavowed these proposals, but they also haven't pushed them forward.' Joseph Antos, a scholar in health care and retirement policy at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said it was a 'ridiculous statement to connect cutting Medicare spending to the COVID crisis.' 'The implication of the video that this is going on actively while we're in the middle of this crisis, that's dead wrong,' said Antos. | Our ruling The Priorities ad said Trump is trying to make $451 billion in Medicare cuts 'in the middle of a deadly pandemic.' This is an exaggerated attack, even before the pandemic is layered on top of it. The dollar figure itself is 'in the ballpark' of what the policy proposals would generate in spending reductions, giving this ad a sliver of truth. However, in the Trump budget, the amount is spread out over ten years -- important context that was omitted. What's in Trump's budget proposal is not a direct cut to Medicare benefits. Instead, Priorities uses the age-old political tactic - employed on both sides of the aisle - of holding up a reduction in projected spending growth as a 'cut.' Moreover, the ad leaves the impression that Trump is trying to whack Medicare for seniors at a time when panic is particularly high because of the coronavirus. But that connection to the pandemic is also misleading. The presidential budget was released weeks before most of the nation began to comprehend the threat of COVID-19. The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts and context that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. | []
|
Police officer is 'the occupation with the highest suicide rate of any profession. | Contradiction | A Facebook user defending law enforcement officers claims that police officer is 'the occupation with the highest suicide rate of any profession.' The post came amid the backlash to the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd on May 25. 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.) An annual study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that five industries and six occupational groups had significantly higher suicide rates than than the overal population. Police officers don't register on the study when it is examined by industry. When the data is divided up by 'occupational group,' women involved in 'protective services' were shown to have the fifth highest rate of suicide compared with the overall population. That group includes police officers, but it also includes prison guards, firefighters and others. The latest study was produced in January 2020 and is based on data from 2016. Data from 32 states that participate in the National Violent Death Reporting System were used to calculate suicide rates. Five major industry groups had significantly higher suicide rates than did the overall study population: Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction (men) Construction (men) Other services (e.g., automotive repair) (men) Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting (men) Transportation and warehousing (men and women) Six major occupational groups had significantly higher suicide rates than did the overall study population: The suicide rate for women in protective service occupations was 14.0 per 100,000 working population, higher than the rate among females in all occupations (7.7). The suicide rate for women in protective service occupations was 14.0 per 100,000 working population, higher than the rate among females in all occupations (7.7). But the suicide rate for men in protective service occupations was 26.4 per 100,000 working population, lower than the rate among men in all occupations (27.4). Overall, the study determined that suicide risk is associated with 'low-skilled work, lower education, lower absolute and relative socioeconomic status, work-related access to lethal means, and job stress, including poor supervisory and colleague support, low job control and job insecurity.' A nonprofit called Blue HELP tracks police officer suicides via internet searching and other means. According to Blue HELP, while police officer is not the occupation with the highest suicide rate, its unofficial figures show a somewhat highter rate than the CDC report, although for a different time period. There are indications of an increase, Steven Hough, a co-founder of the group, told PolitiFact. There have been 787 officer suicides since 2016, according to Blue HELP. For 2019, the group calculated the officer suicide rate at 22.4 per 100,000 population. That's higher than the average rate among all occupations in the CDC study, but the CDC's figures are for 2016. The group has counted 10 officer suicides since June 8, Hough said June 22. There is no official central repository for information about how many suicides take place among law enforcement officers and under what circumstances, according to the Police Executive Research Forum and other research groups. The forum says research shows that factors affecting suicide by officers include exposure to trauma, alcohol use, availability of firearms and the strains of shift work; and that post-traumatic stress disorder among police officers is five times more prevalent than in the general population. A February 2020 report National Officer Safety Initiatives, said suicide risk factors specific to law enforcement officers include exposure to suicide and other traumatic events, easy access to firearms and skills in their use, and organizational stressors such as shift work. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims police officer is 'the occupation with the highest suicide rate of any profession.' Data is limited, but what is available does not indicate police officer is at the top. We rate the post False. | [
"108714-proof-16-16e476945e908c5ac7f385c963c5d13a.jpg"
]
|
Police officer is 'the occupation with the highest suicide rate of any profession. | Contradiction | A Facebook user defending law enforcement officers claims that police officer is 'the occupation with the highest suicide rate of any profession.' The post came amid the backlash to the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd on May 25. 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.) An annual study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that five industries and six occupational groups had significantly higher suicide rates than than the overal population. Police officers don't register on the study when it is examined by industry. When the data is divided up by 'occupational group,' women involved in 'protective services' were shown to have the fifth highest rate of suicide compared with the overall population. That group includes police officers, but it also includes prison guards, firefighters and others. The latest study was produced in January 2020 and is based on data from 2016. Data from 32 states that participate in the National Violent Death Reporting System were used to calculate suicide rates. Five major industry groups had significantly higher suicide rates than did the overall study population: Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction (men) Construction (men) Other services (e.g., automotive repair) (men) Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting (men) Transportation and warehousing (men and women) Six major occupational groups had significantly higher suicide rates than did the overall study population: The suicide rate for women in protective service occupations was 14.0 per 100,000 working population, higher than the rate among females in all occupations (7.7). The suicide rate for women in protective service occupations was 14.0 per 100,000 working population, higher than the rate among females in all occupations (7.7). But the suicide rate for men in protective service occupations was 26.4 per 100,000 working population, lower than the rate among men in all occupations (27.4). Overall, the study determined that suicide risk is associated with 'low-skilled work, lower education, lower absolute and relative socioeconomic status, work-related access to lethal means, and job stress, including poor supervisory and colleague support, low job control and job insecurity.' A nonprofit called Blue HELP tracks police officer suicides via internet searching and other means. According to Blue HELP, while police officer is not the occupation with the highest suicide rate, its unofficial figures show a somewhat highter rate than the CDC report, although for a different time period. There are indications of an increase, Steven Hough, a co-founder of the group, told PolitiFact. There have been 787 officer suicides since 2016, according to Blue HELP. For 2019, the group calculated the officer suicide rate at 22.4 per 100,000 population. That's higher than the average rate among all occupations in the CDC study, but the CDC's figures are for 2016. The group has counted 10 officer suicides since June 8, Hough said June 22. There is no official central repository for information about how many suicides take place among law enforcement officers and under what circumstances, according to the Police Executive Research Forum and other research groups. The forum says research shows that factors affecting suicide by officers include exposure to trauma, alcohol use, availability of firearms and the strains of shift work; and that post-traumatic stress disorder among police officers is five times more prevalent than in the general population. A February 2020 report National Officer Safety Initiatives, said suicide risk factors specific to law enforcement officers include exposure to suicide and other traumatic events, easy access to firearms and skills in their use, and organizational stressors such as shift work. | Our ruling A Facebook post claims police officer is 'the occupation with the highest suicide rate of any profession.' Data is limited, but what is available does not indicate police officer is at the top. We rate the post False. | [
"108714-proof-16-16e476945e908c5ac7f385c963c5d13a.jpg"
]
|
A Georgia law has not 'criminalized giving people bottles of water.' It pertains to political organizations. | Contradiction | On 'Fox News Sunday,' host Chris Wallace and a Republican strategist argued about the particulars of Georgia's new law banning certain food and water giveaways to voters in line. 'Why on earth, if Americans are willing to wait in hours to vote, would you make it a crime for people to come and give them a bottle of water?' Wallace asked. Josh Holmes, a former chief of staff to Sen. Mitch McConnell, later came on and circled back to respond to Wallace's assertion. Holmes said that Democrats have misrepresented that provision of a new Georgia law. 'I've heard it a couple times on this program, that the idea that they've criminalized giving people bottles of water. They have not,' said Holmes, founder of a consulting firm. 'What is in the statute, what is absolutely clear, is that they're preventing political organizations from giving people in line things: meals, water, what have you. Water is and should be provided at the polls for people who are standing in line.' Wallace and Holmes went back and forth about the particulars of the new Georgia law. Wallace repeatedly said that the new law bans giving food and water to voters in line, and Holmes pushed back. 'Are you really suggesting that it should be wrong to provide water or drinks to people waiting in line to exercise their democratic franchise?' Wallace asked. Holmes replied: 'No, I'm not. What I'm suggesting is wrong is to suggest that the law does that.' He later said, 'It very specifically says that it can't be provided by political entities seeking to one way or another influence an outcome of a vote.' We decided to fact-check Holmes' statement that the Georgia law doesn't criminalize giving voters bottles of water. Gov. Brian Kemp signed SB 202 on March 25. Voting rights advocates quickly sued and raised multiple objections, including to what the law says about food and water giveaways. Voting rights advocates routinely organize food and water distribution near voting sites where residents sometimes have to wait in line for hours to vote, often in nonwhite communities, where polling places are more crowded. Some of the larger events are organized by those with ties to the left, although they make the food and water available to anyone. What Georgia's SB 202 says about food and water giveaways Following the show, the debate moved to Twitter where 'Fox News Sunday' and Holmes tweeted provisions of SB 202. Here is what that section of the law says: '(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast (1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established; (2) Within any polling place; or (3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.' The bill also states that poll workers can make available 'self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote.' But nothing in the law requires poll workers to make water easily available to voters while they are waiting in line. Holmes tweeted that the 'last section clearly exempts poll workers from prohibitions on political entities providing, water etc.' Holmes is correct that poll workers can set up self-serve water stations. However, during the show he misled when he said the law doesn't criminalize giving away water. The law makes it a misdemeanor to give away food or water within 150 feet of the outer edge of a polling place building or within 25 feet of any voter in line. Violations of this law are punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. While people other than poll workers can give away food or water, they have to adhere to these boundaries to avoid breaking the law. Holmes emphasized in an email to PolitiFact that water is allowed, but from an unattended receptacle. And he repeated his assertion that the law is targeted at preventing people from political organizations from making such handouts. 'I was responding specifically to the repeated claims that it criminalized water at the polls,' Holmes told PolitiFact. 'In reading the statute and speaking with Georgia officials, I understand that the intent of the statute is to deter electioneering at the polls, which is consistent with many other state laws. What I thought required clarification about the claim of criminalizing water, is that this Georgia statute was not silent on the issue. It specifically addressed the manner in which it may be provided.' But the language in the law doesn't ban only political entities from handing out water. Keith Williams, general counsel to Republican House Speaker David Ralston, told PolitiFact: 'Any individual other than a worker at a polling place is prohibited from handing out water, etc., within 150 feet of a polling place or within 25 feet of the line.' Election law experts reached similar conclusions. 'I read the solicitation provision and the prohibition on food and water at the polls to be separate prohibitions in the law,' said Richard Hasen, a University of California Irvine election law professor. 'It is not limited to those who are soliciting votes.' Justin Levitt, a Loyola Marymount University law school professor, told PolitiFact: 'I read, and I believe courts would read, SB 202 to prohibit anyone from giving food or water to any voter in line.' A spokesperson with Georgia's secretary of state noted that voters are welcome to bring their own food and refreshments with them to stand in line. He said the purpose of the provision is to avoid having situations such as candidates handing out water or food wrapped in campaign materials. Cracking down on food and water giveaways to voters in Georgia is not new. A state law already banned giving gifts 'for the purpose of registering as a voter, voting, or voting for a particular candidate.' That provision doesn't mention food or water directly, but Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had previously interpreted it to include food or water. | Our ruling Holmes said a Georgia law has not 'criminalized giving people bottles of water.' It pertains to political organizations. SB 202 makes it a crime for people - and not just people from political organizations - to hand out food or bottles of water within 150 feet of a polling place or 25 feet of any voter standing in line. The only kernel of truth is that the law has a sentence which allows poll workers to make available 'self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote.' But just because poll workers can make self-service water available, doesn't mean they are required to come up with a way to make water accessible to voters in every line at every polling site. Also, people could hand out water or food to voters outside the 150-foot and 25-foot boundaries. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"108740-proof-16-99f64e89a716557d349daf090cdfdec8.jpg"
]
|
A Georgia law has not 'criminalized giving people bottles of water.' It pertains to political organizations. | Contradiction | On 'Fox News Sunday,' host Chris Wallace and a Republican strategist argued about the particulars of Georgia's new law banning certain food and water giveaways to voters in line. 'Why on earth, if Americans are willing to wait in hours to vote, would you make it a crime for people to come and give them a bottle of water?' Wallace asked. Josh Holmes, a former chief of staff to Sen. Mitch McConnell, later came on and circled back to respond to Wallace's assertion. Holmes said that Democrats have misrepresented that provision of a new Georgia law. 'I've heard it a couple times on this program, that the idea that they've criminalized giving people bottles of water. They have not,' said Holmes, founder of a consulting firm. 'What is in the statute, what is absolutely clear, is that they're preventing political organizations from giving people in line things: meals, water, what have you. Water is and should be provided at the polls for people who are standing in line.' Wallace and Holmes went back and forth about the particulars of the new Georgia law. Wallace repeatedly said that the new law bans giving food and water to voters in line, and Holmes pushed back. 'Are you really suggesting that it should be wrong to provide water or drinks to people waiting in line to exercise their democratic franchise?' Wallace asked. Holmes replied: 'No, I'm not. What I'm suggesting is wrong is to suggest that the law does that.' He later said, 'It very specifically says that it can't be provided by political entities seeking to one way or another influence an outcome of a vote.' We decided to fact-check Holmes' statement that the Georgia law doesn't criminalize giving voters bottles of water. Gov. Brian Kemp signed SB 202 on March 25. Voting rights advocates quickly sued and raised multiple objections, including to what the law says about food and water giveaways. Voting rights advocates routinely organize food and water distribution near voting sites where residents sometimes have to wait in line for hours to vote, often in nonwhite communities, where polling places are more crowded. Some of the larger events are organized by those with ties to the left, although they make the food and water available to anyone. What Georgia's SB 202 says about food and water giveaways Following the show, the debate moved to Twitter where 'Fox News Sunday' and Holmes tweeted provisions of SB 202. Here is what that section of the law says: '(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast (1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established; (2) Within any polling place; or (3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.' The bill also states that poll workers can make available 'self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote.' But nothing in the law requires poll workers to make water easily available to voters while they are waiting in line. Holmes tweeted that the 'last section clearly exempts poll workers from prohibitions on political entities providing, water etc.' Holmes is correct that poll workers can set up self-serve water stations. However, during the show he misled when he said the law doesn't criminalize giving away water. The law makes it a misdemeanor to give away food or water within 150 feet of the outer edge of a polling place building or within 25 feet of any voter in line. Violations of this law are punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. While people other than poll workers can give away food or water, they have to adhere to these boundaries to avoid breaking the law. Holmes emphasized in an email to PolitiFact that water is allowed, but from an unattended receptacle. And he repeated his assertion that the law is targeted at preventing people from political organizations from making such handouts. 'I was responding specifically to the repeated claims that it criminalized water at the polls,' Holmes told PolitiFact. 'In reading the statute and speaking with Georgia officials, I understand that the intent of the statute is to deter electioneering at the polls, which is consistent with many other state laws. What I thought required clarification about the claim of criminalizing water, is that this Georgia statute was not silent on the issue. It specifically addressed the manner in which it may be provided.' But the language in the law doesn't ban only political entities from handing out water. Keith Williams, general counsel to Republican House Speaker David Ralston, told PolitiFact: 'Any individual other than a worker at a polling place is prohibited from handing out water, etc., within 150 feet of a polling place or within 25 feet of the line.' Election law experts reached similar conclusions. 'I read the solicitation provision and the prohibition on food and water at the polls to be separate prohibitions in the law,' said Richard Hasen, a University of California Irvine election law professor. 'It is not limited to those who are soliciting votes.' Justin Levitt, a Loyola Marymount University law school professor, told PolitiFact: 'I read, and I believe courts would read, SB 202 to prohibit anyone from giving food or water to any voter in line.' A spokesperson with Georgia's secretary of state noted that voters are welcome to bring their own food and refreshments with them to stand in line. He said the purpose of the provision is to avoid having situations such as candidates handing out water or food wrapped in campaign materials. Cracking down on food and water giveaways to voters in Georgia is not new. A state law already banned giving gifts 'for the purpose of registering as a voter, voting, or voting for a particular candidate.' That provision doesn't mention food or water directly, but Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had previously interpreted it to include food or water. | Our ruling Holmes said a Georgia law has not 'criminalized giving people bottles of water.' It pertains to political organizations. SB 202 makes it a crime for people - and not just people from political organizations - to hand out food or bottles of water within 150 feet of a polling place or 25 feet of any voter standing in line. The only kernel of truth is that the law has a sentence which allows poll workers to make available 'self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote.' But just because poll workers can make self-service water available, doesn't mean they are required to come up with a way to make water accessible to voters in every line at every polling site. Also, people could hand out water or food to voters outside the 150-foot and 25-foot boundaries. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"108740-proof-16-99f64e89a716557d349daf090cdfdec8.jpg"
