claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
If President Trump decides to deploy the U.S. military domestically, he would be 'mobilizing U.S. military troops on American soil for the first time since 1807.
|
Contradiction
|
Shortly after law enforcement officers were ordered to push peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square so that Donald Trump could walk from the White House to St. John's Episcopal Church for a photo opportunity, CNN anchor Erin Burnett made several mentions of a law that Trump had been considering invoking: the Insurrection Act of 1807. 'If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them,' Trump said from the White House's Rose Garden, referring to the looting and other violence that followed the death in police custody of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Soon after the start of her show, 'Erin Burnett OutFront,' Burnett referred to Trump's possible use of the law. The president, she said, was 'basically saying that he is going to go ahead with an act back from 1807 for the first time, mobilizing U.S. military troops on American soil for the first time since 1807.' Burnett repeated this point several times during her show. She said that 'moments ago' Trump said that 'he is mobilizing the U.S. military for the first time since 1807 under the Insurrection Act to go into the states, to deploy them and quickly solve the problem for them, if the cities and states refuse.' She repeated this later, during an exchange with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. When Cuomo asked, 'When was the last time you saw the American military called out against Americans?' Burnett responded, '1807.' Finally, she repeated it in an exchange with former CNN anchor Bernard Shaw. She said that Trump would be 'invoking an act not invoked since 1807 to deploy U.S. military troops on American soil.' There's a problem, however. While the Insurrection Act was indeed passed and signed by President Thomas Jefferson in 1807, it has been invoked many times since then, a reality that Burnett tweeted a correction after the show. The 1807 law allows state governments to seek assistance from the federal government to put down insurrections. It also allows, in limited circumstances, the U.S. military to be deployed domestically without the consent of the state. The consensual provision was last used in May 1992, amid riots in Los Angeles after the acquittals of officers charged with the beating of Rodney King, a black motorist. The assistance was requested by then-California Gov. Pete Wilson. The provision that allows the president to override state officials has been invoked as well, historically to protect the civil rights of black Americans in the 1950s and 1960s. Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy used these provisions in Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi to enforce civil rights laws, and Kennedy invoked it to send federal troops to Birmingham, Ala., during civil rights protests. After her show Burnett tweeted, 'I mistakenly said tonight that the insurrection act hasn't been invoked since 1807. That's incorrect. The last time it was used was 1992.' I mistakenly said tonight that the insurrection act hasn't been invoked since 1807. That's incorrect. The last time it was used was 1992.- Erin Burnett (@ErinBurnett) June 2, 2020
|
Our ruling Burnett said that if Trump decides to deploy the U.S. military domestically, he would be 'mobilizing U.S. military troops on American soil for the first time since 1807.' That's not correct. The law was passed in 1807, but it was last invoked in 1992. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"110170-proof-35-c187bbcdef25883439749e28110abfb3.jpg"
] |
'So the unvaxxed have to wear mask (sic) to protect the vaxxinated.
|
Contradiction
|
Masks have been a hot topic throughout the pandemic, and when guidance on their use is updated, a fresh wave of misinformation often follows. That was the case when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced on May 13 that fully vaccinated people can forgo wearing masks in most settings. One post shared widely on Facebook says, 'So the unvaxxed have to wear mask (sic) to protect the vaxxinated.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence to suggest that health experts recommend masks for unvaccinated people in order to protect vaccinated people. On the contrary, the rationale for unvaccinated people to continue wearing masks is in large part to protect other unvaccinated or not-fully-vaccinated people. Wearing a mask while unvaccinated or not fully vaccinated reduces the spread of respiratory droplets that travel in the air when coughing, sneezing, talking, shouting or singing, according to the CDC. It also helps prevent the spread of the virus by unvaccinated or not-fully-vaccinated people who have COVID-19 but are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. While the CDC's shift in its stance on masks surprised some, the decision was based on increasing vaccinations, declining cases, new research since March showing the efficacy of vaccination and real-world evidence from other countries. 'A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) are less likely to have asymptomatic infection or to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others,' the CDC reported. As of May 30, 40.7% of the total U.S. population was fully vaccinated against COVID-19, leaving a large swath of the population remaining to be fully protected. Some people are not eligible to be vaccinated, including children under 12 years old, and the data is still limited about the effectiveness of vaccines for those who are immunocompromised. Though COVID-19 case counts in the U.S. have declined dramatically, on May 29, the seven-day average for new daily cases was still more than 18,000 per day. Those cases 'are occurring mostly in the increasingly narrow slice of the unprotected population,' according to a data analysis by The Washington Post. In the U.S., the current case rate among unvaccinated residents is similar to the case rate for all residents on Jan. 1.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says, 'So the unvaxxed have to wear mask (sic) to protect the vaxxinated.' There is no evidence to support the claim that mask recommendations are for the benefit of the vaccinated. Three-fifths of the total U.S. population is not yet fully vaccinated, and daily COVID-19 cases in the U.S. still number in the thousands. Wearing masks helps prevent the spread of COVID-19 among those who are unvaccinated or not fully vaccinated. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'So the unvaxxed have to wear mask (sic) to protect the vaxxinated.
|
Contradiction
|
Masks have been a hot topic throughout the pandemic, and when guidance on their use is updated, a fresh wave of misinformation often follows. That was the case when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced on May 13 that fully vaccinated people can forgo wearing masks in most settings. One post shared widely on Facebook says, 'So the unvaxxed have to wear mask (sic) to protect the vaxxinated.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence to suggest that health experts recommend masks for unvaccinated people in order to protect vaccinated people. On the contrary, the rationale for unvaccinated people to continue wearing masks is in large part to protect other unvaccinated or not-fully-vaccinated people. Wearing a mask while unvaccinated or not fully vaccinated reduces the spread of respiratory droplets that travel in the air when coughing, sneezing, talking, shouting or singing, according to the CDC. It also helps prevent the spread of the virus by unvaccinated or not-fully-vaccinated people who have COVID-19 but are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. While the CDC's shift in its stance on masks surprised some, the decision was based on increasing vaccinations, declining cases, new research since March showing the efficacy of vaccination and real-world evidence from other countries. 'A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) are less likely to have asymptomatic infection or to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others,' the CDC reported. As of May 30, 40.7% of the total U.S. population was fully vaccinated against COVID-19, leaving a large swath of the population remaining to be fully protected. Some people are not eligible to be vaccinated, including children under 12 years old, and the data is still limited about the effectiveness of vaccines for those who are immunocompromised. Though COVID-19 case counts in the U.S. have declined dramatically, on May 29, the seven-day average for new daily cases was still more than 18,000 per day. Those cases 'are occurring mostly in the increasingly narrow slice of the unprotected population,' according to a data analysis by The Washington Post. In the U.S., the current case rate among unvaccinated residents is similar to the case rate for all residents on Jan. 1.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says, 'So the unvaxxed have to wear mask (sic) to protect the vaxxinated.' There is no evidence to support the claim that mask recommendations are for the benefit of the vaccinated. Three-fifths of the total U.S. population is not yet fully vaccinated, and daily COVID-19 cases in the U.S. still number in the thousands. Wearing masks helps prevent the spread of COVID-19 among those who are unvaccinated or not fully vaccinated. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'So the unvaxxed have to wear mask (sic) to protect the vaxxinated.
|
Contradiction
|
Masks have been a hot topic throughout the pandemic, and when guidance on their use is updated, a fresh wave of misinformation often follows. That was the case when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced on May 13 that fully vaccinated people can forgo wearing masks in most settings. One post shared widely on Facebook says, 'So the unvaxxed have to wear mask (sic) to protect the vaxxinated.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence to suggest that health experts recommend masks for unvaccinated people in order to protect vaccinated people. On the contrary, the rationale for unvaccinated people to continue wearing masks is in large part to protect other unvaccinated or not-fully-vaccinated people. Wearing a mask while unvaccinated or not fully vaccinated reduces the spread of respiratory droplets that travel in the air when coughing, sneezing, talking, shouting or singing, according to the CDC. It also helps prevent the spread of the virus by unvaccinated or not-fully-vaccinated people who have COVID-19 but are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. While the CDC's shift in its stance on masks surprised some, the decision was based on increasing vaccinations, declining cases, new research since March showing the efficacy of vaccination and real-world evidence from other countries. 'A growing body of evidence indicates that people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) are less likely to have asymptomatic infection or to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others,' the CDC reported. As of May 30, 40.7% of the total U.S. population was fully vaccinated against COVID-19, leaving a large swath of the population remaining to be fully protected. Some people are not eligible to be vaccinated, including children under 12 years old, and the data is still limited about the effectiveness of vaccines for those who are immunocompromised. Though COVID-19 case counts in the U.S. have declined dramatically, on May 29, the seven-day average for new daily cases was still more than 18,000 per day. Those cases 'are occurring mostly in the increasingly narrow slice of the unprotected population,' according to a data analysis by The Washington Post. In the U.S., the current case rate among unvaccinated residents is similar to the case rate for all residents on Jan. 1.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says, 'So the unvaxxed have to wear mask (sic) to protect the vaxxinated.' There is no evidence to support the claim that mask recommendations are for the benefit of the vaccinated. Three-fifths of the total U.S. population is not yet fully vaccinated, and daily COVID-19 cases in the U.S. still number in the thousands. Wearing masks helps prevent the spread of COVID-19 among those who are unvaccinated or not fully vaccinated. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Images show LeBron James standing for China's national anthem while shouting during the United States' national anthem.
|
Contradiction
|
A pair of images widely shared on Facebook purport to show that LeBron James is more respectful to China than to the United States. The top image in the April 23 Facebook post shows James standing with several other NBA players, including Anthony Davis and Kevin Durant, as China's national flag waves in the background. The caption says, 'LeBron during China's national anthem.' The bottom image shows James shouting while other basketball players stand still. The caption says, 'LeBron during USA's national anthem.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post echoes criticism that has portrayed James as unpatriotic toward the U.S. and deferential to China. Amid pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong and China in October 2019, the Lakers star criticized Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey for tweeting a message of support for the protesters while the NBA held an exhibition game in China at the same time, according to NPR. Meanwhile, James has drawn praise and scorn at times for speaking out against racial injustices and police violence in the U.S. - including supporting silent protests by National Football League players - and criticizing former President Donald Trump as divisive. We took a closer look at both images in the post, and the original video footage they're pulled from, to see what was going on. Although the top image does feature James and the other players standing still during the singing of a national anthem, video shows it wasn't China's. The players in the photo are wearing jackets with the NBA All-Star Game logo - specifically from the 2018 event held in Los Angeles. Video from that event uploaded to YouTube shows the top image used in the Facebook post was a screengrab from when the players were standing during a performance of 'The Star-Spangled Banner,' and was doctored to add the Chinese flag in the background. The video shows the same moment depicted in the image, but without any Chinese flags in sight. The bottom image shows James during a performance of the anthem from the Oct. 22, 2019, game between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Los Angeles Clippers. In a video from that game, James could be seen walking away from his lined-up teammates and shouting 'let's go' to fans just a note or two before the anthem ended.
|
Our ruling A viral image shared on Facebook claims James was standing still during China's national anthem while shouting during the U.S. anthem. Both images in the post show James during performances of 'The Star-Spangled Banner.' One image was doctored to include the Chinese national flag. The other image shows him walking away and shouting to the crowd as the anthem was ending. The meme uses a manipulated image and takes another image out of context to create a misleading impression. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
U.S. sanctions mean 'Cuba can't trade with any country or any company whatsoever.
|
Contradiction
|
Amid news surrounding protests in Cuba, a widely shared Facebook post asserts U.S. sanctions on Cuba restrict the country from trading with other countries, too. 'People are either unaware or being purposely obtuse about the U.S. blockade on Cuba,' reads the post, a screenshot of a tweet. 'Do you realize it doesn't just mean they can't trade with the U.S.? Cuba can't trade with ANY country or ANY company whatsoever, threatening other people who may want to help.' 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 who spoke to PolitiFact said the claim is wrong, misinterpreting some of the nuances of the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Cuba does trade with multiple countries, but the embargo can make it difficult for any foreign companies to do business in the country. Protests flared in Cuba on July 11, when thousands of citizens went to the streets to call for action over shortages of food and medicine, protesting for freedom against the Cuban government. The Associated Press reported that the protests were the largest since Fidel Castro's presidency. The number of people detained by the government is not clear, but Cubalex, an attorney group tracking arrests, estimated that as of July 19, 108 people were in detention, 78 people had been freed and 284 people's whereabouts were in the process of being verified. President Miguel Díaz-Canel blamed the U.S. government's sanctions for the country's economic troubles. Jose Gabilondo, associate dean for accreditation and reporting and professor of law at Florida International University, said that while critics of the U.S. embargo tend to use the word 'blockade' to describe the program, the official term for the sanctions is 'embargo,' according to the Office of Foreign Assets Control under the U.S. Department of the Treasury. That's because the U.S. is not physically obstructing Cuba to prevent people or goods from leaving - which is what 'blockade' means. 'There are many people who consider that the U.S.-Cuba sanctions program violates public international law, so they see it as an illegal program,' Gabilondo said, 'and they see it as illegal because the Cuba sanctions that are imposed by OFAC apply very broadly, not only to U.S. companies but also to foreign companies that are domiciled in other countries. So many people think that the sanctions amount to an illegal blockade.' The history of the U.S. embargo on Cuba The U.S. initiated its embargo on trade with Cuba nearly 60 years ago, after Fidel Castro's regime rose to power, and overthrew the country's U.S.-backed government. Castro's government increased foreign relations and trade with the Soviet Union, increased taxes on U.S. imports and nationalized American-owned properties. In response, President John F. Kennedy called for a complete economic embargo in 1962, prohibiting all trade of goods and services between the U.S. and Cuba and imposing strict travel restrictions. Twenty years later, President Ronald Reagan designated Cuba as a state sponsor of terror following its support of Marxist movements during the Cold War. The Obama administration lifted the designation in 2015, along with relaxing some restrictions, including on American travel to the country. The change meant Americans could legally bring home Cuban cigars and rum. It also permitted Cuban pharmaceutical companies to do business in the U.S. The Trump administration reimposed sanctions on Cuba and increased financial and banking restrictions on the country. On Jan. 11, 2021, days before Joe Biden's presidential inauguration, the Trump administration put Cuba back on the list of state sponsors of terror. Cuba is permitted to trade with many other countries Augusto Maxwell, an attorney at Akerman LLP and chair of their Cuba practice, said the first part of the claim isn't accurate. Cuba can trade with other countries of its choosing - if those countries are willing as well. Some of Cuba's trading partners include China, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, Mexico and Brazil, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity. Venezuela was one of Cuba's key trade partners until its ability diminished amid its own economic turmoil. Cuba's main exports include rolled tobacco, raw sugar, nickel, liquor and zinc. Top imports include poultry meat, wheat, soybean meal, corn and concentrated milk. It's worth noting that the OEC also lists the U.S. as one of the countries that exports goods to Cuba. Poultry counts for 90% of American shipments to the country, according to the Federation of American Scientists. 'It's really to favor U.S. farmers and agricultural interests. (Cuba) was a very important market for U.S. farmers,' Gabilondo said. 'So even though the sanctions generally prohibit trade, there are some exceptions.' Maxwell said, despite these trade relationships, the U.S. embargo does have an impact on what goods Cuba receives from other countries. For example, if any trading good contains 10% of U.S. created content, it must go through U.S. law in order to be exported into Cuba. 'When you think of complicated things like airplanes or oil drilling platforms or scientific or medical equipment, sometimes those things are caught up in that 10%,' Maxwell said. 'And so U.S. law does not allow that to be exported to Cuba even though 90% or 89% was produced in France or Canada, or something like that.' Maxwell further pointed out that foreign companies that are owned or patrolled by the U.S. might be reluctant to engage in business with Cuba. The Helms-Burton Act allows U.S. nationals to sue entities that do business involving property that was confiscated by the Cuban government. The rule didn't go into effect until 2019, when the Trump administration gave it the green light. 'Every president since (1996), Clinton, Bush and Obama, had suspended the rule. President Trump enacted it,' Maxwell said. 'And so in the last two years there's been about 35-40 lawsuits filed from different folks for allegedly trafficking in Cuban properties.' Lillian Guerra, professor in Cuban and Caribbean history at the University of Florida, called the claim 'patently false.' She said that things began to change for Cuba when the Soviet Union collapsed. 'One by one, as Cuba adopted the reforms of 1991 and the Latin American dictatorships and right wing regimes fell, the 'unilateral' nature of the U.S. embargo that kept them in line and froze Cuba out of direct trade with its barrio, collapsed,' Guerra told PolitiFact. Guerra further stated that multiple countries have a company in Cuba, including China, Brazil, the Netherlands, Spain, France, Italy and Canada.