]
|
A Georgia law has not 'criminalized giving people bottles of water.' It pertains to political organizations. | Contradiction | On 'Fox News Sunday,' host Chris Wallace and a Republican strategist argued about the particulars of Georgia's new law banning certain food and water giveaways to voters in line. 'Why on earth, if Americans are willing to wait in hours to vote, would you make it a crime for people to come and give them a bottle of water?' Wallace asked. Josh Holmes, a former chief of staff to Sen. Mitch McConnell, later came on and circled back to respond to Wallace's assertion. Holmes said that Democrats have misrepresented that provision of a new Georgia law. 'I've heard it a couple times on this program, that the idea that they've criminalized giving people bottles of water. They have not,' said Holmes, founder of a consulting firm. 'What is in the statute, what is absolutely clear, is that they're preventing political organizations from giving people in line things: meals, water, what have you. Water is and should be provided at the polls for people who are standing in line.' Wallace and Holmes went back and forth about the particulars of the new Georgia law. Wallace repeatedly said that the new law bans giving food and water to voters in line, and Holmes pushed back. 'Are you really suggesting that it should be wrong to provide water or drinks to people waiting in line to exercise their democratic franchise?' Wallace asked. Holmes replied: 'No, I'm not. What I'm suggesting is wrong is to suggest that the law does that.' He later said, 'It very specifically says that it can't be provided by political entities seeking to one way or another influence an outcome of a vote.' We decided to fact-check Holmes' statement that the Georgia law doesn't criminalize giving voters bottles of water. Gov. Brian Kemp signed SB 202 on March 25. Voting rights advocates quickly sued and raised multiple objections, including to what the law says about food and water giveaways. Voting rights advocates routinely organize food and water distribution near voting sites where residents sometimes have to wait in line for hours to vote, often in nonwhite communities, where polling places are more crowded. Some of the larger events are organized by those with ties to the left, although they make the food and water available to anyone. What Georgia's SB 202 says about food and water giveaways Following the show, the debate moved to Twitter where 'Fox News Sunday' and Holmes tweeted provisions of SB 202. Here is what that section of the law says: '(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast (1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established; (2) Within any polling place; or (3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place.' The bill also states that poll workers can make available 'self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote.' But nothing in the law requires poll workers to make water easily available to voters while they are waiting in line. Holmes tweeted that the 'last section clearly exempts poll workers from prohibitions on political entities providing, water etc.' Holmes is correct that poll workers can set up self-serve water stations. However, during the show he misled when he said the law doesn't criminalize giving away water. The law makes it a misdemeanor to give away food or water within 150 feet of the outer edge of a polling place building or within 25 feet of any voter in line. Violations of this law are punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. While people other than poll workers can give away food or water, they have to adhere to these boundaries to avoid breaking the law. Holmes emphasized in an email to PolitiFact that water is allowed, but from an unattended receptacle. And he repeated his assertion that the law is targeted at preventing people from political organizations from making such handouts. 'I was responding specifically to the repeated claims that it criminalized water at the polls,' Holmes told PolitiFact. 'In reading the statute and speaking with Georgia officials, I understand that the intent of the statute is to deter electioneering at the polls, which is consistent with many other state laws. What I thought required clarification about the claim of criminalizing water, is that this Georgia statute was not silent on the issue. It specifically addressed the manner in which it may be provided.' But the language in the law doesn't ban only political entities from handing out water. Keith Williams, general counsel to Republican House Speaker David Ralston, told PolitiFact: 'Any individual other than a worker at a polling place is prohibited from handing out water, etc., within 150 feet of a polling place or within 25 feet of the line.' Election law experts reached similar conclusions. 'I read the solicitation provision and the prohibition on food and water at the polls to be separate prohibitions in the law,' said Richard Hasen, a University of California Irvine election law professor. 'It is not limited to those who are soliciting votes.' Justin Levitt, a Loyola Marymount University law school professor, told PolitiFact: 'I read, and I believe courts would read, SB 202 to prohibit anyone from giving food or water to any voter in line.' A spokesperson with Georgia's secretary of state noted that voters are welcome to bring their own food and refreshments with them to stand in line. He said the purpose of the provision is to avoid having situations such as candidates handing out water or food wrapped in campaign materials. Cracking down on food and water giveaways to voters in Georgia is not new. A state law already banned giving gifts 'for the purpose of registering as a voter, voting, or voting for a particular candidate.' That provision doesn't mention food or water directly, but Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger had previously interpreted it to include food or water. | Our ruling Holmes said a Georgia law has not 'criminalized giving people bottles of water.' It pertains to political organizations. SB 202 makes it a crime for people - and not just people from political organizations - to hand out food or bottles of water within 150 feet of a polling place or 25 feet of any voter standing in line. The only kernel of truth is that the law has a sentence which allows poll workers to make available 'self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote.' But just because poll workers can make self-service water available, doesn't mean they are required to come up with a way to make water accessible to voters in every line at every polling site. Also, people could hand out water or food to voters outside the 150-foot and 25-foot boundaries. We rate this statement Mostly False. | [
"108740-proof-16-99f64e89a716557d349daf090cdfdec8.jpg"
]
|
Says a video shows a fox allowing itself 'to feed koala babies in Australia. | Contradiction | 'This is motherhood,' reads the description of a recent YouTube video claiming to show a fox feeding baby koalas in Australia. But people commenting on the clip, posted by an account called 'Lets Make it Viral LMIV,' weren't buying it. 'ROFL,' one person wrote. 'Those are fox pups, and, no koala is going to get milk like that.' 'Reported for being fake,' someone else said. The video, which has been viewed thousands of times, was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because they're foxes, not koalas. Wildlife photographer Luc Durocher posted the video on Facebook in December 2014. He posted it again on Jan. 28, after Snopes reported that it contacted him about the miscaptioned video on YouTube. This time, he was more specific in his description of the video. 'The young are thirsty,' he wrote in French. 'Red foxes.' He places the video in a park in Montreal, Canada. In another video of red foxes suckling that Durocher posted on YouTube in 2014, you can more clearly see their faces - and there's no confusing them for koalas. We rate the YouTube post that claims these baby animals are koalas False. | We rate the YouTube post that claims these baby animals are koalas False. | []
|
Under the 2017 tax law, 'people who make under $75,000 will have their taxes raised in 2021 and every 2 years after that until 2027. | Contradiction | A post circulating in liberal corners of social media pushes back against Republicans' portrayal of President Joe Biden as someone who is going to impose big tax hikes. 'Wait, so Trump passed a bill in 2017 where people who make under $75,000 will have their taxes raised in 2021 and every 2 years after that until 2027 ... while the rich get richer ... and y'all crying about Biden raising taxes for people who make over 400k. What am I missing....,' the post 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 assertion about impending tax increases under the 2017 law got a boost on Feb. 1, when the liberal group Occupy Democrats posted it on its Facebook page. There, it got at least 25,000 reactions over the next three days. When we looked into it, we found that the notion of a continuing series of tax increases buried in the GOP-backed law is misleading. (We inquired with Occupy Democrats, but we did not hear back.) Generally speaking, analyses of the 2017 law by independent groups have found the opposite of what the post says - that, at least until 2027, when a lot of the tax cuts will have expired, all income groups will see a reduction in taxes (or an increase in after-tax income). In their 'distributional tables' - the analytical charts that show how much a typical taxpayer in a given income group will see their after-tax income rise or fall under the law - both the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation concluded that until 2027, taxpayers across the income spectrum will fare better under the 2017 law than they would have otherwise. Some income groups will save more money than others do, and results for individual taxpayers will vary depending on the nature of their income; these tables are based on averages. However, there's one analysis, from Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, that doesn't show this pattern, and it's the one that the post relies on. The discrepancy stems from a difference in the assumptions that went into each analysis. Unlike other analyses, the Joint Committee's factored in the law's provision eliminating the tax penalty for not having health insurance, and it did so in a counterintuitive way. Under the committee's longstanding principles, it treats the elimination of this penalty as a net tax increase - not a net decrease. Why? The logic is that in the absence of a mandate to have health insurance, more people would forgo buying it on the marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act. As a result, fewer people would get the tax subsidies that come with buying insurance on the marketplaces. These subsidies are meant to help people afford their insurance premiums. The practical effect of this analytical approach is that, in the distributional tables, some lower- and moderate-income groups see their income gains from the 2017 tax law disappear - a sharp contrast from what the Tax Policy Center and Tax Foundation concluded. As an example, here's the Joint Committee on Taxation's table that compares the tax burdens in 2023, both before and after the law's passage: The chart shows that while most income groups will see a tax cut in 2023 as a result of the law, both the collective tax burden and the average tax rate for households earning up to $30,000 are set to rise. The same pattern holds in 2025, extending that year to taxpayers earning up to $40,000. And in 2027, after a host of tax cuts in the bill expire, the range of taxpayers expands to those earning as much as $75,000. Tax experts say that the approach of the Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation - which doesn't factor in the change in the health insurance penalty - is a more accurate reading of the tax rates set down in the 2017 law. The decision process that leads to fewer tax subsidies does not amount to having 'their taxes raised,' as the Facebook post said. 'While it is important to consider the impact of the (tax law) on premium tax credits and health insurance take-up, it is misleading to call this effect a 'stealth tax increase,'' wrote Garrett Watson in a post for the Tax Foundation, where he is a senior tax policy analyst. 'The decline in premium tax credits has nothing to do with a change in tax rates or the generosity of the credits as established under the (Affordable Care Act), but rather due to voluntary decisions individuals make about whether to purchase qualified health insurance.' | Our ruling The post said, 'Trump passed a bill in 2017 where people who make under $75,000 will have their taxes raised in 2021 and every 2 years after that until 2027.' Tables produced by the Joint Committee on Taxation do suggest that after-tax incomes for some income groups will decline, but it's misleading to say that this amounts to having 'their taxes raised.' These tax increases show up in the tables because the committee concluded that eliminating the individual health insurance mandate would lead people to forgo buying insurance, and would in turn reduce the tax subsidies they would've received to help them pay their premiums. By contrast, at least two other independent groups ignored the impact of this provision in their analyses and concluded that every income group will benefit from the tax law to some degree each year until 2027. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"108769-proof-11-BByr272-rZoUJiSfnodtm3zBnftAbCYC71-UGzC-9HT-MMS3gBnz0wkzkR1wjvzTaguWxdXataYUteLS.jpg",
"108769-proof-28-7d2e11c7f5168179e2a48ba8e8a9461c.jpg"
]
|
Under the 2017 tax law, 'people who make under $75,000 will have their taxes raised in 2021 and every 2 years after that until 2027. | Contradiction | A post circulating in liberal corners of social media pushes back against Republicans' portrayal of President Joe Biden as someone who is going to impose big tax hikes. 'Wait, so Trump passed a bill in 2017 where people who make under $75,000 will have their taxes raised in 2021 and every 2 years after that until 2027 ... while the rich get richer ... and y'all crying about Biden raising taxes for people who make over 400k. What am I missing....,' the post 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 assertion about impending tax increases under the 2017 law got a boost on Feb. 1, when the liberal group Occupy Democrats posted it on its Facebook page. There, it got at least 25,000 reactions over the next three days. When we looked into it, we found that the notion of a continuing series of tax increases buried in the GOP-backed law is misleading. (We inquired with Occupy Democrats, but we did not hear back.) Generally speaking, analyses of the 2017 law by independent groups have found the opposite of what the post says - that, at least until 2027, when a lot of the tax cuts will have expired, all income groups will see a reduction in taxes (or an increase in after-tax income). In their 'distributional tables' - the analytical charts that show how much a typical taxpayer in a given income group will see their after-tax income rise or fall under the law - both the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation concluded that until 2027, taxpayers across the income spectrum will fare better under the 2017 law than they would have otherwise. Some income groups will save more money than others do, and results for individual taxpayers will vary depending on the nature of their income; these tables are based on averages. However, there's one analysis, from Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, that doesn't show this pattern, and it's the one that the post relies on. The discrepancy stems from a difference in the assumptions that went into each analysis. Unlike other analyses, the Joint Committee's factored in the law's provision eliminating the tax penalty for not having health insurance, and it did so in a counterintuitive way. Under the committee's longstanding principles, it treats the elimination of this penalty as a net tax increase - not a net decrease. Why? The logic is that in the absence of a mandate to have health insurance, more people would forgo buying it on the marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act. As a result, fewer people would get the tax subsidies that come with buying insurance on the marketplaces. These subsidies are meant to help people afford their insurance premiums. The practical effect of this analytical approach is that, in the distributional tables, some lower- and moderate-income groups see their income gains from the 2017 tax law disappear - a sharp contrast from what the Tax Policy Center and Tax Foundation concluded. As an example, here's the Joint Committee on Taxation's table that compares the tax burdens in 2023, both before and after the law's passage: The chart shows that while most income groups will see a tax cut in 2023 as a result of the law, both the collective tax burden and the average tax rate for households earning up to $30,000 are set to rise. The same pattern holds in 2025, extending that year to taxpayers earning up to $40,000. And in 2027, after a host of tax cuts in the bill expire, the range of taxpayers expands to those earning as much as $75,000. Tax experts say that the approach of the Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation - which doesn't factor in the change in the health insurance penalty - is a more accurate reading of the tax rates set down in the 2017 law. The decision process that leads to fewer tax subsidies does not amount to having 'their taxes raised,' as the Facebook post said. 'While it is important to consider the impact of the (tax law) on premium tax credits and health insurance take-up, it is misleading to call this effect a 'stealth tax increase,'' wrote Garrett Watson in a post for the Tax Foundation, where he is a senior tax policy analyst. 'The decline in premium tax credits has nothing to do with a change in tax rates or the generosity of the credits as established under the (Affordable Care Act), but rather due to voluntary decisions individuals make about whether to purchase qualified health insurance.' | Our ruling The post said, 'Trump passed a bill in 2017 where people who make under $75,000 will have their taxes raised in 2021 and every 2 years after that until 2027.' Tables produced by the Joint Committee on Taxation do suggest that after-tax incomes for some income groups will decline, but it's misleading to say that this amounts to having 'their taxes raised.' These tax increases show up in the tables because the committee concluded that eliminating the individual health insurance mandate would lead people to forgo buying insurance, and would in turn reduce the tax subsidies they would've received to help them pay their premiums. By contrast, at least two other independent groups ignored the impact of this provision in their analyses and concluded that every income group will benefit from the tax law to some degree each year until 2027. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"108769-proof-11-BByr272-rZoUJiSfnodtm3zBnftAbCYC71-UGzC-9HT-MMS3gBnz0wkzkR1wjvzTaguWxdXataYUteLS.jpg",
"108769-proof-28-7d2e11c7f5168179e2a48ba8e8a9461c.jpg"
]
|