|
Our ruling A Facebook claim stated that the U.S. embargo on Cuba blocks the country from trading with any country or company whatsoever. Embargo is the official term used by the U.S. government to describe the sanctions on Cuba. An expert pointed out that the term blockade is used by someone who believes the sanctions to be illegal due to its broad reach. Experts and evidence shows that Cuba can and has traded with other countries. While the nuances in the U.S. embargo can make it difficult for foreign companies to trade with the country, there is no evidence that they can't. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"110182-proof-01-7585eb97eed5adce310def3520fa5931.jpg"
] |
U.S. sanctions mean 'Cuba can't trade with any country or any company whatsoever.
|
Contradiction
|
Amid news surrounding protests in Cuba, a widely shared Facebook post asserts U.S. sanctions on Cuba restrict the country from trading with other countries, too. 'People are either unaware or being purposely obtuse about the U.S. blockade on Cuba,' reads the post, a screenshot of a tweet. 'Do you realize it doesn't just mean they can't trade with the U.S.? Cuba can't trade with ANY country or ANY company whatsoever, threatening other people who may want to help.' 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 who spoke to PolitiFact said the claim is wrong, misinterpreting some of the nuances of the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Cuba does trade with multiple countries, but the embargo can make it difficult for any foreign companies to do business in the country. Protests flared in Cuba on July 11, when thousands of citizens went to the streets to call for action over shortages of food and medicine, protesting for freedom against the Cuban government. The Associated Press reported that the protests were the largest since Fidel Castro's presidency. The number of people detained by the government is not clear, but Cubalex, an attorney group tracking arrests, estimated that as of July 19, 108 people were in detention, 78 people had been freed and 284 people's whereabouts were in the process of being verified. President Miguel Díaz-Canel blamed the U.S. government's sanctions for the country's economic troubles. Jose Gabilondo, associate dean for accreditation and reporting and professor of law at Florida International University, said that while critics of the U.S. embargo tend to use the word 'blockade' to describe the program, the official term for the sanctions is 'embargo,' according to the Office of Foreign Assets Control under the U.S. Department of the Treasury. That's because the U.S. is not physically obstructing Cuba to prevent people or goods from leaving - which is what 'blockade' means. 'There are many people who consider that the U.S.-Cuba sanctions program violates public international law, so they see it as an illegal program,' Gabilondo said, 'and they see it as illegal because the Cuba sanctions that are imposed by OFAC apply very broadly, not only to U.S. companies but also to foreign companies that are domiciled in other countries. So many people think that the sanctions amount to an illegal blockade.' The history of the U.S. embargo on Cuba The U.S. initiated its embargo on trade with Cuba nearly 60 years ago, after Fidel Castro's regime rose to power, and overthrew the country's U.S.-backed government. Castro's government increased foreign relations and trade with the Soviet Union, increased taxes on U.S. imports and nationalized American-owned properties. In response, President John F. Kennedy called for a complete economic embargo in 1962, prohibiting all trade of goods and services between the U.S. and Cuba and imposing strict travel restrictions. Twenty years later, President Ronald Reagan designated Cuba as a state sponsor of terror following its support of Marxist movements during the Cold War. The Obama administration lifted the designation in 2015, along with relaxing some restrictions, including on American travel to the country. The change meant Americans could legally bring home Cuban cigars and rum. It also permitted Cuban pharmaceutical companies to do business in the U.S. The Trump administration reimposed sanctions on Cuba and increased financial and banking restrictions on the country. On Jan. 11, 2021, days before Joe Biden's presidential inauguration, the Trump administration put Cuba back on the list of state sponsors of terror. Cuba is permitted to trade with many other countries Augusto Maxwell, an attorney at Akerman LLP and chair of their Cuba practice, said the first part of the claim isn't accurate. Cuba can trade with other countries of its choosing - if those countries are willing as well. Some of Cuba's trading partners include China, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, Mexico and Brazil, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity. Venezuela was one of Cuba's key trade partners until its ability diminished amid its own economic turmoil. Cuba's main exports include rolled tobacco, raw sugar, nickel, liquor and zinc. Top imports include poultry meat, wheat, soybean meal, corn and concentrated milk. It's worth noting that the OEC also lists the U.S. as one of the countries that exports goods to Cuba. Poultry counts for 90% of American shipments to the country, according to the Federation of American Scientists. 'It's really to favor U.S. farmers and agricultural interests. (Cuba) was a very important market for U.S. farmers,' Gabilondo said. 'So even though the sanctions generally prohibit trade, there are some exceptions.' Maxwell said, despite these trade relationships, the U.S. embargo does have an impact on what goods Cuba receives from other countries. For example, if any trading good contains 10% of U.S. created content, it must go through U.S. law in order to be exported into Cuba. 'When you think of complicated things like airplanes or oil drilling platforms or scientific or medical equipment, sometimes those things are caught up in that 10%,' Maxwell said. 'And so U.S. law does not allow that to be exported to Cuba even though 90% or 89% was produced in France or Canada, or something like that.' Maxwell further pointed out that foreign companies that are owned or patrolled by the U.S. might be reluctant to engage in business with Cuba. The Helms-Burton Act allows U.S. nationals to sue entities that do business involving property that was confiscated by the Cuban government. The rule didn't go into effect until 2019, when the Trump administration gave it the green light. 'Every president since (1996), Clinton, Bush and Obama, had suspended the rule. President Trump enacted it,' Maxwell said. 'And so in the last two years there's been about 35-40 lawsuits filed from different folks for allegedly trafficking in Cuban properties.' Lillian Guerra, professor in Cuban and Caribbean history at the University of Florida, called the claim 'patently false.' She said that things began to change for Cuba when the Soviet Union collapsed. 'One by one, as Cuba adopted the reforms of 1991 and the Latin American dictatorships and right wing regimes fell, the 'unilateral' nature of the U.S. embargo that kept them in line and froze Cuba out of direct trade with its barrio, collapsed,' Guerra told PolitiFact. Guerra further stated that multiple countries have a company in Cuba, including China, Brazil, the Netherlands, Spain, France, Italy and Canada.
|
Our ruling A Facebook claim stated that the U.S. embargo on Cuba blocks the country from trading with any country or company whatsoever. Embargo is the official term used by the U.S. government to describe the sanctions on Cuba. An expert pointed out that the term blockade is used by someone who believes the sanctions to be illegal due to its broad reach. Experts and evidence shows that Cuba can and has traded with other countries. While the nuances in the U.S. embargo can make it difficult for foreign companies to trade with the country, there is no evidence that they can't. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"110182-proof-01-7585eb97eed5adce310def3520fa5931.jpg"
] |
'Norfolk naval base has been taken by NATO.
|
Contradiction
|
A TikTok video falsely claims that the 'Norfolk naval base has been taken by NATO,' the alliance of countries primarily from Europe and North America. 'Apparently, the Norfolk naval base has been taken over by NATO because China and Russia are occupying the waters in the Atlantic Ocean,' the speaker in the video says. 'We all know Russia, Putin, he hates Biden. Well, listen up, Putin. We hate Biden too. He's not our president.' In fact, Joe Biden is the U.S. president, having won a free and fair election. And while NATO, formally known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, recently finalized its new command in North America, the alliance did not take control of Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia, the world's largest naval complex. That claim is inaccurate. A screenshot of the Aug. 1 TikTok video falsely claiming NATO took over Naval Station Norfolk. 'It is false to say that Norfolk was 'surrendered' to NATO,' a NATO official said in a statement to PolitiFact and other media organizations fact-checking similar social media claims. 'JFC (Joint Force Command) Norfolk is hosted by the United States within the much larger national facility at Norfolk, and its commander also commands the U.S. Second Fleet.' A Defense Department spokesperson also told fact-checkers that the Pentagon still has the same capabilities at Naval Station Norfolk as it always has. NATO was established in 1949 and has since swelled to include the U.S. and 29 other member nations, according to its website. The U.S. was one of 12 founding members of NATO, and all decisions made by the alliance require consensus agreement among member nations. It is currently based in Brussels, Belgium. In July, NATO announced the full operational readiness and official launch of the Joint Force Command Norfolk, the first such headquarters in North America and the third around the world, along with similar regional commands in Brunssum, Netherlands, and Naples, Italy. 'It's the mission of this command to fight the battle of the Atlantic in the event of armed conflict,' Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the July 15 ceremony marking full operation of Joint Force Command Norfolk. The command was three years in the making, Milley said. The city of Norfolk unveiled welcome signs calling it 'NATO's home in North America' as early as 2018, PolitiFact found. But PolitiFact found no evidence that the recognition of the NATO joint command as an operation ready for battle means the alliance took over Naval Station Norfolk. We rate this TikTok video False.
|
We rate this TikTok video False.
|
[
"110185-proof-11-ae351669af24f1588b03b3296e85428f.jpg"
] |
'Norfolk naval base has been taken by NATO.
|
Contradiction
|
A TikTok video falsely claims that the 'Norfolk naval base has been taken by NATO,' the alliance of countries primarily from Europe and North America. 'Apparently, the Norfolk naval base has been taken over by NATO because China and Russia are occupying the waters in the Atlantic Ocean,' the speaker in the video says. 'We all know Russia, Putin, he hates Biden. Well, listen up, Putin. We hate Biden too. He's not our president.' In fact, Joe Biden is the U.S. president, having won a free and fair election. And while NATO, formally known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, recently finalized its new command in North America, the alliance did not take control of Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia, the world's largest naval complex. That claim is inaccurate. A screenshot of the Aug. 1 TikTok video falsely claiming NATO took over Naval Station Norfolk. 'It is false to say that Norfolk was 'surrendered' to NATO,' a NATO official said in a statement to PolitiFact and other media organizations fact-checking similar social media claims. 'JFC (Joint Force Command) Norfolk is hosted by the United States within the much larger national facility at Norfolk, and its commander also commands the U.S. Second Fleet.' A Defense Department spokesperson also told fact-checkers that the Pentagon still has the same capabilities at Naval Station Norfolk as it always has. NATO was established in 1949 and has since swelled to include the U.S. and 29 other member nations, according to its website. The U.S. was one of 12 founding members of NATO, and all decisions made by the alliance require consensus agreement among member nations. It is currently based in Brussels, Belgium. In July, NATO announced the full operational readiness and official launch of the Joint Force Command Norfolk, the first such headquarters in North America and the third around the world, along with similar regional commands in Brunssum, Netherlands, and Naples, Italy. 'It's the mission of this command to fight the battle of the Atlantic in the event of armed conflict,' Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the July 15 ceremony marking full operation of Joint Force Command Norfolk. The command was three years in the making, Milley said. The city of Norfolk unveiled welcome signs calling it 'NATO's home in North America' as early as 2018, PolitiFact found. But PolitiFact found no evidence that the recognition of the NATO joint command as an operation ready for battle means the alliance took over Naval Station Norfolk. We rate this TikTok video False.
|
We rate this TikTok video False.
|
[
"110185-proof-11-ae351669af24f1588b03b3296e85428f.jpg"
] |
Says Sen. Kelly Loeffler said on Parler that 'Black people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
|
Contradiction
|
A fake post on social media makes it look like Sen. Kelly Loeffler, a white Georgia Republican, called for putting the brakes on efforts to register more Black and Democratic voters. 'Wondering what's up with Parler? Here's Sen. Kelly Loeffler saying black people shouldn't be allowed to vote,' said a Nov. 13 Facebook post. The accompanying screenshot purports to show a post by Loeffler on Parler, a social media platform popular with conservatives. It stated: 'Here are the #FACTS: Under the watch of Secretary Raffensperger, Stacey Abrams registered hundreds of thousands of black and Democrat voters. We can't let that happen again.' Loeffler didn't write that. Brad Raffensperger is Georgia's Republican secretary of state. Abrams is a voting-rights activist and former state lawmaker who narrowly lost a bid for governor in 2018. Loeffler faces the Rev. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat, in one of two Jan. 5 runoffs for Georgia's U.S. Senate seats. In the other race, first-term GOP Sen. David Perdue faces Democrat Jon Ossoff, a documentary filmmaker. The screenshot appeared on Facebook, where it was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Multiple people shared screenshots of the Parler post on Twitter as well. The screenshot depicts a post written under the account @SenatorKellyLoeffler. But that's a fake account, said Loeffler spokesperson Stephen Lawson. On Parler, the account is listed as private and was formed eight days ago, shortly after the Nov. 3 election. We couldn't determine whether such a message was actually posted under this account. Parler's community guidelines ban 'any use of another's name or likeness in a confusing or deceptive manner.' We asked Parler whether it plans to remove the fake Loeffler account and did not get an immediate response. Loeffler's actual Parler account, @KLoeffler, showed no posts in which she commented about registering Black voters or any work by Abrams. Abrams created the New Georgia Project about six years ago to register people to vote. That organization and other groups as well as the Motor Voter law are credited with helping register hundreds of thousands of new voters, including voters of color. Black voters were pivotal to Joe Biden's narrow victory in Georgia in the Nov. 3 presidential election, and Democratic activists are counting on them to play a significant role in the Jan. 5 runoffs. The voter registration deadline for the runoff is Dec. 7.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said Loeffler said on Parler that 'Black people shouldn't be allowed to vote.' The screenshot depicts a Parler post that is from a fake account. Loeffler's actual Parler account included no such statement about Abrams registering Black or Democratic voters. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"110191-proof-13-6e0a419715b80138b5e96e6ce4e9db37.jpg"
] |
'Corona Virus claims a black belt. Chuck Norris, Dead at 80.