Under the 2017 tax law, 'people who make under $75,000 will have their taxes raised in 2021 and every 2 years after that until 2027. | Contradiction | A post circulating in liberal corners of social media pushes back against Republicans' portrayal of President Joe Biden as someone who is going to impose big tax hikes. 'Wait, so Trump passed a bill in 2017 where people who make under $75,000 will have their taxes raised in 2021 and every 2 years after that until 2027 ... while the rich get richer ... and y'all crying about Biden raising taxes for people who make over 400k. What am I missing....,' the post 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 assertion about impending tax increases under the 2017 law got a boost on Feb. 1, when the liberal group Occupy Democrats posted it on its Facebook page. There, it got at least 25,000 reactions over the next three days. When we looked into it, we found that the notion of a continuing series of tax increases buried in the GOP-backed law is misleading. (We inquired with Occupy Democrats, but we did not hear back.) Generally speaking, analyses of the 2017 law by independent groups have found the opposite of what the post says - that, at least until 2027, when a lot of the tax cuts will have expired, all income groups will see a reduction in taxes (or an increase in after-tax income). In their 'distributional tables' - the analytical charts that show how much a typical taxpayer in a given income group will see their after-tax income rise or fall under the law - both the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation concluded that until 2027, taxpayers across the income spectrum will fare better under the 2017 law than they would have otherwise. Some income groups will save more money than others do, and results for individual taxpayers will vary depending on the nature of their income; these tables are based on averages. However, there's one analysis, from Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, that doesn't show this pattern, and it's the one that the post relies on. The discrepancy stems from a difference in the assumptions that went into each analysis. Unlike other analyses, the Joint Committee's factored in the law's provision eliminating the tax penalty for not having health insurance, and it did so in a counterintuitive way. Under the committee's longstanding principles, it treats the elimination of this penalty as a net tax increase - not a net decrease. Why? The logic is that in the absence of a mandate to have health insurance, more people would forgo buying it on the marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act. As a result, fewer people would get the tax subsidies that come with buying insurance on the marketplaces. These subsidies are meant to help people afford their insurance premiums. The practical effect of this analytical approach is that, in the distributional tables, some lower- and moderate-income groups see their income gains from the 2017 tax law disappear - a sharp contrast from what the Tax Policy Center and Tax Foundation concluded. As an example, here's the Joint Committee on Taxation's table that compares the tax burdens in 2023, both before and after the law's passage: The chart shows that while most income groups will see a tax cut in 2023 as a result of the law, both the collective tax burden and the average tax rate for households earning up to $30,000 are set to rise. The same pattern holds in 2025, extending that year to taxpayers earning up to $40,000. And in 2027, after a host of tax cuts in the bill expire, the range of taxpayers expands to those earning as much as $75,000. Tax experts say that the approach of the Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation - which doesn't factor in the change in the health insurance penalty - is a more accurate reading of the tax rates set down in the 2017 law. The decision process that leads to fewer tax subsidies does not amount to having 'their taxes raised,' as the Facebook post said. 'While it is important to consider the impact of the (tax law) on premium tax credits and health insurance take-up, it is misleading to call this effect a 'stealth tax increase,'' wrote Garrett Watson in a post for the Tax Foundation, where he is a senior tax policy analyst. 'The decline in premium tax credits has nothing to do with a change in tax rates or the generosity of the credits as established under the (Affordable Care Act), but rather due to voluntary decisions individuals make about whether to purchase qualified health insurance.' | Our ruling The post said, 'Trump passed a bill in 2017 where people who make under $75,000 will have their taxes raised in 2021 and every 2 years after that until 2027.' Tables produced by the Joint Committee on Taxation do suggest that after-tax incomes for some income groups will decline, but it's misleading to say that this amounts to having 'their taxes raised.' These tax increases show up in the tables because the committee concluded that eliminating the individual health insurance mandate would lead people to forgo buying insurance, and would in turn reduce the tax subsidies they would've received to help them pay their premiums. By contrast, at least two other independent groups ignored the impact of this provision in their analyses and concluded that every income group will benefit from the tax law to some degree each year until 2027. We rate it Mostly False. | [
"108769-proof-11-BByr272-rZoUJiSfnodtm3zBnftAbCYC71-UGzC-9HT-MMS3gBnz0wkzkR1wjvzTaguWxdXataYUteLS.jpg",
"108769-proof-28-7d2e11c7f5168179e2a48ba8e8a9461c.jpg"
]
|
In the 2020 presidential election, '4,255 ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, were scanned multiple times' and '3,390 went to Biden. | Contradiction | In a continuing attempt to portray Fulton County, Ga., as a haven for fraud and malfeasance in the 2020 presidential election, a new allegation asserts that thousands of the same ballots were counted multiple times in the county where heavily Democratic Atlanta is located. One tweet claims the counts benefited Joe Biden, who defeated Donald Trump in Georgia, a key swing state, by about 12,000 votes. 'Why is it that errors seem to only ever go one way?' the tweet asked. 'VoterGA says 4,255 ballots in Fulton County, Georgia were scanned multiple times. Of those duplicate ballots, 3,390 went to Biden.' Claims of the multiple counting of the same ballots in Fulton County were also made on Facebook. And Trump, also citing the VoterGA group, issued a statement making allegations, including fraud, in the county's ballot counting. The tweet was highlighted to PolitiFact by Vinesight, a company that monitors online misinformation. Citing a history of election mismanagement in Fulton County, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on July 15 called for the firing of two of the county's top election officials. But there is no evidence of double-counting that would have given Biden anywhere near the number of extra votes being claimed. The double-counting that VoterGA claims it found were in what is known as a risk-limiting audit - a hand recount of the vote. After that, a second recount was done. Statewide, the original count plus the two recounts all confirmed Biden's victory in Georgia The group claiming the double counting Voter GA, also known as Voters Organized for Trusted Election Results in Georgia, says it advocates for 'verifiable auditable recount capable and transparent elections.' It is led by Garland Favorito who, with others, filed a lawsuit seeking a review of the Fulton County's general-election absentee ballots in the 2020 election. A longtime critic of Georgia's election infrastructure, Favorito has promoted conspiracy theories about 9/11 and other topics, according to Georgia Public Radio, the New York Times and the Associated Press. He has also promoted affidavits signed by poll workers or observers in which they leap to conclusions about the integrity of absentee ballots, suggesting they weren't properly marked or weren't printed on normal paper. On July 13, Favorito and the group issued a news release that makes allegations of fraud and other election malfeasance in Fulton County, including the allegation referenced in the tweet. The group claimed it 'found at least 36 batches of mail-in ballots with 4,255 total extra votes were redundantly added into Fulton County audit results for the November election. These illicit votes include 3,390 extra votes for Joe Biden, 865 extra votes for Donald Trump and 43 extra votes for Jo Jorgenson,' the Libertarian candidate. At a news conference on July 13, businessman David Cross, who is helping Favorito, displayed digital images of several ballots that he said shows ballots were scanned twice. Side by side, the ballots appeared to be identical, but contained different markings that Cross said indicated they were scanned more than once. Cross sent PolitiFact, and posted online, information that he said supports the Voter GA's claim. He went further, claiming that he had found 6,415 extra votes counted in the risk-limiting audit, with an extra 5,128 going to Biden and 1,188 to Trump. What's been found On the same day of the tweet, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the people who filed the lawsuit discovered that nearly 200 Fulton County ballots had been scanned twice. The newspaper said it confirmed the double-counting by reviewing digital images of the ballots; the story included a link to the images. However, the double-counting was discovered in a recount and there is no indication Biden earned any additional votes in the official results, the newspaper said. The ballots counted twice would have given Biden 31 extra votes. After a recount, official results reflected that Trump gained a total of 121 absentee votes in Fulton. Biden won the county with 73% of 524,000 votes cast, the story said. As we've reported, two recounts confirmed Biden won Georgia. In all, the roughly 5 million ballots cast in Georgia were counted three times, including once by hand. The hand recount uncovered more than 2,600 uncounted votes, most of which favored Trump, in Floyd County, Ga. But election officials said the mistake was due to human error, not voter fraud. In the end, the certified results showed Biden beating Trump by 11,779 votes in the state. Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said: 'Given that these ballots were all recounted by hand, there is no chance that a large number of ballots were double counted.' University of West Georgia political scientist Thomas Hunter said none of the information provided by Voter GA proves that votes in the official certified results were counted twice. The official certified results were taken from the second recount, which was requested by the Trump campaign, he said. Even if some ballots were counted twice during the risk-limiting audit, he said, 'those numbers are not included in the official results. The official results are from the last recount, which was done by scanning all of the ballots. The results in the official count from Fulton County match quite closely to what the initial count showed.' Hunter added: 'Any large-scale mistakes would have been found through the two recounts.' The Georgia Secretary of State's office referred questions to Fulton County. A Fulton County spokeswoman declined comment, citing the lawsuit. | Our ruling A tweet says that in the 2020 presidential election, '4,255 ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, were scanned multiple times' and '3,390 went to Biden.' Some 200 ballots initially were double-counted in Fulton County, where heavily Democratic Atlanta is located - but there's no evidence of thousands, and the double-count didn't change the official result of Biden defeating Trump in Georgia. We rate the claim False. | [
"108775-proof-16-7f5c3273d23658071f5e81f45c30abaf.jpg"
]
|
In the 2020 presidential election, '4,255 ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, were scanned multiple times' and '3,390 went to Biden. | Contradiction | In a continuing attempt to portray Fulton County, Ga., as a haven for fraud and malfeasance in the 2020 presidential election, a new allegation asserts that thousands of the same ballots were counted multiple times in the county where heavily Democratic Atlanta is located. One tweet claims the counts benefited Joe Biden, who defeated Donald Trump in Georgia, a key swing state, by about 12,000 votes. 'Why is it that errors seem to only ever go one way?' the tweet asked. 'VoterGA says 4,255 ballots in Fulton County, Georgia were scanned multiple times. Of those duplicate ballots, 3,390 went to Biden.' Claims of the multiple counting of the same ballots in Fulton County were also made on Facebook. And Trump, also citing the VoterGA group, issued a statement making allegations, including fraud, in the county's ballot counting. The tweet was highlighted to PolitiFact by Vinesight, a company that monitors online misinformation. Citing a history of election mismanagement in Fulton County, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on July 15 called for the firing of two of the county's top election officials. But there is no evidence of double-counting that would have given Biden anywhere near the number of extra votes being claimed. The double-counting that VoterGA claims it found were in what is known as a risk-limiting audit - a hand recount of the vote. After that, a second recount was done. Statewide, the original count plus the two recounts all confirmed Biden's victory in Georgia The group claiming the double counting Voter GA, also known as Voters Organized for Trusted Election Results in Georgia, says it advocates for 'verifiable auditable recount capable and transparent elections.' It is led by Garland Favorito who, with others, filed a lawsuit seeking a review of the Fulton County's general-election absentee ballots in the 2020 election. A longtime critic of Georgia's election infrastructure, Favorito has promoted conspiracy theories about 9/11 and other topics, according to Georgia Public Radio, the New York Times and the Associated Press. He has also promoted affidavits signed by poll workers or observers in which they leap to conclusions about the integrity of absentee ballots, suggesting they weren't properly marked or weren't printed on normal paper. On July 13, Favorito and the group issued a news release that makes allegations of fraud and other election malfeasance in Fulton County, including the allegation referenced in the tweet. The group claimed it 'found at least 36 batches of mail-in ballots with 4,255 total extra votes were redundantly added into Fulton County audit results for the November election. These illicit votes include 3,390 extra votes for Joe Biden, 865 extra votes for Donald Trump and 43 extra votes for Jo Jorgenson,' the Libertarian candidate. At a news conference on July 13, businessman David Cross, who is helping Favorito, displayed digital images of several ballots that he said shows ballots were scanned twice. Side by side, the ballots appeared to be identical, but contained different markings that Cross said indicated they were scanned more than once. Cross sent PolitiFact, and posted online, information that he said supports the Voter GA's claim. He went further, claiming that he had found 6,415 extra votes counted in the risk-limiting audit, with an extra 5,128 going to Biden and 1,188 to Trump. What's been found On the same day of the tweet, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the people who filed the lawsuit discovered that nearly 200 Fulton County ballots had been scanned twice. The newspaper said it confirmed the double-counting by reviewing digital images of the ballots; the story included a link to the images. However, the double-counting was discovered in a recount and there is no indication Biden earned any additional votes in the official results, the newspaper said. The ballots counted twice would have given Biden 31 extra votes. After a recount, official results reflected that Trump gained a total of 121 absentee votes in Fulton. Biden won the county with 73% of 524,000 votes cast, the story said. As we've reported, two recounts confirmed Biden won Georgia. In all, the roughly 5 million ballots cast in Georgia were counted three times, including once by hand. The hand recount uncovered more than 2,600 uncounted votes, most of which favored Trump, in Floyd County, Ga. But election officials said the mistake was due to human error, not voter fraud. In the end, the certified results showed Biden beating Trump by 11,779 votes in the state. Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said: 'Given that these ballots were all recounted by hand, there is no chance that a large number of ballots were double counted.' University of West Georgia political scientist Thomas Hunter said none of the information provided by Voter GA proves that votes in the official certified results were counted twice. The official certified results were taken from the second recount, which was requested by the Trump campaign, he said. Even if some ballots were counted twice during the risk-limiting audit, he said, 'those numbers are not included in the official results. The official results are from the last recount, which was done by scanning all of the ballots. The results in the official count from Fulton County match quite closely to what the initial count showed.' Hunter added: 'Any large-scale mistakes would have been found through the two recounts.' The Georgia Secretary of State's office referred questions to Fulton County. A Fulton County spokeswoman declined comment, citing the lawsuit. | Our ruling A tweet says that in the 2020 presidential election, '4,255 ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, were scanned multiple times' and '3,390 went to Biden.' Some 200 ballots initially were double-counted in Fulton County, where heavily Democratic Atlanta is located - but there's no evidence of thousands, and the double-count didn't change the official result of Biden defeating Trump in Georgia. We rate the claim False. | [
"108775-proof-16-7f5c3273d23658071f5e81f45c30abaf.jpg"
]
|
The effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom is 'a coup. | Contradiction | In remarks described by political observers as both factually wrong and politically foolish, California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks called the growing effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom as 'the California coup.' 'This recall effort, which really ought to be called 'the California coup,' is being led by right-wing conspiracy theorists, white nationalists, anti-vaxxers and groups who encourage violence on our democratic institutions,' Hicks said Tuesday at a press conference meant to condemn the endeavor, which remains in the signature-gathering stage. Sherry Yang, a spokesperson for the Democratic party, kicked off the event by also calling the recall a 'coup.' Hicks provided no evidence linking the recall to the groups he cited. Nor did he explain how the recall effort, which is a legal process to remove a local or state elected leader and has been allowed by the state constitution for more than a century, was akin to a coup - which it clearly is not. We're aware that Hicks was using partisan rhetoric to cast the recall effort in a negative light when he referred to it as 'the California coup.' He later said the party wasn't challenging the legality of the campaign. Still, words matter and not everyone who heard or read his comments will fully understand what they mean. So we decided to explore the monumental differences between the two actions in this fact check. What Is A Coup? Keith Smith, a political science professor at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, said the actions aren't in the same ballpark. 'A coup is usually defined as a violent effort to overthrow a legitimately- elected and legitimately-installed government, to somehow by the use of force take power in a government,' he said. Other scholars contend that a coup must involve some portion of the state military, police or security forces, who work to overthrow the government. What Is A Recall Campaign? The recall effort, on the other hand, 'is not that at all,' Smith said. 'It's people signing petitions that are being circulated around the state to put something on the ballot, which is a perfectly legitimate and prescribed process in democratic government,' the professor added. To qualify the recall for a future ballot, the campaign must submit approximately 1.5 million signatures of registered voters to county elections officials by March 17, all of which must be verified. Proponents said last week they had gathered more than 1 million signatures. A recall ballot has two parts: A yes or no vote for recall and the names of replacement candidates. When asked at the press conference whether Democrats would list a replacement candidate, Hicks said 'Anything and everything is on the table.' History Of California Recalls California voters approved the recall process in 1911. Since then, there have been 165 attempts to recall state elected leaders, according to the Secretary of State's Office. Nine of them collected enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, and of those, the elected official was recalled in five cases. The most notable was the recall of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 in favor of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. The recall effort was the first successful recall of a California governor, and only the second recall of a state governor in American history, according to Ballotpedia. Wrong Term And Political Mistake? Regarding the use of 'California coup,' some political observers say Hicks was both factually off base and committed an unforced political error. 'I don't think that it's politically smart. I don't think it's civically appropriate,' said Wesley Hussey, a political science professor at Sacramento State University who wrote about Davis' recall. Of the current recall effort, Hussey said 'the (state) Constitution very clearly lays out this is an avenue of recourse for people unhappy with an elected official at the local, legislative and executive level in the state.' In California, proponents do not need to cite a specific reason for recalling an elected official, he added. Our Ruling California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks described the effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom as 'the California coup.' Even in the bounds of political rhetoric, his remarks are far off base and wildly inaccurate. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government. A recall is a legally sanctioned effort to vote an elected official out of office midway through their term. It's been part of California's constitution for more than a century. We rate Hicks' statement Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | Our Ruling California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks described the effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom as 'the California coup.' Even in the bounds of political rhetoric, his remarks are far off base and wildly inaccurate. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government. A recall is a legally sanctioned effort to vote an elected official out of office midway through their term. It's been part of California's constitution for more than a century. We rate Hicks' statement Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | [
"108777-proof-47-837896526b8b5502201d10faa40ce6e6.jpg"
]
|
The effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom is 'a coup. | Contradiction | In remarks described by political observers as both factually wrong and politically foolish, California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks called the growing effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom as 'the California coup.' 'This recall effort, which really ought to be called 'the California coup,' is being led by right-wing conspiracy theorists, white nationalists, anti-vaxxers and groups who encourage violence on our democratic institutions,' Hicks said Tuesday at a press conference meant to condemn the endeavor, which remains in the signature-gathering stage. Sherry Yang, a spokesperson for the Democratic party, kicked off the event by also calling the recall a 'coup.' Hicks provided no evidence linking the recall to the groups he cited. Nor did he explain how the recall effort, which is a legal process to remove a local or state elected leader and has been allowed by the state constitution for more than a century, was akin to a coup - which it clearly is not. We're aware that Hicks was using partisan rhetoric to cast the recall effort in a negative light when he referred to it as 'the California coup.' He later said the party wasn't challenging the legality of the campaign. Still, words matter and not everyone who heard or read his comments will fully understand what they mean. So we decided to explore the monumental differences between the two actions in this fact check. What Is A Coup? Keith Smith, a political science professor at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, said the actions aren't in the same ballpark. 'A coup is usually defined as a violent effort to overthrow a legitimately- elected and legitimately-installed government, to somehow by the use of force take power in a government,' he said. Other scholars contend that a coup must involve some portion of the state military, police or security forces, who work to overthrow the government. What Is A Recall Campaign? The recall effort, on the other hand, 'is not that at all,' Smith said. 'It's people signing petitions that are being circulated around the state to put something on the ballot, which is a perfectly legitimate and prescribed process in democratic government,' the professor added. To qualify the recall for a future ballot, the campaign must submit approximately 1.5 million signatures of registered voters to county elections officials by March 17, all of which must be verified. Proponents said last week they had gathered more than 1 million signatures. A recall ballot has two parts: A yes or no vote for recall and the names of replacement candidates. When asked at the press conference whether Democrats would list a replacement candidate, Hicks said 'Anything and everything is on the table.' History Of California Recalls California voters approved the recall process in 1911. Since then, there have been 165 attempts to recall state elected leaders, according to the Secretary of State's Office. Nine of them collected enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, and of those, the elected official was recalled in five cases. The most notable was the recall of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 in favor of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. The recall effort was the first successful recall of a California governor, and only the second recall of a state governor in American history, according to Ballotpedia. Wrong Term And Political Mistake? Regarding the use of 'California coup,' some political observers say Hicks was both factually off base and committed an unforced political error. 'I don't think that it's politically smart. I don't think it's civically appropriate,' said Wesley Hussey, a political science professor at Sacramento State University who wrote about Davis' recall. Of the current recall effort, Hussey said 'the (state) Constitution very clearly lays out this is an avenue of recourse for people unhappy with an elected official at the local, legislative and executive level in the state.' In California, proponents do not need to cite a specific reason for recalling an elected official, he added. Our Ruling California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks described the effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom as 'the California coup.' Even in the bounds of political rhetoric, his remarks are far off base and wildly inaccurate. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government. A recall is a legally sanctioned effort to vote an elected official out of office midway through their term. It's been part of California's constitution for more than a century. We rate Hicks' statement Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | Our Ruling California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks described the effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom as 'the California coup.' Even in the bounds of political rhetoric, his remarks are far off base and wildly inaccurate. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government. A recall is a legally sanctioned effort to vote an elected official out of office midway through their term. It's been part of California's constitution for more than a century. We rate Hicks' statement Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | [
"108777-proof-47-837896526b8b5502201d10faa40ce6e6.jpg"
]
|
The effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom is 'a coup. | Contradiction | In remarks described by political observers as both factually wrong and politically foolish, California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks called the growing effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom as 'the California coup.' 'This recall effort, which really ought to be called 'the California coup,' is being led by right-wing conspiracy theorists, white nationalists, anti-vaxxers and groups who encourage violence on our democratic institutions,' Hicks said Tuesday at a press conference meant to condemn the endeavor, which remains in the signature-gathering stage. Sherry Yang, a spokesperson for the Democratic party, kicked off the event by also calling the recall a 'coup.' Hicks provided no evidence linking the recall to the groups he cited. Nor did he explain how the recall effort, which is a legal process to remove a local or state elected leader and has been allowed by the state constitution for more than a century, was akin to a coup - which it clearly is not. We're aware that Hicks was using partisan rhetoric to cast the recall effort in a negative light when he referred to it as 'the California coup.' He later said the party wasn't challenging the legality of the campaign. Still, words matter and not everyone who heard or read his comments will fully understand what they mean. So we decided to explore the monumental differences between the two actions in this fact check. What Is A Coup? Keith Smith, a political science professor at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, said the actions aren't in the same ballpark. 'A coup is usually defined as a violent effort to overthrow a legitimately- elected and legitimately-installed government, to somehow by the use of force take power in a government,' he said. Other scholars contend that a coup must involve some portion of the state military, police or security forces, who work to overthrow the government. What Is A Recall Campaign? The recall effort, on the other hand, 'is not that at all,' Smith said. 'It's people signing petitions that are being circulated around the state to put something on the ballot, which is a perfectly legitimate and prescribed process in democratic government,' the professor added. To qualify the recall for a future ballot, the campaign must submit approximately 1.5 million signatures of registered voters to county elections officials by March 17, all of which must be verified. Proponents said last week they had gathered more than 1 million signatures. A recall ballot has two parts: A yes or no vote for recall and the names of replacement candidates. When asked at the press conference whether Democrats would list a replacement candidate, Hicks said 'Anything and everything is on the table.' History Of California Recalls California voters approved the recall process in 1911. Since then, there have been 165 attempts to recall state elected leaders, according to the Secretary of State's Office. Nine of them collected enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, and of those, the elected official was recalled in five cases. The most notable was the recall of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 in favor of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. The recall effort was the first successful recall of a California governor, and only the second recall of a state governor in American history, according to Ballotpedia. Wrong Term And Political Mistake? Regarding the use of 'California coup,' some political observers say Hicks was both factually off base and committed an unforced political error. 'I don't think that it's politically smart. I don't think it's civically appropriate,' said Wesley Hussey, a political science professor at Sacramento State University who wrote about Davis' recall. Of the current recall effort, Hussey said 'the (state) Constitution very clearly lays out this is an avenue of recourse for people unhappy with an elected official at the local, legislative and executive level in the state.' In California, proponents do not need to cite a specific reason for recalling an elected official, he added. Our Ruling California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks described the effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom as 'the California coup.' Even in the bounds of political rhetoric, his remarks are far off base and wildly inaccurate. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government. A recall is a legally sanctioned effort to vote an elected official out of office midway through their term. It's been part of California's constitution for more than a century. We rate Hicks' statement Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | Our Ruling California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks described the effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom as 'the California coup.' Even in the bounds of political rhetoric, his remarks are far off base and wildly inaccurate. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government. A recall is a legally sanctioned effort to vote an elected official out of office midway through their term. It's been part of California's constitution for more than a century. We rate Hicks' statement Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | [
"108777-proof-47-837896526b8b5502201d10faa40ce6e6.jpg"
]
|
The effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom is 'a coup. | Contradiction | In remarks described by political observers as both factually wrong and politically foolish, California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks called the growing effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom as 'the California coup.' 'This recall effort, which really ought to be called 'the California coup,' is being led by right-wing conspiracy theorists, white nationalists, anti-vaxxers and groups who encourage violence on our democratic institutions,' Hicks said Tuesday at a press conference meant to condemn the endeavor, which remains in the signature-gathering stage. Sherry Yang, a spokesperson for the Democratic party, kicked off the event by also calling the recall a 'coup.' Hicks provided no evidence linking the recall to the groups he cited. Nor did he explain how the recall effort, which is a legal process to remove a local or state elected leader and has been allowed by the state constitution for more than a century, was akin to a coup - which it clearly is not. We're aware that Hicks was using partisan rhetoric to cast the recall effort in a negative light when he referred to it as 'the California coup.' He later said the party wasn't challenging the legality of the campaign. Still, words matter and not everyone who heard or read his comments will fully understand what they mean. So we decided to explore the monumental differences between the two actions in this fact check. What Is A Coup? Keith Smith, a political science professor at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, said the actions aren't in the same ballpark. 'A coup is usually defined as a violent effort to overthrow a legitimately- elected and legitimately-installed government, to somehow by the use of force take power in a government,' he said. Other scholars contend that a coup must involve some portion of the state military, police or security forces, who work to overthrow the government. What Is A Recall Campaign? The recall effort, on the other hand, 'is not that at all,' Smith said. 'It's people signing petitions that are being circulated around the state to put something on the ballot, which is a perfectly legitimate and prescribed process in democratic government,' the professor added. To qualify the recall for a future ballot, the campaign must submit approximately 1.5 million signatures of registered voters to county elections officials by March 17, all of which must be verified. Proponents said last week they had gathered more than 1 million signatures. A recall ballot has two parts: A yes or no vote for recall and the names of replacement candidates. When asked at the press conference whether Democrats would list a replacement candidate, Hicks said 'Anything and everything is on the table.' History Of California Recalls California voters approved the recall process in 1911. Since then, there have been 165 attempts to recall state elected leaders, according to the Secretary of State's Office. Nine of them collected enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, and of those, the elected official was recalled in five cases. The most notable was the recall of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis in 2003 in favor of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. The recall effort was the first successful recall of a California governor, and only the second recall of a state governor in American history, according to Ballotpedia. Wrong Term And Political Mistake? Regarding the use of 'California coup,' some political observers say Hicks was both factually off base and committed an unforced political error. 'I don't think that it's politically smart. I don't think it's civically appropriate,' said Wesley Hussey, a political science professor at Sacramento State University who wrote about Davis' recall. Of the current recall effort, Hussey said 'the (state) Constitution very clearly lays out this is an avenue of recourse for people unhappy with an elected official at the local, legislative and executive level in the state.' In California, proponents do not need to cite a specific reason for recalling an elected official, he added. Our Ruling California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks described the effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom as 'the California coup.' Even in the bounds of political rhetoric, his remarks are far off base and wildly inaccurate. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government. A recall is a legally sanctioned effort to vote an elected official out of office midway through their term. It's been part of California's constitution for more than a century. We rate Hicks' statement Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | Our Ruling California Democratic Party Chairman Rusty Hicks described the effort to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom as 'the California coup.' Even in the bounds of political rhetoric, his remarks are far off base and wildly inaccurate. A coup is a violent overthrow of a government. A recall is a legally sanctioned effort to vote an elected official out of office midway through their term. It's been part of California's constitution for more than a century. We rate Hicks' statement Pants On Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | [
"108777-proof-47-837896526b8b5502201d10faa40ce6e6.jpg"
]
|
'Fauci's emails leaked.' | Contradiction | The Washington Post and BuzzFeed News both recently obtained and published emails to and from Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and President Joe Biden's chief medical adviser on COVID-19. Some social media posts and news coverage have characterized the emails as 'leaked,' but that's wrong. Both news organizations received them in response to Freedom of Information Act requests. These posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The 1967 law, often referred to as 'FOIA,' is designed to let members of the public request access to federal records, including communications among government officials related to public matters. Federal agencies are required to disclose those records unless they fall under one of nine exemptions, such as information that is classified to protect national security. Generally, anyone can make a FOIA request. In this case, it was BuzzFeed and the Post. A leak happens when someone who has worked in government, such as an employee or contractor, shares secret information with the public. Whether a leak is illegal depends on the information that's leaked. It's a crime, for example, to leak national defense secrets to help another country. Well-known examples of actual leaks: the documents published by Wikileaks that were leaked by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, and 1.5 million documents that were leaked to journalists by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. We rate claims that Fauci's emails leaked False. CORRECTION, June 11, 2021: Chelsea Manning was an intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army. An earlier version of this post incorrectly characterized her rank. | We rate claims that Fauci's emails leaked False. CORRECTION, June 11, 2021: Chelsea Manning was an intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army. An earlier version of this post incorrectly characterized her rank. | []
|