|
Contradiction
|
Fans of 'Walker, Texas Ranger' know Chuck Norris as a fighter and a survivor. And they have no reason to believe he died of the coronavirus. Norris, the action-film star known for his martial-arts expertise, has been the target of misinformation for years. In fact, a Facebook scam claimed he was dead back in 2012. He wasn't. He just turned 80 in March. Now social media users have started spreading a hoax saying Norris died June 10, but the post is actually a long-winded joke. 'Corona Virus claims a black belt,' the The June 11 post reads. 'Carlos Ray 'Chuck' Norris, famous actor and fighter, died yesterday afternoon at his home in Northwood Hills, TX at the age of 80.' But if readers continue on a few more paragraphs, the joke is soon revealed. 'However, after his minor inconvenience of death, Chuck has made a full recovery, and is reported to be doing quite well,' the post says. 'It has also been reported that the Corona virus is in self isolation for 14 days due to being exposed to Chuck Norris.' The fact-checking organizations Snopes.com and Lead Stories debunked this joking claim when versions of it first emerged more than a month ago. As recently as June 8, Norris posted on his official Facebook page. There have been no posts or other evidence indicating he has fallen ill with coronavirus or any other disease, or that he has died. We rate this post False.
|
We rate this post False.
|
[
"110192-proof-25-2570becd4e215273ffc838d348390cee.jpg"
] |
'Corona Virus claims a black belt. Chuck Norris, Dead at 80.
|
Contradiction
|
Fans of 'Walker, Texas Ranger' know Chuck Norris as a fighter and a survivor. And they have no reason to believe he died of the coronavirus. Norris, the action-film star known for his martial-arts expertise, has been the target of misinformation for years. In fact, a Facebook scam claimed he was dead back in 2012. He wasn't. He just turned 80 in March. Now social media users have started spreading a hoax saying Norris died June 10, but the post is actually a long-winded joke. 'Corona Virus claims a black belt,' the The June 11 post reads. 'Carlos Ray 'Chuck' Norris, famous actor and fighter, died yesterday afternoon at his home in Northwood Hills, TX at the age of 80.' But if readers continue on a few more paragraphs, the joke is soon revealed. 'However, after his minor inconvenience of death, Chuck has made a full recovery, and is reported to be doing quite well,' the post says. 'It has also been reported that the Corona virus is in self isolation for 14 days due to being exposed to Chuck Norris.' The fact-checking organizations Snopes.com and Lead Stories debunked this joking claim when versions of it first emerged more than a month ago. As recently as June 8, Norris posted on his official Facebook page. There have been no posts or other evidence indicating he has fallen ill with coronavirus or any other disease, or that he has died. We rate this post False.
|
We rate this post False.
|
[
"110192-proof-25-2570becd4e215273ffc838d348390cee.jpg"
] |
'Corona Virus claims a black belt. Chuck Norris, Dead at 80.
|
Contradiction
|
Fans of 'Walker, Texas Ranger' know Chuck Norris as a fighter and a survivor. And they have no reason to believe he died of the coronavirus. Norris, the action-film star known for his martial-arts expertise, has been the target of misinformation for years. In fact, a Facebook scam claimed he was dead back in 2012. He wasn't. He just turned 80 in March. Now social media users have started spreading a hoax saying Norris died June 10, but the post is actually a long-winded joke. 'Corona Virus claims a black belt,' the The June 11 post reads. 'Carlos Ray 'Chuck' Norris, famous actor and fighter, died yesterday afternoon at his home in Northwood Hills, TX at the age of 80.' But if readers continue on a few more paragraphs, the joke is soon revealed. 'However, after his minor inconvenience of death, Chuck has made a full recovery, and is reported to be doing quite well,' the post says. 'It has also been reported that the Corona virus is in self isolation for 14 days due to being exposed to Chuck Norris.' The fact-checking organizations Snopes.com and Lead Stories debunked this joking claim when versions of it first emerged more than a month ago. As recently as June 8, Norris posted on his official Facebook page. There have been no posts or other evidence indicating he has fallen ill with coronavirus or any other disease, or that he has died. We rate this post False.
|
We rate this post False.
|
[
"110192-proof-25-2570becd4e215273ffc838d348390cee.jpg"
] |
Says Kelly Loeffler was wearing a wire during the Georgia Senate debate.
|
Contradiction
|
Claims about politicians wearing wires and earpieces during debates are apparently bipartisan. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President-elect Joe Biden have faced such false allegations. Now Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., is the target of this variety of misinformation. 'Why is Loeffler wearing a wire?' reads one Facebook post showing a photo of Loeffler with what appears to be a strand of her hair circled. 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.) Loeffler debated her Democratic opponent, Rev. Raphael Warnock, in Atlanta on Dec. 6. Reviewing footage of the debate, we saw nothing to suggest that Loeffler was wearing a wire. The Atlanta Press Club, which hosted the debate, tweeted on Dec. 7 that the candidates 'had no audio assistance from their campaigns.' We rate this post Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
We rate this post Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[] |
Says Kelly Loeffler was wearing a wire during the Georgia Senate debate.
|
Contradiction
|
Claims about politicians wearing wires and earpieces during debates are apparently bipartisan. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President-elect Joe Biden have faced such false allegations. Now Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., is the target of this variety of misinformation. 'Why is Loeffler wearing a wire?' reads one Facebook post showing a photo of Loeffler with what appears to be a strand of her hair circled. 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.) Loeffler debated her Democratic opponent, Rev. Raphael Warnock, in Atlanta on Dec. 6. Reviewing footage of the debate, we saw nothing to suggest that Loeffler was wearing a wire. The Atlanta Press Club, which hosted the debate, tweeted on Dec. 7 that the candidates 'had no audio assistance from their campaigns.' We rate this post Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
We rate this post Pants on Fire. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[] |
Says a video shared to his social media shows vehicles with broken windows in a parking garage used by state agencies in Texas on 'the same night the City of Austin voted to cut $150 million' from the police department.
|
Contradiction
|
Land Commissioner George P. Bush said a video from a parking garage used by state agencies showed more than a dozen vans with busted rear windows on the same night the Austin City Council voted to redirect $150 million in funding from the police department. The council's recent funding decisions regarding the Austin Police Department have come under fire from state officials, who have threatened to freeze local governments' property tax revenue if they cut police budgets. Bush said his video highlights the need for police funding and said the city is moving down a dangerous path. 'This was taken tonight in one of the parking garages used by (the Texas General Land Office) and other state agencies in downtown Austin, the same night the City of Austin voted to cut $150 million from (the Austin Police Department),' he wrote in the tweet. 'The need for police funding is as clear as ever. This is a dangerous path to go down.' Bush did not return a request seeking more information about the video, including whether he recorded the footage himself, whether the incident had been reported and when exactly the damage occurred. Here's what we know: The parking garage is under the jurisdiction of state law enforcement, not the city police. And the damage to the vehicles was reported five days before the City Council voted on police funding. Let's dive in. Incident is under investigation The Texas Department of Public Safety is investigating the incident featured in the video on Bush's Twitter account. Troopers with the agency discovered multiple vehicles with shattered windows during a 'routine early morning garage check' at a parking garage near the Capitol on Aug. 8, according to a statement from the agency. The vehicles are owned by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Texas Department of Agriculture and the General Land Office. An 'investigation confirmed 14 vehicles had windows broken with what appears to be a bb or pellet air gun,' reads the statement. 'At this time, no arrests have been made, and the investigation is ongoing.' The Austin Police Department has no record of any incident that meets the description, and a spokesperson said the garage is under the Department of Public Safety's jurisdiction. The DPS is responsible for security at the Texas Capitol and the surrounding buildings, according to an overview of its duties published online. 'On September 1, 1991, the Texas Legislature transferred all duties and responsibilities of the Capitol Security Police Division of the State Purchasing and General Services Commission to the Texas Department of Public Safety,' reads the overview. 'The Capitol Complex includes the State Capitol and grounds, Capitol Extension, State office buildings, State parking lots and garages, and private office buildings and businesses,' the DPS website reads. Austin City Council Vote The Austin City Council approved the city's budget for the coming fiscal year during a meeting on Aug. 13. The $4.2 billion budget included about $150 million in planned cuts to the Austin Police Department, which was slated to receive $434 million in the initial budget proposal before the council. Of the $150 million in approved cuts, about $20 million will be immediately removed from the department's funding by canceling three upcoming cadet classes, reducing overtime costs and pulling money from 'commodities and contractuals.' The money will be redirected to other programs and city departments, including violence prevention efforts and local emergency COVID-19 response. The other $130 million will be moved from the Police Department budget into two transitional funds aimed at moving certain services out from under the umbrella of the police department, including support services, recruiting and traffic enforcement.
|
Our ruling Bush shared a video to his Twitter account purporting to show damage to state-owned vehicles parked at a garage in downtown Austin on the same night the City Council voted to cut funding from the Austin Police Department. While we don't know for certain when the video was taken, we do know that the damage was discovered by state law enforcement officers at five days before the vote on cuts to the police budget. Plus, Bush's attempt to connect the damage with the Police Department is misleading, as the parking garage is not within the Austin Police Department's jurisdiction. The Texas Department of Public Safety discovered the damage and is conducting an investigation. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"110208-proof-49-264a975abc98eb1669a05d8ba159f1a8.jpg"
] |
Says a video shared to his social media shows vehicles with broken windows in a parking garage used by state agencies in Texas on 'the same night the City of Austin voted to cut $150 million' from the police department.
|
Contradiction
|
Land Commissioner George P. Bush said a video from a parking garage used by state agencies showed more than a dozen vans with busted rear windows on the same night the Austin City Council voted to redirect $150 million in funding from the police department. The council's recent funding decisions regarding the Austin Police Department have come under fire from state officials, who have threatened to freeze local governments' property tax revenue if they cut police budgets. Bush said his video highlights the need for police funding and said the city is moving down a dangerous path. 'This was taken tonight in one of the parking garages used by (the Texas General Land Office) and other state agencies in downtown Austin, the same night the City of Austin voted to cut $150 million from (the Austin Police Department),' he wrote in the tweet. 'The need for police funding is as clear as ever. This is a dangerous path to go down.' Bush did not return a request seeking more information about the video, including whether he recorded the footage himself, whether the incident had been reported and when exactly the damage occurred. Here's what we know: The parking garage is under the jurisdiction of state law enforcement, not the city police. And the damage to the vehicles was reported five days before the City Council voted on police funding. Let's dive in. Incident is under investigation The Texas Department of Public Safety is investigating the incident featured in the video on Bush's Twitter account. Troopers with the agency discovered multiple vehicles with shattered windows during a 'routine early morning garage check' at a parking garage near the Capitol on Aug. 8, according to a statement from the agency. The vehicles are owned by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Texas Department of Agriculture and the General Land Office. An 'investigation confirmed 14 vehicles had windows broken with what appears to be a bb or pellet air gun,' reads the statement. 'At this time, no arrests have been made, and the investigation is ongoing.' The Austin Police Department has no record of any incident that meets the description, and a spokesperson said the garage is under the Department of Public Safety's jurisdiction. The DPS is responsible for security at the Texas Capitol and the surrounding buildings, according to an overview of its duties published online. 'On September 1, 1991, the Texas Legislature transferred all duties and responsibilities of the Capitol Security Police Division of the State Purchasing and General Services Commission to the Texas Department of Public Safety,' reads the overview. 'The Capitol Complex includes the State Capitol and grounds, Capitol Extension, State office buildings, State parking lots and garages, and private office buildings and businesses,' the DPS website reads. Austin City Council Vote The Austin City Council approved the city's budget for the coming fiscal year during a meeting on Aug. 13. The $4.2 billion budget included about $150 million in planned cuts to the Austin Police Department, which was slated to receive $434 million in the initial budget proposal before the council. Of the $150 million in approved cuts, about $20 million will be immediately removed from the department's funding by canceling three upcoming cadet classes, reducing overtime costs and pulling money from 'commodities and contractuals.' The money will be redirected to other programs and city departments, including violence prevention efforts and local emergency COVID-19 response. The other $130 million will be moved from the Police Department budget into two transitional funds aimed at moving certain services out from under the umbrella of the police department, including support services, recruiting and traffic enforcement.
|
Our ruling Bush shared a video to his Twitter account purporting to show damage to state-owned vehicles parked at a garage in downtown Austin on the same night the City Council voted to cut funding from the Austin Police Department. While we don't know for certain when the video was taken, we do know that the damage was discovered by state law enforcement officers at five days before the vote on cuts to the police budget. Plus, Bush's attempt to connect the damage with the Police Department is misleading, as the parking garage is not within the Austin Police Department's jurisdiction. The Texas Department of Public Safety discovered the damage and is conducting an investigation. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"110208-proof-49-264a975abc98eb1669a05d8ba159f1a8.jpg"
] |
A map shows 'all the cargo ships backed up by the Suez Canal. Get ready for shortages and prices to skyrocket.
|
Contradiction
|
The giant freighter Ever Given has been freed after six days, and other cargo ships are finally moving through the Suez Canal. But the impact of the maritime traffic jam will be felt for a while, says a Facebook post shared on March 29, the day the ship was refloated. The post shows a map of a body of water around the Arabian Peninsula and a dense cluster of triangles, circles and other shapes representing ships apparently bottlenecked in one area. The Facebook caption reads: 'These are all the cargo ships backed up by the Suez canal. Get ready for shortages and prices to skyrocket.' The problem with the image: The water in the map isn't the Suez Canal. 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 took out our own maps to figure out what the Facebook post was showing, and found that the cluster of ships it depicted was at least a thousand miles away. The Suez Canal is located in Egypt, and it connects the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. It's used heavily as a quick shipping route for cargo ships traveling between Europe and Asia. The map in the Facebook post shows bodies of water flowing from the Arabian Sea. At the top of the map, between Iran and Saudi Arabia, is the Persian Gulf, and to the south is the Gulf of Aden, between Yemen, Djibouti and Eritrea. Both areas carry a lot of shipping traffic, but the backup from the Suez Canal didn't stretch to the Persian Gulf. The posted map was originally created by Marine Traffic, a provider of ship tracking and maritime intelligence. Georgios Hatzimanolis, media strategist for Marine Traffic, clarified that the map in the Facebook post shows normal traffic in the area, not unusual congestion. Hatzimanolis also explained what the colored shapes mean: green for cargo ships, red for tankers, and blue for passenger ships. As for the second half of the Facebook post, will we see product shortages and skyrocketing prices because of the delays at the Suez Canal? No, says Gary Hufbauer, nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'The claim that 'prices will skyrocket' is a HUGE exaggeration,' Hufbauer said in an email. 'I don't think any price surge will be noted in the U.S., and only small blips in Europe at most.' Hufbauer explained that this is because most U.S. imports from Asia come across the Pacific to the West Coast, or through the Panama Canal to the East Coast. A report from Forbes backs this up, saying that trade with the U.S. will be minimally affected. Additional reports cite a study from analytics companies Dun & Bradstreet and E2open, which says that while industries in the U.S. will be affected, Western Europe will be the region that's hardest hit.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post showing a map of maritime traffic says, 'These are all the cargo ships backed up by the Suez Canal. Get ready for shortages and prices to skyrocket.' The map doesn't show the Suez Canal. It shows normal traffic in a different area, around the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Aden. Experts say the impact of the six-day blockage of the Suez Canal will be minimal in the U.S. We rate this post False.