'You can't tell me they can (develop a safe vaccine) in eight to 10 months. Or a year. It takes more time than that. | Contradiction | State Rep. James Edming doesn't trust the COVID-19 vaccine. He even told a Wisconsin Assembly committee, 'we should eliminate' it. Explaining his objection, the 75-year-old Republican from Glen Flora, in rural northern Wisconsin, has repeatedly cited a personal anecdote, most recently in a March 23, 2021, floor session of the Wisconsin state Assembly. As lawmakers debated several bills that would prohibit mandatory vaccinations, Edming told of a friend whose wife died of cancer. 'His wife was 70 years old, and 71 years ago, there was a vaccination that they gave women so they wouldn't have a miscarriage, and his mother-in-law took that vaccination,' Edming said. 'His mother-in-law died at age 70. His wife died at age 70, and their daughter is sterile. 'That's what the research has been able to follow up on in 70 years, and you think I'm going to take something because some scientist says that it's good for me. And looking at and listening to what my friend has to say, there's got to be a little more research before I take something. There may be a vaccination that's for this, but you can't tell me they can solve this in eight to 10 months. Or a year. It takes more time than that. There hasn't even been any animal research on this.' Edming covers a lot of territory here. A few quick notes before we go deeper. His anecdote references a treatment that has indeed proven to have tragic, long-term consequences. But it wasn't a vaccine, and it was developed in very different circumstances more than 80 years ago. More on this later. Edming is flat wrong about animal research. All three vaccines in use now in the U.S. were tested on animals in addition to the expansive human trials. But we'll focus mostly on the timing-based claim. Is it really not realistic to develop a safe vaccine in less than a year? How the COVID-19 vaccines were developed The most obvious rebuttal to Edming's claim is that millions of Americans have been safely vaccinated. The CDC requires all deaths following vaccinations to be reported, which sparks a review of the death certificate, autopsy and other documents to check for a connection. Through March 22, 2,216 deaths were reported among 126 million vaccine doses administered so far in the U.S. But that doesn't mean those are tied to the vaccine. In a sample so large, there will be people who die of other causes and, according to the CDC, those documents 'revealed no evidence that vaccinations contributed to patient deaths.' Meanwhile, some people have reported side effects, including two to five per million who experience anaphylaxis - a severe allergic reaction. But Edming's criticism focused on the speed of the process, so let's dig in to how the vaccines got to this point so quickly. Defending Edming's claim, his staff pointed to a vaccine history website from the College of Physicians of Philadelphia that says, 'Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years.' However, the same website details CDC guidance on the COVID-19 vaccines, including this: 'Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines, and these vaccines have undergone the most intensive safety monitoring in U.S. history.' That gets to the heart of where Edming goes wrong. The process that led to today's COVID-19 vaccines is unlike anything that came before it. The unprecedented global consequences of the coronavirus pandemic spawned an equally unprecedented global cooperation in pursuit of a vaccine. This was made possible by a new method of developing vaccines, mass numbers of infections that accelerated clinical trials and governments willing to eliminate bureaucratic and financial roadblocks, the New York Times reported. While the vaccine process involved breakthroughs, they were built on research that goes back decades. 'These vaccines were fast-tracked, but the parts that were fast-tracked were the paperwork; so the administrative approvals, the time to get the funding,' Dr. Andrew Badley, COVID-19 Research Task Force Chair at the Mayo Clinic, said in a video produced by the hospital system. 'Because these vaccines have such great interest, the time it took to enroll patients was very, very fast. The follow-up was as thorough as it is for any vaccine.' Each of the three vaccines now in use in the U.S. went through the standard three phases of human testing. Stage 3 testing conducted prior to receiving emergency use approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration involved 43,448 people for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 30,420 people for Moderna and 43,783 people for Johnson & Johnson. The FDA describes the process this way on its website: 'In public health emergencies, such as a pandemic, the development process may be atypical. For example, as demonstrated by the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government has coalesced government agencies, international counterparts, academia, nonprofit organizations and pharmaceutical companies to develop a coordinated strategy for prioritizing and speeding development of the most promising vaccines. In addition, the federal government has made investments in the necessary manufacturing capacity at its own risk, giving companies confidence that they can invest aggressively in development and allowing faster distribution of an eventual vaccine. However, efforts to speed vaccine development to address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic have not sacrificed scientific standards, integrity of the vaccine review process, or safety.' In the U.S., that government funding came from Operation Warp Speed, an initiative launched under the Trump Administration that laid out $18 billion to accelerate vaccine development and manufacturing. Steps to speed the process included beginning large-scale manufacturing during clinical trials, running some phases of clinical trials at the same time and investing in multiple types of vaccines to increase the chances of success, according to a February 2021 report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. Among the six potential vaccines Operation Warp Speed invested in, two used messenger RNA, two used viral vector technology that deploys an altered cold virus and two focused on the virus's spike protein. The first two vaccines approved here - Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna - are particularly noteworthy in their use of messenger RNA, a new approach to vaccine creation. Vaccines built on mRNA have a general structure into which the genetic code needed to address a virus can be quickly loaded, rather than developing an entire vaccine from scratch. Moderna likens the process to loading a program or app into a computer's operating system. Drs. Sabrina Murphy and Maggie Nolan of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health reviewed research on the matter at the request of PolitiFact Wisconsin. 'There have been over three decades of mRNA vaccine research and development on vaccines for other disease such as influenza, Zika virus, and rabies virus. Additionally, mRNA-based cancer vaccines have been used in numerous cancer clinical trials with promising results,' the doctors said in a joint statement. 'The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine development was actually preceded by decades of research into understanding the efficacy and safety of mRNA vaccines and has made the COVID-19 vaccine a miracle of circumstances. It has allowed for a COVID-19 vaccine to be developed and tested much more rapidly.' The anecdote Before we wrap up, let's circle back to the anecdote Edming cited. It's the same story he shared in a March 3 hearing before the Committee on Constitution and Ethics, where he recalled the friend's deceased wife as an 'awesome, awesome lady.' Tyler Longsine, a research assistant for Edming, said they didn't know the nature of the drug involved - despite Edming's repeated use of the story. But experts consulted by PolitiFact Wisconsin say his description lines up with the history of a drug called Diethylstilbestrol, or DES. It's a hormone supplement that was given to between 5 and 10 million women as a pill, injection, cream or suppository from the 1940s to the 1970s, the CDC reported. Doctors believed it would prevent miscarriages. The National Institutes of Health said few studies were done on the drug before it was produced, however, causing it to be given to women worldwide in inconsistent doses. DES was in use long before a sweeping 1962 bill overhauled FDA drug approval requirements, making manufacturers prove the effectiveness of drugs before marketing them. By 1953, research had shown DES did not prevent miscarriages or premature birth. But many doctors continued using it until research in early 1970s revealed children exposed to DES in utero were more likely to suffer from infertility and cancer of reproductive tissues - in line with Edming's story. As tragic as this outcome was for Edming's friend and countless other families, their situation is not comparable to the COVID-19 vaccine. DES was a medication, not a vaccine. And it was developed 82 years ago under looser standards that led it to be administered erratically. 'The only similarity between DES and vaccines is that both may be given through injection,' Murphy and Nolan said in their statement. 'We give many medications by injection - think of insulin, for example - and they have nothing to do with vaccines.' | Our ruling In a speech detailing his distrust of scientists and the COVID-19 vaccine, Edming said, 'You can't tell me they can (develop a safe vaccine) in eight to 10 months. Or a year. It takes more time than that.' Edming leaned on criticism of a medical treatment - not a vaccine - developed in the 1930s and released without a fraction of the scientific scrutiny given to the COVID-19 vaccines. And in any case, his conclusion is contrary to the overwhelming medical consensus and what we can clearly see from the worldwide rollout. Vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (with others on the way) were able to develop as quickly as they did due to a breakthrough vaccine mechanism, billions in federal funding and an array of bureaucratic fast-tracking that allowed faster production, simultaneous trials and timely approvals. Those vaccines were together tested on more than 100,000 people. And with millions of people now safely and effectively vaccinated, we see that safety claims made based on the trials were indeed valid. Which makes Edming's claim ridiculous. We rate Edming's claim Pants on Fire. | [
"108794-proof-35-3068a03dc4dd8186f3727161b40f94e4.jpg"
]
|
'You can't tell me they can (develop a safe vaccine) in eight to 10 months. Or a year. It takes more time than that. | Contradiction | State Rep. James Edming doesn't trust the COVID-19 vaccine. He even told a Wisconsin Assembly committee, 'we should eliminate' it. Explaining his objection, the 75-year-old Republican from Glen Flora, in rural northern Wisconsin, has repeatedly cited a personal anecdote, most recently in a March 23, 2021, floor session of the Wisconsin state Assembly. As lawmakers debated several bills that would prohibit mandatory vaccinations, Edming told of a friend whose wife died of cancer. 'His wife was 70 years old, and 71 years ago, there was a vaccination that they gave women so they wouldn't have a miscarriage, and his mother-in-law took that vaccination,' Edming said. 'His mother-in-law died at age 70. His wife died at age 70, and their daughter is sterile. 'That's what the research has been able to follow up on in 70 years, and you think I'm going to take something because some scientist says that it's good for me. And looking at and listening to what my friend has to say, there's got to be a little more research before I take something. There may be a vaccination that's for this, but you can't tell me they can solve this in eight to 10 months. Or a year. It takes more time than that. There hasn't even been any animal research on this.' Edming covers a lot of territory here. A few quick notes before we go deeper. His anecdote references a treatment that has indeed proven to have tragic, long-term consequences. But it wasn't a vaccine, and it was developed in very different circumstances more than 80 years ago. More on this later. Edming is flat wrong about animal research. All three vaccines in use now in the U.S. were tested on animals in addition to the expansive human trials. But we'll focus mostly on the timing-based claim. Is it really not realistic to develop a safe vaccine in less than a year? How the COVID-19 vaccines were developed The most obvious rebuttal to Edming's claim is that millions of Americans have been safely vaccinated. The CDC requires all deaths following vaccinations to be reported, which sparks a review of the death certificate, autopsy and other documents to check for a connection. Through March 22, 2,216 deaths were reported among 126 million vaccine doses administered so far in the U.S. But that doesn't mean those are tied to the vaccine. In a sample so large, there will be people who die of other causes and, according to the CDC, those documents 'revealed no evidence that vaccinations contributed to patient deaths.' Meanwhile, some people have reported side effects, including two to five per million who experience anaphylaxis - a severe allergic reaction. But Edming's criticism focused on the speed of the process, so let's dig in to how the vaccines got to this point so quickly. Defending Edming's claim, his staff pointed to a vaccine history website from the College of Physicians of Philadelphia that says, 'Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years.' However, the same website details CDC guidance on the COVID-19 vaccines, including this: 'Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines, and these vaccines have undergone the most intensive safety monitoring in U.S. history.' That gets to the heart of where Edming goes wrong. The process that led to today's COVID-19 vaccines is unlike anything that came before it. The unprecedented global consequences of the coronavirus pandemic spawned an equally unprecedented global cooperation in pursuit of a vaccine. This was made possible by a new method of developing vaccines, mass numbers of infections that accelerated clinical trials and governments willing to eliminate bureaucratic and financial roadblocks, the New York Times reported. While the vaccine process involved breakthroughs, they were built on research that goes back decades. 'These vaccines were fast-tracked, but the parts that were fast-tracked were the paperwork; so the administrative approvals, the time to get the funding,' Dr. Andrew Badley, COVID-19 Research Task Force Chair at the Mayo Clinic, said in a video produced by the hospital system. 'Because these vaccines have such great interest, the time it took to enroll patients was very, very fast. The follow-up was as thorough as it is for any vaccine.' Each of the three vaccines now in use in the U.S. went through the standard three phases of human testing. Stage 3 testing conducted prior to receiving emergency use approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration involved 43,448 people for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 30,420 people for Moderna and 43,783 people for Johnson & Johnson. The FDA describes the process this way on its website: 'In public health emergencies, such as a pandemic, the development process may be atypical. For example, as demonstrated by the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government has coalesced government agencies, international counterparts, academia, nonprofit organizations and pharmaceutical companies to develop a coordinated strategy for prioritizing and speeding development of the most promising vaccines. In addition, the federal government has made investments in the necessary manufacturing capacity at its own risk, giving companies confidence that they can invest aggressively in development and allowing faster distribution of an eventual vaccine. However, efforts to speed vaccine development to address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic have not sacrificed scientific standards, integrity of the vaccine review process, or safety.' In the U.S., that government funding came from Operation Warp Speed, an initiative launched under the Trump Administration that laid out $18 billion to accelerate vaccine development and manufacturing. Steps to speed the process included beginning large-scale manufacturing during clinical trials, running some phases of clinical trials at the same time and investing in multiple types of vaccines to increase the chances of success, according to a February 2021 report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. Among the six potential vaccines Operation Warp Speed invested in, two used messenger RNA, two used viral vector technology that deploys an altered cold virus and two focused on the virus's spike protein. The first two vaccines approved here - Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna - are particularly noteworthy in their use of messenger RNA, a new approach to vaccine creation. Vaccines built on mRNA have a general structure into which the genetic code needed to address a virus can be quickly loaded, rather than developing an entire vaccine from scratch. Moderna likens the process to loading a program or app into a computer's operating system. Drs. Sabrina Murphy and Maggie Nolan of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health reviewed research on the matter at the request of PolitiFact Wisconsin. 'There have been over three decades of mRNA vaccine research and development on vaccines for other disease such as influenza, Zika virus, and rabies virus. Additionally, mRNA-based cancer vaccines have been used in numerous cancer clinical trials with promising results,' the doctors said in a joint statement. 'The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine development was actually preceded by decades of research into understanding the efficacy and safety of mRNA vaccines and has made the COVID-19 vaccine a miracle of circumstances. It has allowed for a COVID-19 vaccine to be developed and tested much more rapidly.' The anecdote Before we wrap up, let's circle back to the anecdote Edming cited. It's the same story he shared in a March 3 hearing before the Committee on Constitution and Ethics, where he recalled the friend's deceased wife as an 'awesome, awesome lady.' Tyler Longsine, a research assistant for Edming, said they didn't know the nature of the drug involved - despite Edming's repeated use of the story. But experts consulted by PolitiFact Wisconsin say his description lines up with the history of a drug called Diethylstilbestrol, or DES. It's a hormone supplement that was given to between 5 and 10 million women as a pill, injection, cream or suppository from the 1940s to the 1970s, the CDC reported. Doctors believed it would prevent miscarriages. The National Institutes of Health said few studies were done on the drug before it was produced, however, causing it to be given to women worldwide in inconsistent doses. DES was in use long before a sweeping 1962 bill overhauled FDA drug approval requirements, making manufacturers prove the effectiveness of drugs before marketing them. By 1953, research had shown DES did not prevent miscarriages or premature birth. But many doctors continued using it until research in early 1970s revealed children exposed to DES in utero were more likely to suffer from infertility and cancer of reproductive tissues - in line with Edming's story. As tragic as this outcome was for Edming's friend and countless other families, their situation is not comparable to the COVID-19 vaccine. DES was a medication, not a vaccine. And it was developed 82 years ago under looser standards that led it to be administered erratically. 'The only similarity between DES and vaccines is that both may be given through injection,' Murphy and Nolan said in their statement. 'We give many medications by injection - think of insulin, for example - and they have nothing to do with vaccines.' | Our ruling In a speech detailing his distrust of scientists and the COVID-19 vaccine, Edming said, 'You can't tell me they can (develop a safe vaccine) in eight to 10 months. Or a year. It takes more time than that.' Edming leaned on criticism of a medical treatment - not a vaccine - developed in the 1930s and released without a fraction of the scientific scrutiny given to the COVID-19 vaccines. And in any case, his conclusion is contrary to the overwhelming medical consensus and what we can clearly see from the worldwide rollout. Vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (with others on the way) were able to develop as quickly as they did due to a breakthrough vaccine mechanism, billions in federal funding and an array of bureaucratic fast-tracking that allowed faster production, simultaneous trials and timely approvals. Those vaccines were together tested on more than 100,000 people. And with millions of people now safely and effectively vaccinated, we see that safety claims made based on the trials were indeed valid. Which makes Edming's claim ridiculous. We rate Edming's claim Pants on Fire. | [
"108794-proof-35-3068a03dc4dd8186f3727161b40f94e4.jpg"
]
|