|
[] |
A map shows 'all the cargo ships backed up by the Suez Canal. Get ready for shortages and prices to skyrocket.
|
Contradiction
|
The giant freighter Ever Given has been freed after six days, and other cargo ships are finally moving through the Suez Canal. But the impact of the maritime traffic jam will be felt for a while, says a Facebook post shared on March 29, the day the ship was refloated. The post shows a map of a body of water around the Arabian Peninsula and a dense cluster of triangles, circles and other shapes representing ships apparently bottlenecked in one area. The Facebook caption reads: 'These are all the cargo ships backed up by the Suez canal. Get ready for shortages and prices to skyrocket.' The problem with the image: The water in the map isn't the Suez Canal. 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 took out our own maps to figure out what the Facebook post was showing, and found that the cluster of ships it depicted was at least a thousand miles away. The Suez Canal is located in Egypt, and it connects the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. It's used heavily as a quick shipping route for cargo ships traveling between Europe and Asia. The map in the Facebook post shows bodies of water flowing from the Arabian Sea. At the top of the map, between Iran and Saudi Arabia, is the Persian Gulf, and to the south is the Gulf of Aden, between Yemen, Djibouti and Eritrea. Both areas carry a lot of shipping traffic, but the backup from the Suez Canal didn't stretch to the Persian Gulf. The posted map was originally created by Marine Traffic, a provider of ship tracking and maritime intelligence. Georgios Hatzimanolis, media strategist for Marine Traffic, clarified that the map in the Facebook post shows normal traffic in the area, not unusual congestion. Hatzimanolis also explained what the colored shapes mean: green for cargo ships, red for tankers, and blue for passenger ships. As for the second half of the Facebook post, will we see product shortages and skyrocketing prices because of the delays at the Suez Canal? No, says Gary Hufbauer, nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'The claim that 'prices will skyrocket' is a HUGE exaggeration,' Hufbauer said in an email. 'I don't think any price surge will be noted in the U.S., and only small blips in Europe at most.' Hufbauer explained that this is because most U.S. imports from Asia come across the Pacific to the West Coast, or through the Panama Canal to the East Coast. A report from Forbes backs this up, saying that trade with the U.S. will be minimally affected. Additional reports cite a study from analytics companies Dun & Bradstreet and E2open, which says that while industries in the U.S. will be affected, Western Europe will be the region that's hardest hit.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post showing a map of maritime traffic says, 'These are all the cargo ships backed up by the Suez Canal. Get ready for shortages and prices to skyrocket.' The map doesn't show the Suez Canal. It shows normal traffic in a different area, around the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Aden. Experts say the impact of the six-day blockage of the Suez Canal will be minimal in the U.S. We rate this post False.
|
[] |
Says Kate Spade worked with the Clintons and suggests they were involved in her death.
|
Contradiction
|
Another Clinton family conspiracy theory has surfaced on Facebook - this time involving the late designer Kate Spade. The post, along with many others we have fact-checked, relies on the debunked theory that the family routinely murders people who have damaging information about them. Spade was found dead in her apartment in June 2018 of an apparent suicide. The post displays a black-and-white photo of Spade and reads: 'Kate Spade. A famous designer who had worked with the Clinton Foundation in the 'No Ceilings Initiative' and did work in Haiti for Hillary. She was found hung up in her apartment by a red scarf on June 5, 2018. Her husband posted multiple strange photos of her before her death.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It's true that Spade's brand, Kate Spade New York, was involved in two Clinton Foundation projects, but the company was one of several participating brands, and Spade was not personally involved. The Clinton Foundation's No Ceilings project was an initiative that sought to advance the 'full participation of girls and women around the world.' Kate Spade New York participated in the project's 2015 International Women's Day event 'Not There,' which was aimed to raise awareness that women are 'not there' yet on issues of gender equality. Her brand - along with West Elm, Holt Renfrew, Kenneth Cole and others - sent representatives on a Clinton Foundation-led trip to Haiti in 2016 to 'introduce them to potential investment and sourcing opportunities, and to develop new partnerships with Haitian business owners,' a news release said. Spade's brand was one of at least 24 listed participants in the No Ceilings event, and one of several in the Haiti trip. Meanwhile, the designer hadn't been personally involved in the company since selling her remaining stake to Neiman Marcus for $59 million in 2006. We couldn't find the 'multiple strange photos' that the post says her husband, Andy Spade, allegedly took of her before her death. We were also unable to find any mention of the photos in the thoroughly covered news of her death. The New York City Medical Examiner's office confirmed that Spade's death was a suicide. It's a far reach to suggest that her brand's participation in events a decade after she sold the company is evidence that the Clintons were involved in her suicide years later. We rate this False.
|
We rate this False.
|
[] |
Says Kate Spade worked with the Clintons and suggests they were involved in her death.
|
Contradiction
|
Another Clinton family conspiracy theory has surfaced on Facebook - this time involving the late designer Kate Spade. The post, along with many others we have fact-checked, relies on the debunked theory that the family routinely murders people who have damaging information about them. Spade was found dead in her apartment in June 2018 of an apparent suicide. The post displays a black-and-white photo of Spade and reads: 'Kate Spade. A famous designer who had worked with the Clinton Foundation in the 'No Ceilings Initiative' and did work in Haiti for Hillary. She was found hung up in her apartment by a red scarf on June 5, 2018. Her husband posted multiple strange photos of her before her death.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It's true that Spade's brand, Kate Spade New York, was involved in two Clinton Foundation projects, but the company was one of several participating brands, and Spade was not personally involved. The Clinton Foundation's No Ceilings project was an initiative that sought to advance the 'full participation of girls and women around the world.' Kate Spade New York participated in the project's 2015 International Women's Day event 'Not There,' which was aimed to raise awareness that women are 'not there' yet on issues of gender equality. Her brand - along with West Elm, Holt Renfrew, Kenneth Cole and others - sent representatives on a Clinton Foundation-led trip to Haiti in 2016 to 'introduce them to potential investment and sourcing opportunities, and to develop new partnerships with Haitian business owners,' a news release said. Spade's brand was one of at least 24 listed participants in the No Ceilings event, and one of several in the Haiti trip. Meanwhile, the designer hadn't been personally involved in the company since selling her remaining stake to Neiman Marcus for $59 million in 2006. We couldn't find the 'multiple strange photos' that the post says her husband, Andy Spade, allegedly took of her before her death. We were also unable to find any mention of the photos in the thoroughly covered news of her death. The New York City Medical Examiner's office confirmed that Spade's death was a suicide. It's a far reach to suggest that her brand's participation in events a decade after she sold the company is evidence that the Clintons were involved in her suicide years later. We rate this False.
|
We rate this False.
|
[] |
A White House photographer took a picture of Donald Trump at the White House on Oct. 24.
|
Contradiction
|
The title of a recent Facebook video offers some false hope for people who wrongly believe that former President Donald Trump is still in power. 'Trump photo at White House today!' it says. A woman who can be heard speaking during the more than 18-minute video explains. 'So this is a photographer for the White House and he took the photo yesterday on the 24th of October 2021 and his name is William Moon at the White House,' she says. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Here's what we know. On Oct. 25, a Twitter account called White House Photos - @photowhitehouse - posted a picture of Trump at what looks like the foot of the stairs of the South Lawn entrance to the White House. It appears to be night, with Trump standing under an awning, a prominent shadow thrown onto the stairs. 'Yesterday!' the account said. 'Photo: William Moon at the White House.' Some people replying to the tweet cheered, while others called it misinformation. A few questioned what the word 'yesterday' meant. Was it literal? We messaged the account to ask when and where the photo was taken but didn't hear back. The account's bio says: 'White House Correspondent, Journalist, Photographer, Poet and Pesco Vegetarian' and 'Copyright William Moon.' It is not an official White House Twitter account. Moon drew attention in 2020 for another South Lawn photo of Trump walking toward the Oval Office. He was not an official White House photographer, just credentialed to take pictures there, the Washington Post reported at the time. According to the Post, Moon wouldn't say who has employed him since he started taking pictures at the White House, and when he was pressed for information about himself and his work, he wrote back: 'You ask too much personal things.' We don't know if Moon still has White House media credentials. The White House didn't respond to our questions about this post. Neither did Trump. RELATED We also couldn't find any other instances of this photo being posted online. But there's plenty of reason to doubt that the photo was taken on Oct. 24. First, what Trump says and does is closely followed in the media, and there are no news reports of him making a White House appearance in range of a photographer's camera. Second, while we didn't find the exact photo posted on Twitter on Oct. 25, we found several that are similar, including one shot for Reuters by photographer Mary Calvert on Dec. 14, 2019. That photo shows Trump wearing a long winter coat, and the photo posted on Twitter shows him wearing a similar coat, even though Oct. 24 was a temperate day with highs in the low 70s. Third, on Oct. 20 the White House Photos account posted another photo of a former president - Barack Obama. 'Yesterday!' the account tweeted. But, of course, the picture wasn't taken on Oct. 19. It was taken in October 2015, when then-President Obama held a press conference with the president of South Korea. We rate claims that this photo of Trump was taken this week False.
|
We rate claims that this photo of Trump was taken this week False.
|
[] |
A White House photographer took a picture of Donald Trump at the White House on Oct. 24.
|
Contradiction
|
The title of a recent Facebook video offers some false hope for people who wrongly believe that former President Donald Trump is still in power. 'Trump photo at White House today!' it says. A woman who can be heard speaking during the more than 18-minute video explains. 'So this is a photographer for the White House and he took the photo yesterday on the 24th of October 2021 and his name is William Moon at the White House,' she says. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Here's what we know. On Oct. 25, a Twitter account called White House Photos - @photowhitehouse - posted a picture of Trump at what looks like the foot of the stairs of the South Lawn entrance to the White House. It appears to be night, with Trump standing under an awning, a prominent shadow thrown onto the stairs. 'Yesterday!' the account said. 'Photo: William Moon at the White House.' Some people replying to the tweet cheered, while others called it misinformation. A few questioned what the word 'yesterday' meant. Was it literal? We messaged the account to ask when and where the photo was taken but didn't hear back. The account's bio says: 'White House Correspondent, Journalist, Photographer, Poet and Pesco Vegetarian' and 'Copyright William Moon.' It is not an official White House Twitter account. Moon drew attention in 2020 for another South Lawn photo of Trump walking toward the Oval Office. He was not an official White House photographer, just credentialed to take pictures there, the Washington Post reported at the time. According to the Post, Moon wouldn't say who has employed him since he started taking pictures at the White House, and when he was pressed for information about himself and his work, he wrote back: 'You ask too much personal things.' We don't know if Moon still has White House media credentials. The White House didn't respond to our questions about this post. Neither did Trump. RELATED We also couldn't find any other instances of this photo being posted online. But there's plenty of reason to doubt that the photo was taken on Oct. 24. First, what Trump says and does is closely followed in the media, and there are no news reports of him making a White House appearance in range of a photographer's camera. Second, while we didn't find the exact photo posted on Twitter on Oct. 25, we found several that are similar, including one shot for Reuters by photographer Mary Calvert on Dec. 14, 2019. That photo shows Trump wearing a long winter coat, and the photo posted on Twitter shows him wearing a similar coat, even though Oct. 24 was a temperate day with highs in the low 70s. Third, on Oct. 20 the White House Photos account posted another photo of a former president - Barack Obama. 'Yesterday!' the account tweeted. But, of course, the picture wasn't taken on Oct. 19. It was taken in October 2015, when then-President Obama held a press conference with the president of South Korea. We rate claims that this photo of Trump was taken this week False.
|
We rate claims that this photo of Trump was taken this week False.
|
[] |
Says Raz Simone 'conquered' part of Seattle, handed out guns to form a paramilitary force that murdered three people, robbed the locals and walked away without being questioned.
|
Contradiction
|
Last year's Capitol Hill Organized Protest in Seattle was not as organized as its name implied. Alternately called the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest and the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, the protest area that became known as CHOP did not have a clear structure or leader, making it easy for social media claims to fill in the gaps with falsehoods. One such viral Facebook post has a photo of a man with the words, 'Remember me? I conquered part of Seattle, handed out guns to form a paramilitary force that murdered three people including a child, robbed the locals, and I walked away without being questioned.' The man pictured is not identified in the post, but it is rapper Raz Simone, who is mentioned by name in the comments. The post concludes with, 'Remember me when they criticize Kyle Rittenhouse,' referring to the Wisconsin teenager who was on trial for shooting three people, two of them fatally, during 2020 protests in Kenosha, Wis. 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 oversimplifies what happened in Seattle's police-free protest zone and overstates Simone's role there. No single person 'conquered' the area known as CHOP; it emerged after police vacated a police precinct and allowed protesters free rein for more than three weeks. And while Simone was shown on video giving out a gun, we did not find evidence linking that gun to fatal shootings that occurred later. We also did not find evidence that a paramilitary force carried out the two fatal shootings, one of which was between two people who had been feuding since 2019. Finally, we did not find evidence that Simone robbed locals. A peaceful turn, then a violent turn The multi-block zone known as CHOP was established in the aftermath of nationwide protests that followed the death of George Floyd. The Seattle protests centered on the police department's East Precinct, which became a kind of battleground between police - who erected barricades and used tear gas, flashbangs and pepper spray on the crowds - and protesters, who wore riot gear and threw projectiles at officers. On June 8, 2020, police boarded up the precinct and left the area, and protesters used the police barriers to create the CHOP zone. Protestors had several demands, including defunding police and reinvesting funds in community programs. Initially, the area seemed peaceful, with a community garden, food booths and documentary screenings. On June 20, though, one man was killed in a shooting just outside the CHOP zone, and police said the crowd denied them entry to the area. Then on June 29, two teenagers were shot, one fatally, which prompted the city to shut down CHOP a few days later, The Seattle Times reported. The role of Simone in CHOP depended on who was describing it. CNN referred to him as the 'de facto' leader of the area, but other media outlets were less definitive. A PolitiFact check of a different claim called him a regular figure at the protests, The Seattle Times called him 'a frequent presence at CHOP,' and a KOMO TV reporter said, 'Some have told me (he) is one of the leaders in what many said is a 'leaderless' group of protesters.' Conservative national media outlets, meanwhile, referred to him as a warlord. The claim says Simone handed out guns to form a paramilitary force that murdered three people, but there's little evidence for that description of events. Snopes checked a claim that Simone gave a semi-automatic weapon to a fellow protester and rated it true. In a video posted June 9, 2020, on Simone's Facebook page, he can be seen at the 2:08 mark removing a gun from the trunk of his Tesla and giving it to someone he does not appear to know. Some of the protesters served as armed guards within CHOP, and Washington state allows the open carry of guns. It's not clear whether Simone's transfer of the gun was legal. However, we did not find evidence to support the claim that the gun Simone gave out was linked to shootings that occured in and near CHOP, or that a paramilitary force carried out the shootings. No news reports corroborate any of those details, and police have not said that. The first shooting, on June 20, involved two people who had a history of fighting. Marcel Long was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Horace Anderson. Footage of a 2019 fight between them was posted on YouTube, The Seattle Times reported. The second shooting happened on June 29, and no arrests have been made or suspects named publicly. But no news reports indicate that a paramilitary was suspected of being involved. There are also no news reports about Simone robbing locals, as the claim says, and he has not been arrested or charged with any crimes related to CHOP. This year, however, two women accused Simone of abuse and coercion, with one saying Simone forced her to strip for money that he took and the other accusing him of pushing her into prostitution. He has not been charged with a crime in connection with those allegations, but one of the women sought and was granted a court order of protection against him.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says Raz Simone 'conquered' part of Seattle, handed out guns to form a paramilitary force that murdered three people, robbed the locals and walked away without being questioned. Simone did not 'conquer' the area known as CHOP. It was established after police vacated a police precinct and allowed protesters free rein. Simone was shown on video giving out a gun, but neither news reports nor police have linked that gun to fatal shootings that occurred later. Two people were fatally shot in or near CHOP, not three. One of the fatal shootings was between people who had been feuding since 2019. No arrests have been made in the other shooting, but no news reports indicate that a paramilitary was suspected of being involved. Simone has not been arrested or charged with robbery or any other crimes related to CHOP. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"110235-proof-26-a5940d063967bbda7d3537790844dfc4.jpeg"
] |
Says Raz Simone 'conquered' part of Seattle, handed out guns to form a paramilitary force that murdered three people, robbed the locals and walked away without being questioned.
|
Contradiction
|
Last year's Capitol Hill Organized Protest in Seattle was not as organized as its name implied. Alternately called the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest and the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, the protest area that became known as CHOP did not have a clear structure or leader, making it easy for social media claims to fill in the gaps with falsehoods. One such viral Facebook post has a photo of a man with the words, 'Remember me? I conquered part of Seattle, handed out guns to form a paramilitary force that murdered three people including a child, robbed the locals, and I walked away without being questioned.' The man pictured is not identified in the post, but it is rapper Raz Simone, who is mentioned by name in the comments. The post concludes with, 'Remember me when they criticize Kyle Rittenhouse,' referring to the Wisconsin teenager who was on trial for shooting three people, two of them fatally, during 2020 protests in Kenosha, Wis. 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 oversimplifies what happened in Seattle's police-free protest zone and overstates Simone's role there. No single person 'conquered' the area known as CHOP; it emerged after police vacated a police precinct and allowed protesters free rein for more than three weeks. And while Simone was shown on video giving out a gun, we did not find evidence linking that gun to fatal shootings that occurred later. We also did not find evidence that a paramilitary force carried out the two fatal shootings, one of which was between two people who had been feuding since 2019. Finally, we did not find evidence that Simone robbed locals. A peaceful turn, then a violent turn The multi-block zone known as CHOP was established in the aftermath of nationwide protests that followed the death of George Floyd. The Seattle protests centered on the police department's East Precinct, which became a kind of battleground between police - who erected barricades and used tear gas, flashbangs and pepper spray on the crowds - and protesters, who wore riot gear and threw projectiles at officers. On June 8, 2020, police boarded up the precinct and left the area, and protesters used the police barriers to create the CHOP zone. Protestors had several demands, including defunding police and reinvesting funds in community programs. Initially, the area seemed peaceful, with a community garden, food booths and documentary screenings. On June 20, though, one man was killed in a shooting just outside the CHOP zone, and police said the crowd denied them entry to the area. Then on June 29, two teenagers were shot, one fatally, which prompted the city to shut down CHOP a few days later, The Seattle Times reported. The role of Simone in CHOP depended on who was describing it. CNN referred to him as the 'de facto' leader of the area, but other media outlets were less definitive. A PolitiFact check of a different claim called him a regular figure at the protests, The Seattle Times called him 'a frequent presence at CHOP,' and a KOMO TV reporter said, 'Some have told me (he) is one of the leaders in what many said is a 'leaderless' group of protesters.' Conservative national media outlets, meanwhile, referred to him as a warlord. The claim says Simone handed out guns to form a paramilitary force that murdered three people, but there's little evidence for that description of events. Snopes checked a claim that Simone gave a semi-automatic weapon to a fellow protester and rated it true. In a video posted June 9, 2020, on Simone's Facebook page, he can be seen at the 2:08 mark removing a gun from the trunk of his Tesla and giving it to someone he does not appear to know. Some of the protesters served as armed guards within CHOP, and Washington state allows the open carry of guns. It's not clear whether Simone's transfer of the gun was legal. However, we did not find evidence to support the claim that the gun Simone gave out was linked to shootings that occured in and near CHOP, or that a paramilitary force carried out the shootings. No news reports corroborate any of those details, and police have not said that. The first shooting, on June 20, involved two people who had a history of fighting. Marcel Long was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Horace Anderson. Footage of a 2019 fight between them was posted on YouTube, The Seattle Times reported. The second shooting happened on June 29, and no arrests have been made or suspects named publicly. But no news reports indicate that a paramilitary was suspected of being involved. There are also no news reports about Simone robbing locals, as the claim says, and he has not been arrested or charged with any crimes related to CHOP. This year, however, two women accused Simone of abuse and coercion, with one saying Simone forced her to strip for money that he took and the other accusing him of pushing her into prostitution. He has not been charged with a crime in connection with those allegations, but one of the women sought and was granted a court order of protection against him.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says Raz Simone 'conquered' part of Seattle, handed out guns to form a paramilitary force that murdered three people, robbed the locals and walked away without being questioned. Simone did not 'conquer' the area known as CHOP. It was established after police vacated a police precinct and allowed protesters free rein. Simone was shown on video giving out a gun, but neither news reports nor police have linked that gun to fatal shootings that occurred later. Two people were fatally shot in or near CHOP, not three. One of the fatal shootings was between people who had been feuding since 2019. No arrests have been made in the other shooting, but no news reports indicate that a paramilitary was suspected of being involved. Simone has not been arrested or charged with robbery or any other crimes related to CHOP. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"110235-proof-26-a5940d063967bbda7d3537790844dfc4.jpeg"
] |
Says Raz Simone 'conquered' part of Seattle, handed out guns to form a paramilitary force that murdered three people, robbed the locals and walked away without being questioned.
|
Contradiction
|
Last year's Capitol Hill Organized Protest in Seattle was not as organized as its name implied. Alternately called the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest and the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, the protest area that became known as CHOP did not have a clear structure or leader, making it easy for social media claims to fill in the gaps with falsehoods. One such viral Facebook post has a photo of a man with the words, 'Remember me? I conquered part of Seattle, handed out guns to form a paramilitary force that murdered three people including a child, robbed the locals, and I walked away without being questioned.' The man pictured is not identified in the post, but it is rapper Raz Simone, who is mentioned by name in the comments. The post concludes with, 'Remember me when they criticize Kyle Rittenhouse,' referring to the Wisconsin teenager who was on trial for shooting three people, two of them fatally, during 2020 protests in Kenosha, Wis. 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 oversimplifies what happened in Seattle's police-free protest zone and overstates Simone's role there. No single person 'conquered' the area known as CHOP; it emerged after police vacated a police precinct and allowed protesters free rein for more than three weeks. And while Simone was shown on video giving out a gun, we did not find evidence linking that gun to fatal shootings that occurred later. We also did not find evidence that a paramilitary force carried out the two fatal shootings, one of which was between two people who had been feuding since 2019. Finally, we did not find evidence that Simone robbed locals. A peaceful turn, then a violent turn The multi-block zone known as CHOP was established in the aftermath of nationwide protests that followed the death of George Floyd. The Seattle protests centered on the police department's East Precinct, which became a kind of battleground between police - who erected barricades and used tear gas, flashbangs and pepper spray on the crowds - and protesters, who wore riot gear and threw projectiles at officers. On June 8, 2020, police boarded up the precinct and left the area, and protesters used the police barriers to create the CHOP zone. Protestors had several demands, including defunding police and reinvesting funds in community programs. Initially, the area seemed peaceful, with a community garden, food booths and documentary screenings. On June 20, though, one man was killed in a shooting just outside the CHOP zone, and police said the crowd denied them entry to the area. Then on June 29, two teenagers were shot, one fatally, which prompted the city to shut down CHOP a few days later, The Seattle Times reported. The role of Simone in CHOP depended on who was describing it. CNN referred to him as the 'de facto' leader of the area, but other media outlets were less definitive. A PolitiFact check of a different claim called him a regular figure at the protests, The Seattle Times called him 'a frequent presence at CHOP,' and a KOMO TV reporter said, 'Some have told me (he) is one of the leaders in what many said is a 'leaderless' group of protesters.' Conservative national media outlets, meanwhile, referred to him as a warlord. The claim says Simone handed out guns to form a paramilitary force that murdered three people, but there's little evidence for that description of events. Snopes checked a claim that Simone gave a semi-automatic weapon to a fellow protester and rated it true. In a video posted June 9, 2020, on Simone's Facebook page, he can be seen at the 2:08 mark removing a gun from the trunk of his Tesla and giving it to someone he does not appear to know. Some of the protesters served as armed guards within CHOP, and Washington state allows the open carry of guns. It's not clear whether Simone's transfer of the gun was legal. However, we did not find evidence to support the claim that the gun Simone gave out was linked to shootings that occured in and near CHOP, or that a paramilitary force carried out the shootings. No news reports corroborate any of those details, and police have not said that. The first shooting, on June 20, involved two people who had a history of fighting. Marcel Long was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Horace Anderson. Footage of a 2019 fight between them was posted on YouTube, The Seattle Times reported. The second shooting happened on June 29, and no arrests have been made or suspects named publicly. But no news reports indicate that a paramilitary was suspected of being involved. There are also no news reports about Simone robbing locals, as the claim says, and he has not been arrested or charged with any crimes related to CHOP. This year, however, two women accused Simone of abuse and coercion, with one saying Simone forced her to strip for money that he took and the other accusing him of pushing her into prostitution. He has not been charged with a crime in connection with those allegations, but one of the women sought and was granted a court order of protection against him.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says Raz Simone 'conquered' part of Seattle, handed out guns to form a paramilitary force that murdered three people, robbed the locals and walked away without being questioned. Simone did not 'conquer' the area known as CHOP. It was established after police vacated a police precinct and allowed protesters free rein. Simone was shown on video giving out a gun, but neither news reports nor police have linked that gun to fatal shootings that occurred later. Two people were fatally shot in or near CHOP, not three. One of the fatal shootings was between people who had been feuding since 2019. No arrests have been made in the other shooting, but no news reports indicate that a paramilitary was suspected of being involved. Simone has not been arrested or charged with robbery or any other crimes related to CHOP. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"110235-proof-26-a5940d063967bbda7d3537790844dfc4.jpeg"
] |
Says if you take the oath of office on the Koran, 'then you have committed treason.
|
Contradiction
|
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Muslim American Democrat from Minnesota, was sworn into the House of Representatives on Jan. 3, 2019, using the Quran that belonged to her grandfather. A couple weeks later, a Facebook post claimed that she and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D.-Mich. - who also used a Koran during her swearing-in ceremony - broke the law by doing so. 'Let me say about the QURAN, if you take the Oath of Office on a book recognizing Sharia Law swearing to defend honor and uphold the United States Constitution, then you have committed treason,' reads the text accompanying a photo of Omar during her swearing-in. 'For Sharia Law is a direct violation and conflict of the United States Constitutional Law.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because the Facebook post is wrong. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says that U.S. senators and representatives, among others, 'shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.' Representatives usually take an oath - swearing to support and defend the Constitution - on the first day of a new Congress. First, they take the oath as a group together. Around the 2:50 mark here you can watch House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited the new members of the 116th Congress rise and raise their right hands. She reads the oath, asking if they swear to support and defend the Constitution, and after they all together say 'I do,' she congratulates them. Ceremonial swearing-ins follow, during which members can take the oath with their hand on a religious text and be photographed with the speaker. Historically, most members of Congress have sworn the oath on a copy of the Bible, but the Constitution doesn't require it and, as the since-shuttered magazine Pacific Standard reported, the 116th Congress in 2019 was the most diverse Congress ever. More than 12 religious and non-religious texts were used during swearing-in ceremonies. 'Though oaths are indeed religious in origin,' the Pacific Standard story says, 'the Constitution makes clear that the oath can be replaced with an 'Affirmation,' which substitutes the religious language (the 'I swear' and 'So help me God') with secular affirmation (for example: 'I affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth').' In 2007, then-Rep.-elect Keith Ellison used former President Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran for his swearing-in ceremony, drawing complaints from conservative Christians who claimed only a Bible could be used for the oath of office. But back in 1825, former President John Quincy Adams swore his oath on a law book. In 2013, U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, a Hindu, swore on a copy of the Bhagavad Gita. The photos showing Ellison, Tlaib and Omar with their hands on Qurans are from ceremonial events, re-enacting their swearing-in. 'That's when you'll see a hand on a religious text,' Fred Beuttler, then the deputy historian of the House, told ABC in 2006. 'But that's an informal ceremony for the members or the members' own purposes. It's not the official swearing-in ceremony of the House, when no religious text is used.' We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
'FEMA is paying for hotel rooms!!!' for Texas winter storm victims.
|
Contradiction
|
Blackouts that began Feb. 15 left millions of Texans without power and heat amid single-digit temperatures, huddling together in their dark and cold homes. The blackouts were caused as electric plants of all energy sources 'began tripping offline in rapid succession,' according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. On Feb. 17, a Facebook user who identifies himself as a Fort Worth resident on his profile, shared a post making this claim: 'FEMA IS PAYING FOR HOTEL ROOMS!!!' The post also said to call an 800 number that it listed. 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.) Within a day, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was knocking down such claims as bogus. We called the 800 number on the afternoon of Feb. 18. An automated message said the line is for the FEMA Internet Technical Help Desk, for help with online system or software problems. Then a recording from a human's voice said: 'FEMA is not currently providing assistance directly to individuals and families for the winter storm in Texas.' The Twitter account for FEMA Region 6, which includes Texas, tweeted on Feb. 18: 'There is a false phone number being shared with a message about FEMA paying for hotels for Texas Disaster Relief. This is a scam. The best information on legitimate sources of help in your area will come from local officials & @TDEM,' which is the Texas Department of Emergency Management. The tweet said FEMA is providing Texas with generators and fuel to help facilities such as hospitals, as well as water and blankets. A FEMA spokesperson also confirmed by email that the post we're checking is false. The Texas Division of Emergency Management retweeted FEMA's warning about the scam. Carman Apple, a district coordinator with the Texas agency, said in an email: 'We have been made aware of a false claim and phone number being circulated with a message about FEMA paying for hotels for Texas disaster relief in response to the February winter storms. We echo our partners at FEMA in saying that 'This is a scam.' The best information on legitimate sources of help in your area will come from local officials and TDEM.' We rate the post False.
|
We rate the post False.
|
[
"110280-proof-00-6427bc068d4c6a4dc46cae9561cfe276.jpg"
] |
'Actually, I won Wisconsin.'