'You can't tell me they can (develop a safe vaccine) in eight to 10 months. Or a year. It takes more time than that. | Contradiction | State Rep. James Edming doesn't trust the COVID-19 vaccine. He even told a Wisconsin Assembly committee, 'we should eliminate' it. Explaining his objection, the 75-year-old Republican from Glen Flora, in rural northern Wisconsin, has repeatedly cited a personal anecdote, most recently in a March 23, 2021, floor session of the Wisconsin state Assembly. As lawmakers debated several bills that would prohibit mandatory vaccinations, Edming told of a friend whose wife died of cancer. 'His wife was 70 years old, and 71 years ago, there was a vaccination that they gave women so they wouldn't have a miscarriage, and his mother-in-law took that vaccination,' Edming said. 'His mother-in-law died at age 70. His wife died at age 70, and their daughter is sterile. 'That's what the research has been able to follow up on in 70 years, and you think I'm going to take something because some scientist says that it's good for me. And looking at and listening to what my friend has to say, there's got to be a little more research before I take something. There may be a vaccination that's for this, but you can't tell me they can solve this in eight to 10 months. Or a year. It takes more time than that. There hasn't even been any animal research on this.' Edming covers a lot of territory here. A few quick notes before we go deeper. His anecdote references a treatment that has indeed proven to have tragic, long-term consequences. But it wasn't a vaccine, and it was developed in very different circumstances more than 80 years ago. More on this later. Edming is flat wrong about animal research. All three vaccines in use now in the U.S. were tested on animals in addition to the expansive human trials. But we'll focus mostly on the timing-based claim. Is it really not realistic to develop a safe vaccine in less than a year? How the COVID-19 vaccines were developed The most obvious rebuttal to Edming's claim is that millions of Americans have been safely vaccinated. The CDC requires all deaths following vaccinations to be reported, which sparks a review of the death certificate, autopsy and other documents to check for a connection. Through March 22, 2,216 deaths were reported among 126 million vaccine doses administered so far in the U.S. But that doesn't mean those are tied to the vaccine. In a sample so large, there will be people who die of other causes and, according to the CDC, those documents 'revealed no evidence that vaccinations contributed to patient deaths.' Meanwhile, some people have reported side effects, including two to five per million who experience anaphylaxis - a severe allergic reaction. But Edming's criticism focused on the speed of the process, so let's dig in to how the vaccines got to this point so quickly. Defending Edming's claim, his staff pointed to a vaccine history website from the College of Physicians of Philadelphia that says, 'Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years.' However, the same website details CDC guidance on the COVID-19 vaccines, including this: 'Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines, and these vaccines have undergone the most intensive safety monitoring in U.S. history.' That gets to the heart of where Edming goes wrong. The process that led to today's COVID-19 vaccines is unlike anything that came before it. The unprecedented global consequences of the coronavirus pandemic spawned an equally unprecedented global cooperation in pursuit of a vaccine. This was made possible by a new method of developing vaccines, mass numbers of infections that accelerated clinical trials and governments willing to eliminate bureaucratic and financial roadblocks, the New York Times reported. While the vaccine process involved breakthroughs, they were built on research that goes back decades. 'These vaccines were fast-tracked, but the parts that were fast-tracked were the paperwork; so the administrative approvals, the time to get the funding,' Dr. Andrew Badley, COVID-19 Research Task Force Chair at the Mayo Clinic, said in a video produced by the hospital system. 'Because these vaccines have such great interest, the time it took to enroll patients was very, very fast. The follow-up was as thorough as it is for any vaccine.' Each of the three vaccines now in use in the U.S. went through the standard three phases of human testing. Stage 3 testing conducted prior to receiving emergency use approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration involved 43,448 people for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 30,420 people for Moderna and 43,783 people for Johnson & Johnson. The FDA describes the process this way on its website: 'In public health emergencies, such as a pandemic, the development process may be atypical. For example, as demonstrated by the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government has coalesced government agencies, international counterparts, academia, nonprofit organizations and pharmaceutical companies to develop a coordinated strategy for prioritizing and speeding development of the most promising vaccines. In addition, the federal government has made investments in the necessary manufacturing capacity at its own risk, giving companies confidence that they can invest aggressively in development and allowing faster distribution of an eventual vaccine. However, efforts to speed vaccine development to address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic have not sacrificed scientific standards, integrity of the vaccine review process, or safety.' In the U.S., that government funding came from Operation Warp Speed, an initiative launched under the Trump Administration that laid out $18 billion to accelerate vaccine development and manufacturing. Steps to speed the process included beginning large-scale manufacturing during clinical trials, running some phases of clinical trials at the same time and investing in multiple types of vaccines to increase the chances of success, according to a February 2021 report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. Among the six potential vaccines Operation Warp Speed invested in, two used messenger RNA, two used viral vector technology that deploys an altered cold virus and two focused on the virus's spike protein. The first two vaccines approved here - Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna - are particularly noteworthy in their use of messenger RNA, a new approach to vaccine creation. Vaccines built on mRNA have a general structure into which the genetic code needed to address a virus can be quickly loaded, rather than developing an entire vaccine from scratch. Moderna likens the process to loading a program or app into a computer's operating system. Drs. Sabrina Murphy and Maggie Nolan of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health reviewed research on the matter at the request of PolitiFact Wisconsin. 'There have been over three decades of mRNA vaccine research and development on vaccines for other disease such as influenza, Zika virus, and rabies virus. Additionally, mRNA-based cancer vaccines have been used in numerous cancer clinical trials with promising results,' the doctors said in a joint statement. 'The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine development was actually preceded by decades of research into understanding the efficacy and safety of mRNA vaccines and has made the COVID-19 vaccine a miracle of circumstances. It has allowed for a COVID-19 vaccine to be developed and tested much more rapidly.' The anecdote Before we wrap up, let's circle back to the anecdote Edming cited. It's the same story he shared in a March 3 hearing before the Committee on Constitution and Ethics, where he recalled the friend's deceased wife as an 'awesome, awesome lady.' Tyler Longsine, a research assistant for Edming, said they didn't know the nature of the drug involved - despite Edming's repeated use of the story. But experts consulted by PolitiFact Wisconsin say his description lines up with the history of a drug called Diethylstilbestrol, or DES. It's a hormone supplement that was given to between 5 and 10 million women as a pill, injection, cream or suppository from the 1940s to the 1970s, the CDC reported. Doctors believed it would prevent miscarriages. The National Institutes of Health said few studies were done on the drug before it was produced, however, causing it to be given to women worldwide in inconsistent doses. DES was in use long before a sweeping 1962 bill overhauled FDA drug approval requirements, making manufacturers prove the effectiveness of drugs before marketing them. By 1953, research had shown DES did not prevent miscarriages or premature birth. But many doctors continued using it until research in early 1970s revealed children exposed to DES in utero were more likely to suffer from infertility and cancer of reproductive tissues - in line with Edming's story. As tragic as this outcome was for Edming's friend and countless other families, their situation is not comparable to the COVID-19 vaccine. DES was a medication, not a vaccine. And it was developed 82 years ago under looser standards that led it to be administered erratically. 'The only similarity between DES and vaccines is that both may be given through injection,' Murphy and Nolan said in their statement. 'We give many medications by injection - think of insulin, for example - and they have nothing to do with vaccines.' | Our ruling In a speech detailing his distrust of scientists and the COVID-19 vaccine, Edming said, 'You can't tell me they can (develop a safe vaccine) in eight to 10 months. Or a year. It takes more time than that.' Edming leaned on criticism of a medical treatment - not a vaccine - developed in the 1930s and released without a fraction of the scientific scrutiny given to the COVID-19 vaccines. And in any case, his conclusion is contrary to the overwhelming medical consensus and what we can clearly see from the worldwide rollout. Vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (with others on the way) were able to develop as quickly as they did due to a breakthrough vaccine mechanism, billions in federal funding and an array of bureaucratic fast-tracking that allowed faster production, simultaneous trials and timely approvals. Those vaccines were together tested on more than 100,000 people. And with millions of people now safely and effectively vaccinated, we see that safety claims made based on the trials were indeed valid. Which makes Edming's claim ridiculous. We rate Edming's claim Pants on Fire. | [
"108794-proof-35-3068a03dc4dd8186f3727161b40f94e4.jpg"
]
|
'You can't tell me they can (develop a safe vaccine) in eight to 10 months. Or a year. It takes more time than that. | Contradiction | State Rep. James Edming doesn't trust the COVID-19 vaccine. He even told a Wisconsin Assembly committee, 'we should eliminate' it. Explaining his objection, the 75-year-old Republican from Glen Flora, in rural northern Wisconsin, has repeatedly cited a personal anecdote, most recently in a March 23, 2021, floor session of the Wisconsin state Assembly. As lawmakers debated several bills that would prohibit mandatory vaccinations, Edming told of a friend whose wife died of cancer. 'His wife was 70 years old, and 71 years ago, there was a vaccination that they gave women so they wouldn't have a miscarriage, and his mother-in-law took that vaccination,' Edming said. 'His mother-in-law died at age 70. His wife died at age 70, and their daughter is sterile. 'That's what the research has been able to follow up on in 70 years, and you think I'm going to take something because some scientist says that it's good for me. And looking at and listening to what my friend has to say, there's got to be a little more research before I take something. There may be a vaccination that's for this, but you can't tell me they can solve this in eight to 10 months. Or a year. It takes more time than that. There hasn't even been any animal research on this.' Edming covers a lot of territory here. A few quick notes before we go deeper. His anecdote references a treatment that has indeed proven to have tragic, long-term consequences. But it wasn't a vaccine, and it was developed in very different circumstances more than 80 years ago. More on this later. Edming is flat wrong about animal research. All three vaccines in use now in the U.S. were tested on animals in addition to the expansive human trials. But we'll focus mostly on the timing-based claim. Is it really not realistic to develop a safe vaccine in less than a year? How the COVID-19 vaccines were developed The most obvious rebuttal to Edming's claim is that millions of Americans have been safely vaccinated. The CDC requires all deaths following vaccinations to be reported, which sparks a review of the death certificate, autopsy and other documents to check for a connection. Through March 22, 2,216 deaths were reported among 126 million vaccine doses administered so far in the U.S. But that doesn't mean those are tied to the vaccine. In a sample so large, there will be people who die of other causes and, according to the CDC, those documents 'revealed no evidence that vaccinations contributed to patient deaths.' Meanwhile, some people have reported side effects, including two to five per million who experience anaphylaxis - a severe allergic reaction. But Edming's criticism focused on the speed of the process, so let's dig in to how the vaccines got to this point so quickly. Defending Edming's claim, his staff pointed to a vaccine history website from the College of Physicians of Philadelphia that says, 'Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years.' However, the same website details CDC guidance on the COVID-19 vaccines, including this: 'Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines, and these vaccines have undergone the most intensive safety monitoring in U.S. history.' That gets to the heart of where Edming goes wrong. The process that led to today's COVID-19 vaccines is unlike anything that came before it. The unprecedented global consequences of the coronavirus pandemic spawned an equally unprecedented global cooperation in pursuit of a vaccine. This was made possible by a new method of developing vaccines, mass numbers of infections that accelerated clinical trials and governments willing to eliminate bureaucratic and financial roadblocks, the New York Times reported. While the vaccine process involved breakthroughs, they were built on research that goes back decades. 'These vaccines were fast-tracked, but the parts that were fast-tracked were the paperwork; so the administrative approvals, the time to get the funding,' Dr. Andrew Badley, COVID-19 Research Task Force Chair at the Mayo Clinic, said in a video produced by the hospital system. 'Because these vaccines have such great interest, the time it took to enroll patients was very, very fast. The follow-up was as thorough as it is for any vaccine.' Each of the three vaccines now in use in the U.S. went through the standard three phases of human testing. Stage 3 testing conducted prior to receiving emergency use approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration involved 43,448 people for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 30,420 people for Moderna and 43,783 people for Johnson & Johnson. The FDA describes the process this way on its website: 'In public health emergencies, such as a pandemic, the development process may be atypical. For example, as demonstrated by the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government has coalesced government agencies, international counterparts, academia, nonprofit organizations and pharmaceutical companies to develop a coordinated strategy for prioritizing and speeding development of the most promising vaccines. In addition, the federal government has made investments in the necessary manufacturing capacity at its own risk, giving companies confidence that they can invest aggressively in development and allowing faster distribution of an eventual vaccine. However, efforts to speed vaccine development to address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic have not sacrificed scientific standards, integrity of the vaccine review process, or safety.' In the U.S., that government funding came from Operation Warp Speed, an initiative launched under the Trump Administration that laid out $18 billion to accelerate vaccine development and manufacturing. Steps to speed the process included beginning large-scale manufacturing during clinical trials, running some phases of clinical trials at the same time and investing in multiple types of vaccines to increase the chances of success, according to a February 2021 report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. Among the six potential vaccines Operation Warp Speed invested in, two used messenger RNA, two used viral vector technology that deploys an altered cold virus and two focused on the virus's spike protein. The first two vaccines approved here - Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna - are particularly noteworthy in their use of messenger RNA, a new approach to vaccine creation. Vaccines built on mRNA have a general structure into which the genetic code needed to address a virus can be quickly loaded, rather than developing an entire vaccine from scratch. Moderna likens the process to loading a program or app into a computer's operating system. Drs. Sabrina Murphy and Maggie Nolan of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health reviewed research on the matter at the request of PolitiFact Wisconsin. 'There have been over three decades of mRNA vaccine research and development on vaccines for other disease such as influenza, Zika virus, and rabies virus. Additionally, mRNA-based cancer vaccines have been used in numerous cancer clinical trials with promising results,' the doctors said in a joint statement. 'The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine development was actually preceded by decades of research into understanding the efficacy and safety of mRNA vaccines and has made the COVID-19 vaccine a miracle of circumstances. It has allowed for a COVID-19 vaccine to be developed and tested much more rapidly.' The anecdote Before we wrap up, let's circle back to the anecdote Edming cited. It's the same story he shared in a March 3 hearing before the Committee on Constitution and Ethics, where he recalled the friend's deceased wife as an 'awesome, awesome lady.' Tyler Longsine, a research assistant for Edming, said they didn't know the nature of the drug involved - despite Edming's repeated use of the story. But experts consulted by PolitiFact Wisconsin say his description lines up with the history of a drug called Diethylstilbestrol, or DES. It's a hormone supplement that was given to between 5 and 10 million women as a pill, injection, cream or suppository from the 1940s to the 1970s, the CDC reported. Doctors believed it would prevent miscarriages. The National Institutes of Health said few studies were done on the drug before it was produced, however, causing it to be given to women worldwide in inconsistent doses. DES was in use long before a sweeping 1962 bill overhauled FDA drug approval requirements, making manufacturers prove the effectiveness of drugs before marketing them. By 1953, research had shown DES did not prevent miscarriages or premature birth. But many doctors continued using it until research in early 1970s revealed children exposed to DES in utero were more likely to suffer from infertility and cancer of reproductive tissues - in line with Edming's story. As tragic as this outcome was for Edming's friend and countless other families, their situation is not comparable to the COVID-19 vaccine. DES was a medication, not a vaccine. And it was developed 82 years ago under looser standards that led it to be administered erratically. 'The only similarity between DES and vaccines is that both may be given through injection,' Murphy and Nolan said in their statement. 'We give many medications by injection - think of insulin, for example - and they have nothing to do with vaccines.' | Our ruling In a speech detailing his distrust of scientists and the COVID-19 vaccine, Edming said, 'You can't tell me they can (develop a safe vaccine) in eight to 10 months. Or a year. It takes more time than that.' Edming leaned on criticism of a medical treatment - not a vaccine - developed in the 1930s and released without a fraction of the scientific scrutiny given to the COVID-19 vaccines. And in any case, his conclusion is contrary to the overwhelming medical consensus and what we can clearly see from the worldwide rollout. Vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (with others on the way) were able to develop as quickly as they did due to a breakthrough vaccine mechanism, billions in federal funding and an array of bureaucratic fast-tracking that allowed faster production, simultaneous trials and timely approvals. Those vaccines were together tested on more than 100,000 people. And with millions of people now safely and effectively vaccinated, we see that safety claims made based on the trials were indeed valid. Which makes Edming's claim ridiculous. We rate Edming's claim Pants on Fire. | [
"108794-proof-35-3068a03dc4dd8186f3727161b40f94e4.jpg"
]
|