|
Contradiction
|
In his first major appearance since the presidential election, President Donald Trump was the main attraction at a Dec. 5, 2020 rally in Valdosta, Ga., where he hoped to boost the campaigns of Republican U.S. Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. The pair are competing against Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, respectively, to keep their seats in the Jan. 5 runoff that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate. Loeffler and Perdue, however, were not the primary focus of the president's speech. Instead, Trump turned to a broken-record of wrong and baseless claims, arguing there had been massive fraud and he had actually won the election, defeating Democrat Joe Biden. He and his lawyers have been aggressively pulling every lever, from recounts to lawsuits to public pressure, to undo the results of the election. Naturally, Trump turned to Wisconsin, one of the state's that narrowly swung to Biden. 'A poll came out ... Washington Post, ABC, just before the election,' Trump told the crowd. '(It said) I'm going to lose Wisconsin by 17 points. I said 'No, I'm going to win Wisconsin.' 'Actually, I won Wisconsin.' Actually, Trump didn't. He lost Wisconsin. Let's dig in. Wisconsin results On Nov. 4, 2020, the morning after Election Day, the Associated Press declared Biden the winner in Wisconsin. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported unofficial results showed Biden with a lead of about 20,000 votes -- and that the Trump campaign was already vowing to request a recount. When it did request the recount, Trump's team focused only on heavily Democratic Dane and Milwaukee counties. But, by the time the recount was over, Trump actually fell further behind. Biden netted 132 votes in Milwaukee County and Trump netted 45 votes in Dane County. Taken together, that increased Biden's statewide margin to 20,695 votes out of about 3 million cast, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on Nov. 29, 2020. (A day later, the figures were revised: Trump's pickup was 58 in Dane (instead of 45), and the final margin was 20,682. The overall net pickup for Biden in the two recounts became 74 (instead of 87 as initially reported). Having failed, the Trump campaign turned to the court system. But on Dec. 3, 2020, in a 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court rejected the campaign's request to overturn the certification of votes. Instead, the court said Trump's campaign had to start at the circuit court level. It was a major setback, with even dissenting judges indicating they may reject the call to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots. A day later, the court said it would not accept a lawsuit by Trump allies who wanted to let Republican lawmakers decide how to cast the state's electoral votes, rather than the electors chosen by voters in the election. Meanwhile, the campaign also went to the federal court, where U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig questioned whether the case should even be before him, calling part of the lawsuit's requested remedy 'really bizarre' and told an attorney for the Trump campaign it was seeking 'pretty remarkable declaratory relief.' Ludwig has scheduled a hearing for Dec. 10. In any case, for our purposes here, the main thing that matters is the results themselves. On Nov. 30, the recounted totals were certified by the chair of the state elections board and Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. In a statement, Evers said: 'Today I carried out my duty to certify the November 3rd election, and as required by state and federal law, I've signed the Certificate of Ascertainment for the slate of electors for President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.' That sets in motion the Electoral College vote Dec. 14, which will involve 10 Democratic electors. It also means Biden -- not Trump -- won.
|
Our ruling At a Georgia rally, President Trump said 'Actually, I won Wisconsin.' There is a preponderance of evidence, including Election Day tallies and a partial recount, illustrating exactly the opposite -- that challenger Biden is the winner in Wisconsin. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to support the claim that Trump won Wisconsin. The claim, on its face, is ridiculous. Therefore, we rate it Pants on Fire.
|
[
"110281-proof-38-8b5910c23f09868e22122982e4060241.jpeg"
] |
'Actually, I won Wisconsin.'
|
Contradiction
|
In his first major appearance since the presidential election, President Donald Trump was the main attraction at a Dec. 5, 2020 rally in Valdosta, Ga., where he hoped to boost the campaigns of Republican U.S. Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. The pair are competing against Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, respectively, to keep their seats in the Jan. 5 runoff that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate. Loeffler and Perdue, however, were not the primary focus of the president's speech. Instead, Trump turned to a broken-record of wrong and baseless claims, arguing there had been massive fraud and he had actually won the election, defeating Democrat Joe Biden. He and his lawyers have been aggressively pulling every lever, from recounts to lawsuits to public pressure, to undo the results of the election. Naturally, Trump turned to Wisconsin, one of the state's that narrowly swung to Biden. 'A poll came out ... Washington Post, ABC, just before the election,' Trump told the crowd. '(It said) I'm going to lose Wisconsin by 17 points. I said 'No, I'm going to win Wisconsin.' 'Actually, I won Wisconsin.' Actually, Trump didn't. He lost Wisconsin. Let's dig in. Wisconsin results On Nov. 4, 2020, the morning after Election Day, the Associated Press declared Biden the winner in Wisconsin. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported unofficial results showed Biden with a lead of about 20,000 votes -- and that the Trump campaign was already vowing to request a recount. When it did request the recount, Trump's team focused only on heavily Democratic Dane and Milwaukee counties. But, by the time the recount was over, Trump actually fell further behind. Biden netted 132 votes in Milwaukee County and Trump netted 45 votes in Dane County. Taken together, that increased Biden's statewide margin to 20,695 votes out of about 3 million cast, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on Nov. 29, 2020. (A day later, the figures were revised: Trump's pickup was 58 in Dane (instead of 45), and the final margin was 20,682. The overall net pickup for Biden in the two recounts became 74 (instead of 87 as initially reported). Having failed, the Trump campaign turned to the court system. But on Dec. 3, 2020, in a 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court rejected the campaign's request to overturn the certification of votes. Instead, the court said Trump's campaign had to start at the circuit court level. It was a major setback, with even dissenting judges indicating they may reject the call to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots. A day later, the court said it would not accept a lawsuit by Trump allies who wanted to let Republican lawmakers decide how to cast the state's electoral votes, rather than the electors chosen by voters in the election. Meanwhile, the campaign also went to the federal court, where U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig questioned whether the case should even be before him, calling part of the lawsuit's requested remedy 'really bizarre' and told an attorney for the Trump campaign it was seeking 'pretty remarkable declaratory relief.' Ludwig has scheduled a hearing for Dec. 10. In any case, for our purposes here, the main thing that matters is the results themselves. On Nov. 30, the recounted totals were certified by the chair of the state elections board and Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. In a statement, Evers said: 'Today I carried out my duty to certify the November 3rd election, and as required by state and federal law, I've signed the Certificate of Ascertainment for the slate of electors for President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.' That sets in motion the Electoral College vote Dec. 14, which will involve 10 Democratic electors. It also means Biden -- not Trump -- won.
|
Our ruling At a Georgia rally, President Trump said 'Actually, I won Wisconsin.' There is a preponderance of evidence, including Election Day tallies and a partial recount, illustrating exactly the opposite -- that challenger Biden is the winner in Wisconsin. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to support the claim that Trump won Wisconsin. The claim, on its face, is ridiculous. Therefore, we rate it Pants on Fire.
|
[
"110281-proof-38-8b5910c23f09868e22122982e4060241.jpeg"
] |
'Actually, I won Wisconsin.'
|
Contradiction
|
In his first major appearance since the presidential election, President Donald Trump was the main attraction at a Dec. 5, 2020 rally in Valdosta, Ga., where he hoped to boost the campaigns of Republican U.S. Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. The pair are competing against Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, respectively, to keep their seats in the Jan. 5 runoff that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate. Loeffler and Perdue, however, were not the primary focus of the president's speech. Instead, Trump turned to a broken-record of wrong and baseless claims, arguing there had been massive fraud and he had actually won the election, defeating Democrat Joe Biden. He and his lawyers have been aggressively pulling every lever, from recounts to lawsuits to public pressure, to undo the results of the election. Naturally, Trump turned to Wisconsin, one of the state's that narrowly swung to Biden. 'A poll came out ... Washington Post, ABC, just before the election,' Trump told the crowd. '(It said) I'm going to lose Wisconsin by 17 points. I said 'No, I'm going to win Wisconsin.' 'Actually, I won Wisconsin.' Actually, Trump didn't. He lost Wisconsin. Let's dig in. Wisconsin results On Nov. 4, 2020, the morning after Election Day, the Associated Press declared Biden the winner in Wisconsin. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported unofficial results showed Biden with a lead of about 20,000 votes -- and that the Trump campaign was already vowing to request a recount. When it did request the recount, Trump's team focused only on heavily Democratic Dane and Milwaukee counties. But, by the time the recount was over, Trump actually fell further behind. Biden netted 132 votes in Milwaukee County and Trump netted 45 votes in Dane County. Taken together, that increased Biden's statewide margin to 20,695 votes out of about 3 million cast, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on Nov. 29, 2020. (A day later, the figures were revised: Trump's pickup was 58 in Dane (instead of 45), and the final margin was 20,682. The overall net pickup for Biden in the two recounts became 74 (instead of 87 as initially reported). Having failed, the Trump campaign turned to the court system. But on Dec. 3, 2020, in a 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court rejected the campaign's request to overturn the certification of votes. Instead, the court said Trump's campaign had to start at the circuit court level. It was a major setback, with even dissenting judges indicating they may reject the call to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots. A day later, the court said it would not accept a lawsuit by Trump allies who wanted to let Republican lawmakers decide how to cast the state's electoral votes, rather than the electors chosen by voters in the election. Meanwhile, the campaign also went to the federal court, where U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig questioned whether the case should even be before him, calling part of the lawsuit's requested remedy 'really bizarre' and told an attorney for the Trump campaign it was seeking 'pretty remarkable declaratory relief.' Ludwig has scheduled a hearing for Dec. 10. In any case, for our purposes here, the main thing that matters is the results themselves. On Nov. 30, the recounted totals were certified by the chair of the state elections board and Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. In a statement, Evers said: 'Today I carried out my duty to certify the November 3rd election, and as required by state and federal law, I've signed the Certificate of Ascertainment for the slate of electors for President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.' That sets in motion the Electoral College vote Dec. 14, which will involve 10 Democratic electors. It also means Biden -- not Trump -- won.
|
Our ruling At a Georgia rally, President Trump said 'Actually, I won Wisconsin.' There is a preponderance of evidence, including Election Day tallies and a partial recount, illustrating exactly the opposite -- that challenger Biden is the winner in Wisconsin. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to support the claim that Trump won Wisconsin. The claim, on its face, is ridiculous. Therefore, we rate it Pants on Fire.
|
[
"110281-proof-38-8b5910c23f09868e22122982e4060241.jpeg"
] |
'Actually, I won Wisconsin.'
|
Contradiction
|
In his first major appearance since the presidential election, President Donald Trump was the main attraction at a Dec. 5, 2020 rally in Valdosta, Ga., where he hoped to boost the campaigns of Republican U.S. Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. The pair are competing against Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, respectively, to keep their seats in the Jan. 5 runoff that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate. Loeffler and Perdue, however, were not the primary focus of the president's speech. Instead, Trump turned to a broken-record of wrong and baseless claims, arguing there had been massive fraud and he had actually won the election, defeating Democrat Joe Biden. He and his lawyers have been aggressively pulling every lever, from recounts to lawsuits to public pressure, to undo the results of the election. Naturally, Trump turned to Wisconsin, one of the state's that narrowly swung to Biden. 'A poll came out ... Washington Post, ABC, just before the election,' Trump told the crowd. '(It said) I'm going to lose Wisconsin by 17 points. I said 'No, I'm going to win Wisconsin.' 'Actually, I won Wisconsin.' Actually, Trump didn't. He lost Wisconsin. Let's dig in. Wisconsin results On Nov. 4, 2020, the morning after Election Day, the Associated Press declared Biden the winner in Wisconsin. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported unofficial results showed Biden with a lead of about 20,000 votes -- and that the Trump campaign was already vowing to request a recount. When it did request the recount, Trump's team focused only on heavily Democratic Dane and Milwaukee counties. But, by the time the recount was over, Trump actually fell further behind. Biden netted 132 votes in Milwaukee County and Trump netted 45 votes in Dane County. Taken together, that increased Biden's statewide margin to 20,695 votes out of about 3 million cast, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on Nov. 29, 2020. (A day later, the figures were revised: Trump's pickup was 58 in Dane (instead of 45), and the final margin was 20,682. The overall net pickup for Biden in the two recounts became 74 (instead of 87 as initially reported). Having failed, the Trump campaign turned to the court system. But on Dec. 3, 2020, in a 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court rejected the campaign's request to overturn the certification of votes. Instead, the court said Trump's campaign had to start at the circuit court level. It was a major setback, with even dissenting judges indicating they may reject the call to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots. A day later, the court said it would not accept a lawsuit by Trump allies who wanted to let Republican lawmakers decide how to cast the state's electoral votes, rather than the electors chosen by voters in the election. Meanwhile, the campaign also went to the federal court, where U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig questioned whether the case should even be before him, calling part of the lawsuit's requested remedy 'really bizarre' and told an attorney for the Trump campaign it was seeking 'pretty remarkable declaratory relief.' Ludwig has scheduled a hearing for Dec. 10. In any case, for our purposes here, the main thing that matters is the results themselves. On Nov. 30, the recounted totals were certified by the chair of the state elections board and Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. In a statement, Evers said: 'Today I carried out my duty to certify the November 3rd election, and as required by state and federal law, I've signed the Certificate of Ascertainment for the slate of electors for President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.' That sets in motion the Electoral College vote Dec. 14, which will involve 10 Democratic electors. It also means Biden -- not Trump -- won.
|
Our ruling At a Georgia rally, President Trump said 'Actually, I won Wisconsin.' There is a preponderance of evidence, including Election Day tallies and a partial recount, illustrating exactly the opposite -- that challenger Biden is the winner in Wisconsin. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to support the claim that Trump won Wisconsin. The claim, on its face, is ridiculous. Therefore, we rate it Pants on Fire.
|
[
"110281-proof-38-8b5910c23f09868e22122982e4060241.jpeg"
] |
'Actually, I won Wisconsin.'
|
Contradiction
|
In his first major appearance since the presidential election, President Donald Trump was the main attraction at a Dec. 5, 2020 rally in Valdosta, Ga., where he hoped to boost the campaigns of Republican U.S. Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. The pair are competing against Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, respectively, to keep their seats in the Jan. 5 runoff that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate. Loeffler and Perdue, however, were not the primary focus of the president's speech. Instead, Trump turned to a broken-record of wrong and baseless claims, arguing there had been massive fraud and he had actually won the election, defeating Democrat Joe Biden. He and his lawyers have been aggressively pulling every lever, from recounts to lawsuits to public pressure, to undo the results of the election. Naturally, Trump turned to Wisconsin, one of the state's that narrowly swung to Biden. 'A poll came out ... Washington Post, ABC, just before the election,' Trump told the crowd. '(It said) I'm going to lose Wisconsin by 17 points. I said 'No, I'm going to win Wisconsin.' 'Actually, I won Wisconsin.' Actually, Trump didn't. He lost Wisconsin. Let's dig in. Wisconsin results On Nov. 4, 2020, the morning after Election Day, the Associated Press declared Biden the winner in Wisconsin. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported unofficial results showed Biden with a lead of about 20,000 votes -- and that the Trump campaign was already vowing to request a recount. When it did request the recount, Trump's team focused only on heavily Democratic Dane and Milwaukee counties. But, by the time the recount was over, Trump actually fell further behind. Biden netted 132 votes in Milwaukee County and Trump netted 45 votes in Dane County. Taken together, that increased Biden's statewide margin to 20,695 votes out of about 3 million cast, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on Nov. 29, 2020. (A day later, the figures were revised: Trump's pickup was 58 in Dane (instead of 45), and the final margin was 20,682. The overall net pickup for Biden in the two recounts became 74 (instead of 87 as initially reported). Having failed, the Trump campaign turned to the court system. But on Dec. 3, 2020, in a 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court rejected the campaign's request to overturn the certification of votes. Instead, the court said Trump's campaign had to start at the circuit court level. It was a major setback, with even dissenting judges indicating they may reject the call to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots. A day later, the court said it would not accept a lawsuit by Trump allies who wanted to let Republican lawmakers decide how to cast the state's electoral votes, rather than the electors chosen by voters in the election. Meanwhile, the campaign also went to the federal court, where U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig questioned whether the case should even be before him, calling part of the lawsuit's requested remedy 'really bizarre' and told an attorney for the Trump campaign it was seeking 'pretty remarkable declaratory relief.' Ludwig has scheduled a hearing for Dec. 10. In any case, for our purposes here, the main thing that matters is the results themselves. On Nov. 30, the recounted totals were certified by the chair of the state elections board and Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat. In a statement, Evers said: 'Today I carried out my duty to certify the November 3rd election, and as required by state and federal law, I've signed the Certificate of Ascertainment for the slate of electors for President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.' That sets in motion the Electoral College vote Dec. 14, which will involve 10 Democratic electors. It also means Biden -- not Trump -- won.
|
Our ruling At a Georgia rally, President Trump said 'Actually, I won Wisconsin.' There is a preponderance of evidence, including Election Day tallies and a partial recount, illustrating exactly the opposite -- that challenger Biden is the winner in Wisconsin. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to support the claim that Trump won Wisconsin. The claim, on its face, is ridiculous. Therefore, we rate it Pants on Fire.
|
[
"110281-proof-38-8b5910c23f09868e22122982e4060241.jpeg"
] |
Facebook is changing its hate speech policy to ban 'Let's go Brandon.
|
Contradiction
|
As an NBC Sports reporter recently interviewed NASCAR driver Brandon Brown, she noted that the crowd could be heard chanting, 'Let's go, Brandon!' In reality, those NASCAR fans were booing the president: 'F--- Joe Biden.' A new anti-Biden slogan was born. Not far behind were claims that governments and social media companies are trying to censor the phrase. We've already debunked a claim that the Canadian government threatened to fire any employee who used 'Let's go Brandon' in communications. Now some social media users are claiming that Facebook is going to change its hate speech policy to include the phrase. 'BREAKING: Facebook to change its hate speech policy to include posts that say 'Let's go Brandon. 'This while thing has gone far enough. It's offensive and really mean,' said a top executive at the social media company,' a screenshot of a tweet says, misspelling 'whole.' 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 tweet that's pictured comes from an account that notes it posts satire. But some people are unsure if it's a joke. 'Is this a joke?' one person replied. 'I can't find it anywhere and I literally can't tell satire from reality anymore.' 'Breaking news,' someone else wrote, sharing the screenshot on Facebook. 'Whether or not this is true remains to be seen, but Facebook is reportedly changing their hate speech policy.' Facebook did not respond to PolitiFact's questions about the claim, but the company told Reuters it didn't change its hate speech policy to bar this phrase. Neither 'Let's go Brandon' nor 'F--- Joe Biden' violates the policy, Facebook said. The hate speech policy is online, and it doesn't mention Biden or 'Let's go Brandon.' And there are no credible reports online that Facebook has changed or is going to change the policy to ban the phrase. We rate claims that it is False.
|
We rate claims that it is False.
|
[] |
'Newly discovered video shows late night deliveries of tens of thousands of illegal ballots 8 hours after deadline.
|
Contradiction
|
An article from the conservative news website The Gateway Pundit claims that a video from the TCF Center where Detroit election workers counted absentee ballots cast by the city's voters 'shows late night deliveries of tens of thousands of illegal ballots 8 hours after deadline.' The article claims that the video is 'proof of fraud in Detroit.' The video appears to show a white van at the TCF Center early in the morning on Nov. 4 containing ballots that were unloaded and brought into the counting room at the TCF Center. There is no evidence of anything nefarious. In Michigan, voters had until 8 p.m. on Election Day to return absentee ballots. The deadline was for casting ballots, not delivering or counting them. A sworn affidavit written by Christopher Thomas, the former Michigan Director of Elections who worked at the TCF Center, in response to a lawsuit against the city says that no late-arriving ballots were ever counted. 'No absentee ballots received after the deadline of 8 p.m. on November 3, 2020, were received by or processed at the TCF Center. Only ballots received by the deadline were processed,' Thomas wrote. Many Republican challengers present at the TCF Center have said that they observed ballots being dropped off at the TCF Center in the middle of the night. Thomas wrote that their accounts do not support the claim that thousands of ballots cast after the 8 p.m. deadline were counted. Detroit voters could return absentee ballots by mail to the clerk's office, in-person or utilize one of the city's many ballot drop boxes until that deadline. Ballots were collected until 8 p.m. on election night after which point all ballots were returned and processed by the clerk's staff. The staff then verified signatures at the Department of Elections. Only after ballots were validated were they delivered to the TCF Center for election workers to process and tabulate them. Shane Trejo, a writer for the right-wing website Big League Politics, told the Gateway Pundit that he was at the TCF Center where he said he witnessed thousands of ballots being unloaded early Wednesday morning. 'There were at least 50 boxes that I saw unloaded at 3:30 a.m., well after the 8:00 p.m. deadline for ballots to show up.' The 8 p.m. deadline was for voters to return ballots, not for ballots to be delivered to the TCF Center. Trejo has previously made false claims of election fraud in Detroit, prompting Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel to ask Trejo to take down misleading videos he posted. In his affidavit, Thomas explained that early in the morning on Wednesday, approximately 16,000 ballots in 45 trays containing approximately 350 ballots each were delivered in a white van used by the city. 'The ballots delivered to the TCF Center had been verified by the City Clerk's staff prior to delivery in a process prescribed by Michigan law. ... It would have been impossible for any election worker at the TCF Center to count or process a ballot for someone who was not an eligible voter or whose ballot was not received by the 8:00 p.m. deadline on November 3, 2020,' Thomas wrote. In his opinion in the lawsuit against the city denying the request to delay the certification of the election, Wayne County Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Kenny determined that the lawsuit's account of fraud and misconduct - including its assertion that late-arriving ballots were illegally counted - was 'incorrect and not credible.'
|
Our ruling An article by the Gateway Pundit claims that a 'newly discovered video shows late night deliveries of tens of thousands of illegal ballots 8 hours after deadline.' Detroit election officials have confirmed that ballots were delivered to the TCF Center early Wednesday morning but that those ballots met the 8 p.m. deadline for voters to return them and had been verified by the city clerk's office as legally cast. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'Newly discovered video shows late night deliveries of tens of thousands of illegal ballots 8 hours after deadline.
|
Contradiction
|
An article from the conservative news website The Gateway Pundit claims that a video from the TCF Center where Detroit election workers counted absentee ballots cast by the city's voters 'shows late night deliveries of tens of thousands of illegal ballots 8 hours after deadline.' The article claims that the video is 'proof of fraud in Detroit.' The video appears to show a white van at the TCF Center early in the morning on Nov. 4 containing ballots that were unloaded and brought into the counting room at the TCF Center. There is no evidence of anything nefarious. In Michigan, voters had until 8 p.m. on Election Day to return absentee ballots. The deadline was for casting ballots, not delivering or counting them. A sworn affidavit written by Christopher Thomas, the former Michigan Director of Elections who worked at the TCF Center, in response to a lawsuit against the city says that no late-arriving ballots were ever counted. 'No absentee ballots received after the deadline of 8 p.m. on November 3, 2020, were received by or processed at the TCF Center. Only ballots received by the deadline were processed,' Thomas wrote. Many Republican challengers present at the TCF Center have said that they observed ballots being dropped off at the TCF Center in the middle of the night. Thomas wrote that their accounts do not support the claim that thousands of ballots cast after the 8 p.m. deadline were counted. Detroit voters could return absentee ballots by mail to the clerk's office, in-person or utilize one of the city's many ballot drop boxes until that deadline. Ballots were collected until 8 p.m. on election night after which point all ballots were returned and processed by the clerk's staff. The staff then verified signatures at the Department of Elections. Only after ballots were validated were they delivered to the TCF Center for election workers to process and tabulate them. Shane Trejo, a writer for the right-wing website Big League Politics, told the Gateway Pundit that he was at the TCF Center where he said he witnessed thousands of ballots being unloaded early Wednesday morning. 'There were at least 50 boxes that I saw unloaded at 3:30 a.m., well after the 8:00 p.m. deadline for ballots to show up.' The 8 p.m. deadline was for voters to return ballots, not for ballots to be delivered to the TCF Center. Trejo has previously made false claims of election fraud in Detroit, prompting Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel to ask Trejo to take down misleading videos he posted. In his affidavit, Thomas explained that early in the morning on Wednesday, approximately 16,000 ballots in 45 trays containing approximately 350 ballots each were delivered in a white van used by the city. 'The ballots delivered to the TCF Center had been verified by the City Clerk's staff prior to delivery in a process prescribed by Michigan law. ... It would have been impossible for any election worker at the TCF Center to count or process a ballot for someone who was not an eligible voter or whose ballot was not received by the 8:00 p.m. deadline on November 3, 2020,' Thomas wrote. In his opinion in the lawsuit against the city denying the request to delay the certification of the election, Wayne County Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Kenny determined that the lawsuit's account of fraud and misconduct - including its assertion that late-arriving ballots were illegally counted - was 'incorrect and not credible.'
|
Our ruling An article by the Gateway Pundit claims that a 'newly discovered video shows late night deliveries of tens of thousands of illegal ballots 8 hours after deadline.' Detroit election officials have confirmed that ballots were delivered to the TCF Center early Wednesday morning but that those ballots met the 8 p.m. deadline for voters to return them and had been verified by the city clerk's office as legally cast. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'Newly discovered video shows late night deliveries of tens of thousands of illegal ballots 8 hours after deadline.
|
Contradiction
|
An article from the conservative news website The Gateway Pundit claims that a video from the TCF Center where Detroit election workers counted absentee ballots cast by the city's voters 'shows late night deliveries of tens of thousands of illegal ballots 8 hours after deadline.' The article claims that the video is 'proof of fraud in Detroit.' The video appears to show a white van at the TCF Center early in the morning on Nov. 4 containing ballots that were unloaded and brought into the counting room at the TCF Center. There is no evidence of anything nefarious. In Michigan, voters had until 8 p.m. on Election Day to return absentee ballots. The deadline was for casting ballots, not delivering or counting them. A sworn affidavit written by Christopher Thomas, the former Michigan Director of Elections who worked at the TCF Center, in response to a lawsuit against the city says that no late-arriving ballots were ever counted. 'No absentee ballots received after the deadline of 8 p.m. on November 3, 2020, were received by or processed at the TCF Center. Only ballots received by the deadline were processed,' Thomas wrote. Many Republican challengers present at the TCF Center have said that they observed ballots being dropped off at the TCF Center in the middle of the night. Thomas wrote that their accounts do not support the claim that thousands of ballots cast after the 8 p.m. deadline were counted. Detroit voters could return absentee ballots by mail to the clerk's office, in-person or utilize one of the city's many ballot drop boxes until that deadline. Ballots were collected until 8 p.m. on election night after which point all ballots were returned and processed by the clerk's staff. The staff then verified signatures at the Department of Elections. Only after ballots were validated were they delivered to the TCF Center for election workers to process and tabulate them. Shane Trejo, a writer for the right-wing website Big League Politics, told the Gateway Pundit that he was at the TCF Center where he said he witnessed thousands of ballots being unloaded early Wednesday morning. 'There were at least 50 boxes that I saw unloaded at 3:30 a.m., well after the 8:00 p.m. deadline for ballots to show up.' The 8 p.m. deadline was for voters to return ballots, not for ballots to be delivered to the TCF Center. Trejo has previously made false claims of election fraud in Detroit, prompting Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel to ask Trejo to take down misleading videos he posted. In his affidavit, Thomas explained that early in the morning on Wednesday, approximately 16,000 ballots in 45 trays containing approximately 350 ballots each were delivered in a white van used by the city. 'The ballots delivered to the TCF Center had been verified by the City Clerk's staff prior to delivery in a process prescribed by Michigan law. ... It would have been impossible for any election worker at the TCF Center to count or process a ballot for someone who was not an eligible voter or whose ballot was not received by the 8:00 p.m. deadline on November 3, 2020,' Thomas wrote. In his opinion in the lawsuit against the city denying the request to delay the certification of the election, Wayne County Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Kenny determined that the lawsuit's account of fraud and misconduct - including its assertion that late-arriving ballots were illegally counted - was 'incorrect and not credible.'
|
Our ruling An article by the Gateway Pundit claims that a 'newly discovered video shows late night deliveries of tens of thousands of illegal ballots 8 hours after deadline.' Detroit election officials have confirmed that ballots were delivered to the TCF Center early Wednesday morning but that those ballots met the 8 p.m. deadline for voters to return them and had been verified by the city clerk's office as legally cast. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Says Meghan Markle tweeted about Oprah Winfrey following her primetime interview.
|
Contradiction
|
In her blockbuster interview with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan Markle disclosed extraordinary details about her experiences before and after departing royal life. But an image circulating on Facebook would have you believe Markle also tweeted a disclosure about Winfrey: 'Oprah was gagged, okay?' reads a picture of what looks like a March 7 tweet from Markle that was published at 8:56 p.m. and included three images of Winfrey during the interview. 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.) Markle didn't tweet this. The screenshot shows a tweet from a parody account with the handle @MeghanMarkleHRH that appears to have since been taken down. When it was still in operation, its account profile noted that it was '#parody.' We find no evidence that Markle has her own public Twitter account. News reports around the interview did reference a nondisclosure agreement that Winfrey's crew and staff had to sign, vowing not to reveal any information from the pre-recorded interview before it aired. But this parody tweet is unrelated to those reports. We rate this post Pants on Fire!