'California Has 1.8M More Registered Voters Than It Should' | Contradiction | A false claim is circulating online that California has 1.8 million ineligible registered voters. The California Globe, a conservative news outlet, published a story in June citing a report by the Election Integrity Project California, a watchdog group that scrutinizes voter registration records. The article has been viewed more than 60,000 times on Facebook since it was posted earlier this summer. The EIPCa claims that they found '1,834,789 more registered voters than eligible citizens' throughout 23 of the Golden State's 58 counties, which they called 'an indication of increasingly poor list maintenance.' The group highlighted several counties where they claim to have found an 'astoundingly high number of ineligible registrants,' including Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange, and Alpine counties. Former State Congressional Candidate Chris Bish tweeted a screenshot of the EIPCa's letter in July, repeating and proliferating the claim that Sacramento County had more than 37,000 ineligible voters registered. Bish's claim has already been debunked by local fact-checkers and election experts say the same about the EIPCa's false claims, too. Facebook flagged the California Globe article as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) We've fact-checked other misleading and erroneous claims made by the ElP in the past, and decided to check out if this claim had any teeth to it. Our Research In June, EIPCa president Linda Paine sent a letter to the California Secretary of State's office alleging that the group found more than 1.8 million ineligible voting registrants in California. The EIPCa determined the total number of eligible citizens per country based on census estimates listed on the Secretary of State's website as of October 19, 2020. In order to determine the total number of ineligible registered voters, the EIPCa 'compared the total number of voter registrations (Active plus Inactive) to the number of eligible citizens as listed on the Secretary of State website.' By this metric the EIPCa determined that 23 of 58 counties in California have more registered voters than citizens eligible to vote, with a total of 1,834,789 ineligible registered voters statewide. The California Globe article flagged San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Orange, and Alpine counties as having 'an astoundingly high number of ineligible registrants.' All of the experts we spoke to said that this allegation by the EIPCa is deceptive and relies on misguided and flawed data analysis. Registrar of Voters for Orange County Neal Kelley said that the data used by the EIPCa was out of date, even at the time that the EIPCa wrote the letter to the Secretary of State. 'We can tell by some of the data they're presenting that it looks like their data was about three months old,' Kelley said. 'It does not include same day voter registration, it doesn't include the ebb and flow of voter databases where you have minute-by-minute updates to it.' According to the EIPCa's letter, they obtained their data on February 9, 2021. But voter registration data is constantly being updated by people at the county and state levels, according to Kelley and other registrars we spoke to across the state. According to county voter participation statistics compiled by the Secretary of State, there were 25,090,517 Californias who were eligible to vote in the 2020 Presidential election. Of that group, there were 22,047,448 individuals registered to vote - just under 88% of folks who are eligible to vote. The Secretary of State's office only counts active voters when tallying up the total number of registered voters per county. Experts say that it is inaccurate to add up active and inactive registered voters, as the EIPCa has done, in order to determine the total number of voters participating in elections. 'Voters will be given an 'inactive' status when a county elections official receives information (for example, from the post office) indicating the voter has moved out of state or mail is returned undeliverable without a forwarding address,' according to the Secretary of State's website. According to experts, including inactive voters inflates the amount of registered voters because some of these inactive voters have moved, have passed away, or haven't voted in multiple elections. 'They're concluding that there are more registered voters than eligible voters when it's flawed to include inactive voters in that data. You can't do that,' Kelley said. 'That's just like basic election 101. You can do that any day of the week and come up with inflated numbers. But what they need to only look at are the active registrations.' The Orange County Registrar of Voters' website states that 'inactive voters are registered voters and are eligible to vote; however, they do not receive election related mail such as sample ballots and vote-by-mail ballots.' In California, voters must be inactive for a certain period of time in order for their name to be purged from the county's voter roll, as per the rules stipulated by the National Voter Registration Act. As a result, there are a number of inactive voters on county voter rolls which could make it appear as if there is a greater number of registered voters than people who are eligible to vote. Jenna Dresner, a spokesperson for California Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Weber, explained that there are a few processes specific to California that make it more difficult for folks to be removed from voter rolls when they are inactive. The National Voter Registration Act 'outlines vote list maintenance processes designed to protect voters from illegal purges from the voter rolls,' Dresner wrote in an emailed statement. 'Specifically, the NVRA prohibits removing persons from the voter registration list solely because of a failure to vote and also places restrictions related to the notice and timing on removals from the voter rolls based on a change of residence.' Instead of removing people from voter rolls due to inactivity, those voters are instead designated as 'inactive.' Those voters do not receive election materials or mail-in ballots. In order to reactivate their voter registration, people need to formally contact election officials. If an inactive voter shows up to the polls to vote and they are on the county's list of inactive registered voters, they may cast a provisional ballot. Sacramento County currently has about 200,000 inactive registered voters, according to Courtney Bailey, Registrar of Voters for Sacramento County. 'Yes, if you add the active and inactive together, it does exceed our estimated population count,' Bailey said. 'But the fact of the matter is, a lot of those voters haven't voted in two general elections.' In their June letter, the EIPCa remarked that the difference between the total registered and eligible voters in California was an indication of poor list maintenance. However, experts on California elections say that is not the case. Dresner said that the EIPCa's claims 'recklessly and inaccurately claim that inactive voters are ineligible,' adding that 'these types of claims unnecessarily erode public confidence in the integrity of our elections.' 'We are going above and beyond what's required in federal and state [law],' Kelley said. 'We're doing extra audits. We're doing partnerships with the likes of Cal Tech University [The California Institute of Technology], doing third party audits. We're doing all of these things that people just don't take the time to learn about.' Last March, the EIPCa filed a lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Secretary of State, and nine county registrar of voters over these findings and other claims regarding 'irregularities in California's 2020 Election.' However, federal Judge Andre Birotte dismissed the lawsuit last June, writing that the lawsuit amounted to 'an incremental undermining of confidence in the election results, past and future.' All of the voting experts we spoke to mentioned this lawsuit when discussing the validity of the data and claims put forth by the EIPCa. 'This is the same group, by the way, that sued nine of us counties and the Secretary of State to attempt to overturn the November election results using some of the same data that they shot out in the letter,' Kelley said. 'The federal court a few weeks ago dismissed the entire case and gave them a stinging rebuke.' Mike Sanchez, the spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters, added in an email, 'the allegations made by the Election Integrity Project are unfounded and aim to undermine the confidence in the November 2020 General Election results.'. Our Verdict In June, Election Integrity Project California president Linda Paine sent a letter to the California Secretary of State's office alleging that the group found more than 1.8 million ineligible voting registrants in California. The EIPCa combined the number of active and inactive voters on California county voter rolls in order to determine the total number of registered voters in the state. The group then compared that number of total voters to census data showing the total pool of people eligible to vote county by county. By this metric, the EIPCa claimed to have found that there are a significantly greater number of registered voters than there are people eligible to vote in California. However, California elections experts said that it was misleading and inaccurate to combine the numbers of active and inactive voters on voting rolls in order to determine the amount of people voting in elections throughout the state like the EIPCa has. That's because inactive voters are not participating in elections or receiving election materials. The Secretary of State data only counts the amount of active registered voters in their count of individuals registered to vote. According to their county voter participation statistics, there were 25,090,517 Californians who were eligible to vote in the 2020 Presidential election. Of that group, there were 22,047,448 individuals registered to vote - just under 88% of folks who are eligible to vote statewide. In California, voters must be inactive for a certain period of time in order for their name to be purged from the county's voter roll, as per the rules stipulated by the National Voter Registration Act. As a result, there are a number of inactive voters on county voter rolls which could make it appear as if there is a greater number of registered voters than people who are eligible to vote. Inactive voters do not receive election materials or mail in ballots, and must follow state protocol in order to start receiving those materials again and participate in elections. We rated the claim that there are 1.8 million ineligible registered voters in California as Pants on Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | We rated the claim that there are 1.8 million ineligible registered voters in California as Pants on Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | []
|
'California Has 1.8M More Registered Voters Than It Should' | Contradiction | A false claim is circulating online that California has 1.8 million ineligible registered voters. The California Globe, a conservative news outlet, published a story in June citing a report by the Election Integrity Project California, a watchdog group that scrutinizes voter registration records. The article has been viewed more than 60,000 times on Facebook since it was posted earlier this summer. The EIPCa claims that they found '1,834,789 more registered voters than eligible citizens' throughout 23 of the Golden State's 58 counties, which they called 'an indication of increasingly poor list maintenance.' The group highlighted several counties where they claim to have found an 'astoundingly high number of ineligible registrants,' including Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange, and Alpine counties. Former State Congressional Candidate Chris Bish tweeted a screenshot of the EIPCa's letter in July, repeating and proliferating the claim that Sacramento County had more than 37,000 ineligible voters registered. Bish's claim has already been debunked by local fact-checkers and election experts say the same about the EIPCa's false claims, too. Facebook flagged the California Globe article as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) We've fact-checked other misleading and erroneous claims made by the ElP in the past, and decided to check out if this claim had any teeth to it. Our Research In June, EIPCa president Linda Paine sent a letter to the California Secretary of State's office alleging that the group found more than 1.8 million ineligible voting registrants in California. The EIPCa determined the total number of eligible citizens per country based on census estimates listed on the Secretary of State's website as of October 19, 2020. In order to determine the total number of ineligible registered voters, the EIPCa 'compared the total number of voter registrations (Active plus Inactive) to the number of eligible citizens as listed on the Secretary of State website.' By this metric the EIPCa determined that 23 of 58 counties in California have more registered voters than citizens eligible to vote, with a total of 1,834,789 ineligible registered voters statewide. The California Globe article flagged San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Orange, and Alpine counties as having 'an astoundingly high number of ineligible registrants.' All of the experts we spoke to said that this allegation by the EIPCa is deceptive and relies on misguided and flawed data analysis. Registrar of Voters for Orange County Neal Kelley said that the data used by the EIPCa was out of date, even at the time that the EIPCa wrote the letter to the Secretary of State. 'We can tell by some of the data they're presenting that it looks like their data was about three months old,' Kelley said. 'It does not include same day voter registration, it doesn't include the ebb and flow of voter databases where you have minute-by-minute updates to it.' According to the EIPCa's letter, they obtained their data on February 9, 2021. But voter registration data is constantly being updated by people at the county and state levels, according to Kelley and other registrars we spoke to across the state. According to county voter participation statistics compiled by the Secretary of State, there were 25,090,517 Californias who were eligible to vote in the 2020 Presidential election. Of that group, there were 22,047,448 individuals registered to vote - just under 88% of folks who are eligible to vote. The Secretary of State's office only counts active voters when tallying up the total number of registered voters per county. Experts say that it is inaccurate to add up active and inactive registered voters, as the EIPCa has done, in order to determine the total number of voters participating in elections. 'Voters will be given an 'inactive' status when a county elections official receives information (for example, from the post office) indicating the voter has moved out of state or mail is returned undeliverable without a forwarding address,' according to the Secretary of State's website. According to experts, including inactive voters inflates the amount of registered voters because some of these inactive voters have moved, have passed away, or haven't voted in multiple elections. 'They're concluding that there are more registered voters than eligible voters when it's flawed to include inactive voters in that data. You can't do that,' Kelley said. 'That's just like basic election 101. You can do that any day of the week and come up with inflated numbers. But what they need to only look at are the active registrations.' The Orange County Registrar of Voters' website states that 'inactive voters are registered voters and are eligible to vote; however, they do not receive election related mail such as sample ballots and vote-by-mail ballots.' In California, voters must be inactive for a certain period of time in order for their name to be purged from the county's voter roll, as per the rules stipulated by the National Voter Registration Act. As a result, there are a number of inactive voters on county voter rolls which could make it appear as if there is a greater number of registered voters than people who are eligible to vote. Jenna Dresner, a spokesperson for California Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Weber, explained that there are a few processes specific to California that make it more difficult for folks to be removed from voter rolls when they are inactive. The National Voter Registration Act 'outlines vote list maintenance processes designed to protect voters from illegal purges from the voter rolls,' Dresner wrote in an emailed statement. 'Specifically, the NVRA prohibits removing persons from the voter registration list solely because of a failure to vote and also places restrictions related to the notice and timing on removals from the voter rolls based on a change of residence.' Instead of removing people from voter rolls due to inactivity, those voters are instead designated as 'inactive.' Those voters do not receive election materials or mail-in ballots. In order to reactivate their voter registration, people need to formally contact election officials. If an inactive voter shows up to the polls to vote and they are on the county's list of inactive registered voters, they may cast a provisional ballot. Sacramento County currently has about 200,000 inactive registered voters, according to Courtney Bailey, Registrar of Voters for Sacramento County. 'Yes, if you add the active and inactive together, it does exceed our estimated population count,' Bailey said. 'But the fact of the matter is, a lot of those voters haven't voted in two general elections.' In their June letter, the EIPCa remarked that the difference between the total registered and eligible voters in California was an indication of poor list maintenance. However, experts on California elections say that is not the case. Dresner said that the EIPCa's claims 'recklessly and inaccurately claim that inactive voters are ineligible,' adding that 'these types of claims unnecessarily erode public confidence in the integrity of our elections.' 'We are going above and beyond what's required in federal and state [law],' Kelley said. 'We're doing extra audits. We're doing partnerships with the likes of Cal Tech University [The California Institute of Technology], doing third party audits. We're doing all of these things that people just don't take the time to learn about.' Last March, the EIPCa filed a lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Secretary of State, and nine county registrar of voters over these findings and other claims regarding 'irregularities in California's 2020 Election.' However, federal Judge Andre Birotte dismissed the lawsuit last June, writing that the lawsuit amounted to 'an incremental undermining of confidence in the election results, past and future.' All of the voting experts we spoke to mentioned this lawsuit when discussing the validity of the data and claims put forth by the EIPCa. 'This is the same group, by the way, that sued nine of us counties and the Secretary of State to attempt to overturn the November election results using some of the same data that they shot out in the letter,' Kelley said. 'The federal court a few weeks ago dismissed the entire case and gave them a stinging rebuke.' Mike Sanchez, the spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters, added in an email, 'the allegations made by the Election Integrity Project are unfounded and aim to undermine the confidence in the November 2020 General Election results.'. Our Verdict In June, Election Integrity Project California president Linda Paine sent a letter to the California Secretary of State's office alleging that the group found more than 1.8 million ineligible voting registrants in California. The EIPCa combined the number of active and inactive voters on California county voter rolls in order to determine the total number of registered voters in the state. The group then compared that number of total voters to census data showing the total pool of people eligible to vote county by county. By this metric, the EIPCa claimed to have found that there are a significantly greater number of registered voters than there are people eligible to vote in California. However, California elections experts said that it was misleading and inaccurate to combine the numbers of active and inactive voters on voting rolls in order to determine the amount of people voting in elections throughout the state like the EIPCa has. That's because inactive voters are not participating in elections or receiving election materials. The Secretary of State data only counts the amount of active registered voters in their count of individuals registered to vote. According to their county voter participation statistics, there were 25,090,517 Californians who were eligible to vote in the 2020 Presidential election. Of that group, there were 22,047,448 individuals registered to vote - just under 88% of folks who are eligible to vote statewide. In California, voters must be inactive for a certain period of time in order for their name to be purged from the county's voter roll, as per the rules stipulated by the National Voter Registration Act. As a result, there are a number of inactive voters on county voter rolls which could make it appear as if there is a greater number of registered voters than people who are eligible to vote. Inactive voters do not receive election materials or mail in ballots, and must follow state protocol in order to start receiving those materials again and participate in elections. We rated the claim that there are 1.8 million ineligible registered voters in California as Pants on Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | We rated the claim that there are 1.8 million ineligible registered voters in California as Pants on Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | []
|
'California Has 1.8M More Registered Voters Than It Should' | Contradiction | A false claim is circulating online that California has 1.8 million ineligible registered voters. The California Globe, a conservative news outlet, published a story in June citing a report by the Election Integrity Project California, a watchdog group that scrutinizes voter registration records. The article has been viewed more than 60,000 times on Facebook since it was posted earlier this summer. The EIPCa claims that they found '1,834,789 more registered voters than eligible citizens' throughout 23 of the Golden State's 58 counties, which they called 'an indication of increasingly poor list maintenance.' The group highlighted several counties where they claim to have found an 'astoundingly high number of ineligible registrants,' including Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange, and Alpine counties. Former State Congressional Candidate Chris Bish tweeted a screenshot of the EIPCa's letter in July, repeating and proliferating the claim that Sacramento County had more than 37,000 ineligible voters registered. Bish's claim has already been debunked by local fact-checkers and election experts say the same about the EIPCa's false claims, too. Facebook flagged the California Globe article as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) We've fact-checked other misleading and erroneous claims made by the ElP in the past, and decided to check out if this claim had any teeth to it. Our Research In June, EIPCa president Linda Paine sent a letter to the California Secretary of State's office alleging that the group found more than 1.8 million ineligible voting registrants in California. The EIPCa determined the total number of eligible citizens per country based on census estimates listed on the Secretary of State's website as of October 19, 2020. In order to determine the total number of ineligible registered voters, the EIPCa 'compared the total number of voter registrations (Active plus Inactive) to the number of eligible citizens as listed on the Secretary of State website.' By this metric the EIPCa determined that 23 of 58 counties in California have more registered voters than citizens eligible to vote, with a total of 1,834,789 ineligible registered voters statewide. The California Globe article flagged San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Orange, and Alpine counties as having 'an astoundingly high number of ineligible registrants.' All of the experts we spoke to said that this allegation by the EIPCa is deceptive and relies on misguided and flawed data analysis. Registrar of Voters for Orange County Neal Kelley said that the data used by the EIPCa was out of date, even at the time that the EIPCa wrote the letter to the Secretary of State. 'We can tell by some of the data they're presenting that it looks like their data was about three months old,' Kelley said. 'It does not include same day voter registration, it doesn't include the ebb and flow of voter databases where you have minute-by-minute updates to it.' According to the EIPCa's letter, they obtained their data on February 9, 2021. But voter registration data is constantly being updated by people at the county and state levels, according to Kelley and other registrars we spoke to across the state. According to county voter participation statistics compiled by the Secretary of State, there were 25,090,517 Californias who were eligible to vote in the 2020 Presidential election. Of that group, there were 22,047,448 individuals registered to vote - just under 88% of folks who are eligible to vote. The Secretary of State's office only counts active voters when tallying up the total number of registered voters per county. Experts say that it is inaccurate to add up active and inactive registered voters, as the EIPCa has done, in order to determine the total number of voters participating in elections. 'Voters will be given an 'inactive' status when a county elections official receives information (for example, from the post office) indicating the voter has moved out of state or mail is returned undeliverable without a forwarding address,' according to the Secretary of State's website. According to experts, including inactive voters inflates the amount of registered voters because some of these inactive voters have moved, have passed away, or haven't voted in multiple elections. 'They're concluding that there are more registered voters than eligible voters when it's flawed to include inactive voters in that data. You can't do that,' Kelley said. 'That's just like basic election 101. You can do that any day of the week and come up with inflated numbers. But what they need to only look at are the active registrations.' The Orange County Registrar of Voters' website states that 'inactive voters are registered voters and are eligible to vote; however, they do not receive election related mail such as sample ballots and vote-by-mail ballots.' In California, voters must be inactive for a certain period of time in order for their name to be purged from the county's voter roll, as per the rules stipulated by the National Voter Registration Act. As a result, there are a number of inactive voters on county voter rolls which could make it appear as if there is a greater number of registered voters than people who are eligible to vote. Jenna Dresner, a spokesperson for California Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Weber, explained that there are a few processes specific to California that make it more difficult for folks to be removed from voter rolls when they are inactive. The National Voter Registration Act 'outlines vote list maintenance processes designed to protect voters from illegal purges from the voter rolls,' Dresner wrote in an emailed statement. 'Specifically, the NVRA prohibits removing persons from the voter registration list solely because of a failure to vote and also places restrictions related to the notice and timing on removals from the voter rolls based on a change of residence.' Instead of removing people from voter rolls due to inactivity, those voters are instead designated as 'inactive.' Those voters do not receive election materials or mail-in ballots. In order to reactivate their voter registration, people need to formally contact election officials. If an inactive voter shows up to the polls to vote and they are on the county's list of inactive registered voters, they may cast a provisional ballot. Sacramento County currently has about 200,000 inactive registered voters, according to Courtney Bailey, Registrar of Voters for Sacramento County. 'Yes, if you add the active and inactive together, it does exceed our estimated population count,' Bailey said. 'But the fact of the matter is, a lot of those voters haven't voted in two general elections.' In their June letter, the EIPCa remarked that the difference between the total registered and eligible voters in California was an indication of poor list maintenance. However, experts on California elections say that is not the case. Dresner said that the EIPCa's claims 'recklessly and inaccurately claim that inactive voters are ineligible,' adding that 'these types of claims unnecessarily erode public confidence in the integrity of our elections.' 'We are going above and beyond what's required in federal and state [law],' Kelley said. 'We're doing extra audits. We're doing partnerships with the likes of Cal Tech University [The California Institute of Technology], doing third party audits. We're doing all of these things that people just don't take the time to learn about.' Last March, the EIPCa filed a lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Secretary of State, and nine county registrar of voters over these findings and other claims regarding 'irregularities in California's 2020 Election.' However, federal Judge Andre Birotte dismissed the lawsuit last June, writing that the lawsuit amounted to 'an incremental undermining of confidence in the election results, past and future.' All of the voting experts we spoke to mentioned this lawsuit when discussing the validity of the data and claims put forth by the EIPCa. 'This is the same group, by the way, that sued nine of us counties and the Secretary of State to attempt to overturn the November election results using some of the same data that they shot out in the letter,' Kelley said. 'The federal court a few weeks ago dismissed the entire case and gave them a stinging rebuke.' Mike Sanchez, the spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters, added in an email, 'the allegations made by the Election Integrity Project are unfounded and aim to undermine the confidence in the November 2020 General Election results.'. Our Verdict In June, Election Integrity Project California president Linda Paine sent a letter to the California Secretary of State's office alleging that the group found more than 1.8 million ineligible voting registrants in California. The EIPCa combined the number of active and inactive voters on California county voter rolls in order to determine the total number of registered voters in the state. The group then compared that number of total voters to census data showing the total pool of people eligible to vote county by county. By this metric, the EIPCa claimed to have found that there are a significantly greater number of registered voters than there are people eligible to vote in California. However, California elections experts said that it was misleading and inaccurate to combine the numbers of active and inactive voters on voting rolls in order to determine the amount of people voting in elections throughout the state like the EIPCa has. That's because inactive voters are not participating in elections or receiving election materials. The Secretary of State data only counts the amount of active registered voters in their count of individuals registered to vote. According to their county voter participation statistics, there were 25,090,517 Californians who were eligible to vote in the 2020 Presidential election. Of that group, there were 22,047,448 individuals registered to vote - just under 88% of folks who are eligible to vote statewide. In California, voters must be inactive for a certain period of time in order for their name to be purged from the county's voter roll, as per the rules stipulated by the National Voter Registration Act. As a result, there are a number of inactive voters on county voter rolls which could make it appear as if there is a greater number of registered voters than people who are eligible to vote. Inactive voters do not receive election materials or mail in ballots, and must follow state protocol in order to start receiving those materials again and participate in elections. We rated the claim that there are 1.8 million ineligible registered voters in California as Pants on Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | We rated the claim that there are 1.8 million ineligible registered voters in California as Pants on Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | []
|
'California Has 1.8M More Registered Voters Than It Should' | Contradiction | A false claim is circulating online that California has 1.8 million ineligible registered voters. The California Globe, a conservative news outlet, published a story in June citing a report by the Election Integrity Project California, a watchdog group that scrutinizes voter registration records. The article has been viewed more than 60,000 times on Facebook since it was posted earlier this summer. The EIPCa claims that they found '1,834,789 more registered voters than eligible citizens' throughout 23 of the Golden State's 58 counties, which they called 'an indication of increasingly poor list maintenance.' The group highlighted several counties where they claim to have found an 'astoundingly high number of ineligible registrants,' including Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange, and Alpine counties. Former State Congressional Candidate Chris Bish tweeted a screenshot of the EIPCa's letter in July, repeating and proliferating the claim that Sacramento County had more than 37,000 ineligible voters registered. Bish's claim has already been debunked by local fact-checkers and election experts say the same about the EIPCa's false claims, too. Facebook flagged the California Globe article as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook.) We've fact-checked other misleading and erroneous claims made by the ElP in the past, and decided to check out if this claim had any teeth to it. Our Research In June, EIPCa president Linda Paine sent a letter to the California Secretary of State's office alleging that the group found more than 1.8 million ineligible voting registrants in California. The EIPCa determined the total number of eligible citizens per country based on census estimates listed on the Secretary of State's website as of October 19, 2020. In order to determine the total number of ineligible registered voters, the EIPCa 'compared the total number of voter registrations (Active plus Inactive) to the number of eligible citizens as listed on the Secretary of State website.' By this metric the EIPCa determined that 23 of 58 counties in California have more registered voters than citizens eligible to vote, with a total of 1,834,789 ineligible registered voters statewide. The California Globe article flagged San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Orange, and Alpine counties as having 'an astoundingly high number of ineligible registrants.' All of the experts we spoke to said that this allegation by the EIPCa is deceptive and relies on misguided and flawed data analysis. Registrar of Voters for Orange County Neal Kelley said that the data used by the EIPCa was out of date, even at the time that the EIPCa wrote the letter to the Secretary of State. 'We can tell by some of the data they're presenting that it looks like their data was about three months old,' Kelley said. 'It does not include same day voter registration, it doesn't include the ebb and flow of voter databases where you have minute-by-minute updates to it.' According to the EIPCa's letter, they obtained their data on February 9, 2021. But voter registration data is constantly being updated by people at the county and state levels, according to Kelley and other registrars we spoke to across the state. According to county voter participation statistics compiled by the Secretary of State, there were 25,090,517 Californias who were eligible to vote in the 2020 Presidential election. Of that group, there were 22,047,448 individuals registered to vote - just under 88% of folks who are eligible to vote. The Secretary of State's office only counts active voters when tallying up the total number of registered voters per county. Experts say that it is inaccurate to add up active and inactive registered voters, as the EIPCa has done, in order to determine the total number of voters participating in elections. 'Voters will be given an 'inactive' status when a county elections official receives information (for example, from the post office) indicating the voter has moved out of state or mail is returned undeliverable without a forwarding address,' according to the Secretary of State's website. According to experts, including inactive voters inflates the amount of registered voters because some of these inactive voters have moved, have passed away, or haven't voted in multiple elections. 'They're concluding that there are more registered voters than eligible voters when it's flawed to include inactive voters in that data. You can't do that,' Kelley said. 'That's just like basic election 101. You can do that any day of the week and come up with inflated numbers. But what they need to only look at are the active registrations.' The Orange County Registrar of Voters' website states that 'inactive voters are registered voters and are eligible to vote; however, they do not receive election related mail such as sample ballots and vote-by-mail ballots.' In California, voters must be inactive for a certain period of time in order for their name to be purged from the county's voter roll, as per the rules stipulated by the National Voter Registration Act. As a result, there are a number of inactive voters on county voter rolls which could make it appear as if there is a greater number of registered voters than people who are eligible to vote. Jenna Dresner, a spokesperson for California Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Weber, explained that there are a few processes specific to California that make it more difficult for folks to be removed from voter rolls when they are inactive. The National Voter Registration Act 'outlines vote list maintenance processes designed to protect voters from illegal purges from the voter rolls,' Dresner wrote in an emailed statement. 'Specifically, the NVRA prohibits removing persons from the voter registration list solely because of a failure to vote and also places restrictions related to the notice and timing on removals from the voter rolls based on a change of residence.' Instead of removing people from voter rolls due to inactivity, those voters are instead designated as 'inactive.' Those voters do not receive election materials or mail-in ballots. In order to reactivate their voter registration, people need to formally contact election officials. If an inactive voter shows up to the polls to vote and they are on the county's list of inactive registered voters, they may cast a provisional ballot. Sacramento County currently has about 200,000 inactive registered voters, according to Courtney Bailey, Registrar of Voters for Sacramento County. 'Yes, if you add the active and inactive together, it does exceed our estimated population count,' Bailey said. 'But the fact of the matter is, a lot of those voters haven't voted in two general elections.' In their June letter, the EIPCa remarked that the difference between the total registered and eligible voters in California was an indication of poor list maintenance. However, experts on California elections say that is not the case. Dresner said that the EIPCa's claims 'recklessly and inaccurately claim that inactive voters are ineligible,' adding that 'these types of claims unnecessarily erode public confidence in the integrity of our elections.' 'We are going above and beyond what's required in federal and state [law],' Kelley said. 'We're doing extra audits. We're doing partnerships with the likes of Cal Tech University [The California Institute of Technology], doing third party audits. We're doing all of these things that people just don't take the time to learn about.' Last March, the EIPCa filed a lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Secretary of State, and nine county registrar of voters over these findings and other claims regarding 'irregularities in California's 2020 Election.' However, federal Judge Andre Birotte dismissed the lawsuit last June, writing that the lawsuit amounted to 'an incremental undermining of confidence in the election results, past and future.' All of the voting experts we spoke to mentioned this lawsuit when discussing the validity of the data and claims put forth by the EIPCa. 'This is the same group, by the way, that sued nine of us counties and the Secretary of State to attempt to overturn the November election results using some of the same data that they shot out in the letter,' Kelley said. 'The federal court a few weeks ago dismissed the entire case and gave them a stinging rebuke.' Mike Sanchez, the spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters, added in an email, 'the allegations made by the Election Integrity Project are unfounded and aim to undermine the confidence in the November 2020 General Election results.'. Our Verdict In June, Election Integrity Project California president Linda Paine sent a letter to the California Secretary of State's office alleging that the group found more than 1.8 million ineligible voting registrants in California. The EIPCa combined the number of active and inactive voters on California county voter rolls in order to determine the total number of registered voters in the state. The group then compared that number of total voters to census data showing the total pool of people eligible to vote county by county. By this metric, the EIPCa claimed to have found that there are a significantly greater number of registered voters than there are people eligible to vote in California. However, California elections experts said that it was misleading and inaccurate to combine the numbers of active and inactive voters on voting rolls in order to determine the amount of people voting in elections throughout the state like the EIPCa has. That's because inactive voters are not participating in elections or receiving election materials. The Secretary of State data only counts the amount of active registered voters in their count of individuals registered to vote. According to their county voter participation statistics, there were 25,090,517 Californians who were eligible to vote in the 2020 Presidential election. Of that group, there were 22,047,448 individuals registered to vote - just under 88% of folks who are eligible to vote statewide. In California, voters must be inactive for a certain period of time in order for their name to be purged from the county's voter roll, as per the rules stipulated by the National Voter Registration Act. As a result, there are a number of inactive voters on county voter rolls which could make it appear as if there is a greater number of registered voters than people who are eligible to vote. Inactive voters do not receive election materials or mail in ballots, and must follow state protocol in order to start receiving those materials again and participate in elections. We rated the claim that there are 1.8 million ineligible registered voters in California as Pants on Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | We rated the claim that there are 1.8 million ineligible registered voters in California as Pants on Fire. PANTS ON FIRE - The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. | []
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.