|
We rate this post Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
'So this is just a way they're trying to steal the election, and everybody knows that. Because the only way they're going to win is by a rigged election.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump has repeatedly accused the Democrats of using voting by mail as a way to 'rig' the election. Speaking in Scranton, Pa., hours before his rival Joe Biden formally accepted his nomination at the Democratic National Convention, Trump revived many of his attacks on mail-in voting. At one point, Trump said, 'So this is just a way they're trying to steal the election and everybody knows that. Because the only way they're going to win is by a rigged election,' he said. When we reached out to the White House, they pointed to mainstream media outlets that have reported that mail delays and late ballots were a problem in some primaries. Trump himself has often pointed to New York as an example. But these do not constitute evidence that Democrats, or anyone, are rigging the outcome. There are several other reasons that he could lose. For one, he faces the same challenges that any incumbent would face when running amid a pandemic that has killed more than 174,000 Americans and left millions unemployed. Here, we'll look at more realistic scenarios that undermine Trump's claim. Elections are administered locally, posing a challenge to national rigging A big reason to doubt Trump's assertion about a rigged presidential election is that the U.S. has a decentralized election system that is largely administered by county or city election officials. States set laws about policies such as early voting hours or voter ID, but it's local election officials who handle the day-to-day tasks of administering elections such as registering voters, sending ballots to voters' homes, checking in voters at local precincts, and overseeing the machines at early voting and election day sites. There are more than 3,000 counties and 10,000 local jurisdictions spread across 50 states and D.C., said Paul Gronke, director of the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College. Each county produces its own ballots, and even within counties there can be various ballot versions with unique lists of federal, state and local offices, depending upon where a voter lives. Any attempt to rig a national election would pose multiple hurdles. Bar-coded envelopes for these ballots are 'just the first set of hurdles in trying to 'rig' an election,' Gronke said. The next hurdle would be to fake each individual signature so well that it fools verification systems, and that voters don't notice that someone else has cast their ballot before they did. Data scientists also track the returns closely and have sometimes been able to spot anomalies. A third complication for prospective election riggers is to figure out where to target their rigging efforts. In order to build a sufficient margin in the electoral college, they would have to guess in advance which states could tip the election. All of this would have to be done in a coordinated but secret way, with hundreds of people willing to risk felonies for the same goal. While mailed ballots pose a slightly higher risk of voter fraud than voting in person, fraud remains statistically rare. In the five states that have previously used all-mail elections, there have been very low rates of fraud, said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California-Irvine. And most of the time, voting fraud cases tend to be one-off events in local elections, not conspiracies capable of swinging a national election. White House spokesperson Sarah Matthews pointed to media reports showing problems in the primaries associated with the massive increase in voting by mail amid the pandemic, including late ballots. But administrative problems have occurred not just with the voting by mail that Trump often derides but also with long lines at in-person precincts, and these have often been in jurisdictions that tend to vote Democratic. Using the term election rigging 'connotes some kind of fraud attempt to sabotage the casting of ballots,' said Wendy Weiser, an elections expert at New York University's liberal Brennan Center. 'Administrative snafus are a completely different thing.' Aside from a rigged election, what could explain Trump losing in November? Fundamentally, the possibility of a Trump loss could stem from political realities, not vote-rigging. 'It will not take a rigged election for Trump to lose, just the ordinary workings of electoral accountability in a democracy,' said Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist. As of now, at least, Trump looks like an underdog for reelection, based on past history. 'When an incumbent president is running for a second term, the election is always largely a referendum on the president's record during his first term,' said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Gallup has taken approval surveys for every president since World War II. Currently, Trump's job approval of 42% is in the danger zone for an elected incumbent seeking a second term. Six presidents since World War II have been reelected. In descending order of their Gallup approval rating, they were Dwight Eisenhower (68%), Bill Clinton (57%), Richard Nixon (56%), Ronald Reagan (54%), George W. Bush (51%), and Barack Obama (45%). The two presidents who had the lowest approval ratings did not win reelection: George H.W. Bush (35%) and Jimmy Carter (32%). Trump's 42% puts him right in the middle of those two groups. Trump's approval rating shows Trump's level of public support has been relatively stable over time, despite the ebb and flow of positive and negative news events. At the same time, strengthened partisan polarization will likely make it hard for Trump to win the votes of people in the disapproving camp. 'Partisan polarization has drastically reduced the ability of incumbent office-holders at all levels to appeal to voters across party lines,' Kondik said. 'And unlike previous incumbents, Trump has made little effort to expand his base of support during his time in office.' Often, presidents are judged heavily on the state of the economy on their watch. For much of Trump's term, unemployment was low, boosting his prospects of a second term. However, 2020 has been a bad year, rocked by coronavirus, economic problems, and a sharp focus on systemic societal problems, like racial inequities in policing. That's why some analysts like Abramowitz believe the public's approval or disapproval of Trump's handling of the coronavirus could be an important metric in determining his electoral prospects in November. And that trend line has not looked good for the president. The RealClearPolitics polling average of the public's approval of Trump in handling the coronavirus shows that as of Aug. 21, fewer than 40% of respondents approved of Trump's handling of the coronavirus, while more than 58% disapproved. FiveThirtyEight's weighted average of national polls had Biden up by 8.6 percentage points nationally on Aug. 21. Perhaps equally important, Biden's lead has been stable since he clinched the nomination and the pandemic hit. Trump has never come closer than four points during that period, and that was back in early April. In the states most likely to be decisive, Biden has also put together notable leads: 7.4 points in Michigan, 6.1 points in Pennsylvania, 6.8 points in Wisconsin, 5.4 points in Florida and 3.6 points in Arizona. Biden would need only the first three to reverse the 2016 result and achieve a Democratic victory. But Trump is not destined to lose, because intervening events could upset the status quo. The polls could be off; problems with the voting process during a pandemic could keep some voters' ballots uncounted; and news events favorable to Trump or unfavorable to Biden could occur. But Trump said it was impossible for him to lose unless the election were rigged. That's simply not the case.
|
Our ruling Trump said, 'So this is just a way they're trying to steal the election, and everybody knows that. Because the only way they're going to win is by a rigged election.' An actual conspiracy to rig the results of a national election would require hundreds or thousands of people working together to commit felonies across many critical jurisdictions. Experts do not consider this feasible, nor do we. Meanwhile, Trump is an incumbent facing several ongoing challenges: a major pandemic, high unemployment, civic unrest and future uncertainty. Those are significant political hurdles that would be challenging for any president. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"110341-proof-28-2c519a94fb81108ca5a38647423037c9.jpg"
] |
'So this is just a way they're trying to steal the election, and everybody knows that. Because the only way they're going to win is by a rigged election.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump has repeatedly accused the Democrats of using voting by mail as a way to 'rig' the election. Speaking in Scranton, Pa., hours before his rival Joe Biden formally accepted his nomination at the Democratic National Convention, Trump revived many of his attacks on mail-in voting. At one point, Trump said, 'So this is just a way they're trying to steal the election and everybody knows that. Because the only way they're going to win is by a rigged election,' he said. When we reached out to the White House, they pointed to mainstream media outlets that have reported that mail delays and late ballots were a problem in some primaries. Trump himself has often pointed to New York as an example. But these do not constitute evidence that Democrats, or anyone, are rigging the outcome. There are several other reasons that he could lose. For one, he faces the same challenges that any incumbent would face when running amid a pandemic that has killed more than 174,000 Americans and left millions unemployed. Here, we'll look at more realistic scenarios that undermine Trump's claim. Elections are administered locally, posing a challenge to national rigging A big reason to doubt Trump's assertion about a rigged presidential election is that the U.S. has a decentralized election system that is largely administered by county or city election officials. States set laws about policies such as early voting hours or voter ID, but it's local election officials who handle the day-to-day tasks of administering elections such as registering voters, sending ballots to voters' homes, checking in voters at local precincts, and overseeing the machines at early voting and election day sites. There are more than 3,000 counties and 10,000 local jurisdictions spread across 50 states and D.C., said Paul Gronke, director of the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College. Each county produces its own ballots, and even within counties there can be various ballot versions with unique lists of federal, state and local offices, depending upon where a voter lives. Any attempt to rig a national election would pose multiple hurdles. Bar-coded envelopes for these ballots are 'just the first set of hurdles in trying to 'rig' an election,' Gronke said. The next hurdle would be to fake each individual signature so well that it fools verification systems, and that voters don't notice that someone else has cast their ballot before they did. Data scientists also track the returns closely and have sometimes been able to spot anomalies. A third complication for prospective election riggers is to figure out where to target their rigging efforts. In order to build a sufficient margin in the electoral college, they would have to guess in advance which states could tip the election. All of this would have to be done in a coordinated but secret way, with hundreds of people willing to risk felonies for the same goal. While mailed ballots pose a slightly higher risk of voter fraud than voting in person, fraud remains statistically rare. In the five states that have previously used all-mail elections, there have been very low rates of fraud, said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California-Irvine. And most of the time, voting fraud cases tend to be one-off events in local elections, not conspiracies capable of swinging a national election. White House spokesperson Sarah Matthews pointed to media reports showing problems in the primaries associated with the massive increase in voting by mail amid the pandemic, including late ballots. But administrative problems have occurred not just with the voting by mail that Trump often derides but also with long lines at in-person precincts, and these have often been in jurisdictions that tend to vote Democratic. Using the term election rigging 'connotes some kind of fraud attempt to sabotage the casting of ballots,' said Wendy Weiser, an elections expert at New York University's liberal Brennan Center. 'Administrative snafus are a completely different thing.' Aside from a rigged election, what could explain Trump losing in November? Fundamentally, the possibility of a Trump loss could stem from political realities, not vote-rigging. 'It will not take a rigged election for Trump to lose, just the ordinary workings of electoral accountability in a democracy,' said Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist. As of now, at least, Trump looks like an underdog for reelection, based on past history. 'When an incumbent president is running for a second term, the election is always largely a referendum on the president's record during his first term,' said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Gallup has taken approval surveys for every president since World War II. Currently, Trump's job approval of 42% is in the danger zone for an elected incumbent seeking a second term. Six presidents since World War II have been reelected. In descending order of their Gallup approval rating, they were Dwight Eisenhower (68%), Bill Clinton (57%), Richard Nixon (56%), Ronald Reagan (54%), George W. Bush (51%), and Barack Obama (45%). The two presidents who had the lowest approval ratings did not win reelection: George H.W. Bush (35%) and Jimmy Carter (32%). Trump's 42% puts him right in the middle of those two groups. Trump's approval rating shows Trump's level of public support has been relatively stable over time, despite the ebb and flow of positive and negative news events. At the same time, strengthened partisan polarization will likely make it hard for Trump to win the votes of people in the disapproving camp. 'Partisan polarization has drastically reduced the ability of incumbent office-holders at all levels to appeal to voters across party lines,' Kondik said. 'And unlike previous incumbents, Trump has made little effort to expand his base of support during his time in office.' Often, presidents are judged heavily on the state of the economy on their watch. For much of Trump's term, unemployment was low, boosting his prospects of a second term. However, 2020 has been a bad year, rocked by coronavirus, economic problems, and a sharp focus on systemic societal problems, like racial inequities in policing. That's why some analysts like Abramowitz believe the public's approval or disapproval of Trump's handling of the coronavirus could be an important metric in determining his electoral prospects in November. And that trend line has not looked good for the president. The RealClearPolitics polling average of the public's approval of Trump in handling the coronavirus shows that as of Aug. 21, fewer than 40% of respondents approved of Trump's handling of the coronavirus, while more than 58% disapproved. FiveThirtyEight's weighted average of national polls had Biden up by 8.6 percentage points nationally on Aug. 21. Perhaps equally important, Biden's lead has been stable since he clinched the nomination and the pandemic hit. Trump has never come closer than four points during that period, and that was back in early April. In the states most likely to be decisive, Biden has also put together notable leads: 7.4 points in Michigan, 6.1 points in Pennsylvania, 6.8 points in Wisconsin, 5.4 points in Florida and 3.6 points in Arizona. Biden would need only the first three to reverse the 2016 result and achieve a Democratic victory. But Trump is not destined to lose, because intervening events could upset the status quo. The polls could be off; problems with the voting process during a pandemic could keep some voters' ballots uncounted; and news events favorable to Trump or unfavorable to Biden could occur. But Trump said it was impossible for him to lose unless the election were rigged. That's simply not the case.
|
Our ruling Trump said, 'So this is just a way they're trying to steal the election, and everybody knows that. Because the only way they're going to win is by a rigged election.' An actual conspiracy to rig the results of a national election would require hundreds or thousands of people working together to commit felonies across many critical jurisdictions. Experts do not consider this feasible, nor do we. Meanwhile, Trump is an incumbent facing several ongoing challenges: a major pandemic, high unemployment, civic unrest and future uncertainty. Those are significant political hurdles that would be challenging for any president. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"110341-proof-28-2c519a94fb81108ca5a38647423037c9.jpg"
] |
'If I mail in my ballot on Sunday and show up to the polling station on Tuesday, they won't know if I've already voted or not. That, my friends, is a serious concern for all of us.
|
Contradiction
|
A widespread Facebook post wrongly claims that a loophole in mail-in voting would let people cast two ballots without election officials catching on to the scheme. The supposed trick: Vote once by mail, and then a second time in person before the mail-in ballot gets counted. 'This is real,' says the Aug. 20 post, which has been shared thousands of times on the platform. 'If I mail in my ballot on Sunday and show up to the polling station on Tuesday, they won't know if I've already voted or not. That, my friends, is a serious concern for all of us.' 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.) Like claims that receiving multiple mail ballot applications means voters can return multiple ballots, it's inaccurate. The Associated Press has debunked the same claim, and elections experts told PolitiFact that every state has procedures to detect and prevent such double voting. 'The entire premise is wrong,' said Matthew Weil, director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank in Washington. 'All states have controls in place specifically to address this,' added Charles Stewart III, a political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 'States handle this differently, but the principle is that you only get to vote once.' How states check to ensure one vote per person Typically, experts said, poll books used for in-person voting will indicate whether you received a vote-by-mail or absentee ballot (there's no objective difference between the two). What happens when you show up in person depends on the state's laws and the type of poll book used. In general, experts described a handful of ways election systems would handle the Facebook post's hypothetical scenario, assuming you are duly registered to vote in the first place: Some states detail their procedures online. In California, for example, voters who receive vote-by-mail ballots but want to vote in person can hand over their mail-in ballot and vote in person, or fill out a provisional ballot. But in each case, only one vote per person counts. All mail-in ballots require verification before being counted. Matt Dietrich, a spokesperson for the Illinois State Board of Elections, said mail ballots in Illinois are 'extremely carefully tracked and verified,' with return envelopes that contain bar codes for the voter's unique voter ID number. Voter fraud is illegal There are reasons why people who request mail-in ballots might legitimately show up at the polls, said Lorraine Minnite, an associate professor of public policy at Rutgers University, Camden. 'People anticipate needing to vote by mail, and then their plans change and they show up at the polls,' Minnite said. 'Or sometimes, in the case of people whose memories are failing, they don't remember having voted a month or two before an election and proceed to the polls on Election Day, only to find out that they have already voted.' But as an intentional double-voting scheme, the process described in the Facebook post 'is not a viable loophole,' Dietrich said. In fact, it's a surefire way to get caught committing voter fraud. 'This is an easy felony to prove because the voter would be signing his or her name twice - once on the mail ballot and then again at the polling place,' Dietrich said. Weil, the director of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Elections Project, agreed: 'It's one of the most obvious ways to get caught because you're not actually casting any ballot that they don't know about ... You'd be giving them all the evidence they need to show that you double voted.' Weil said voters hoping to cast their ballots by mail should send them in early, rather than waiting until the Sunday before Election Day, to ensure that they are received on time and counted. RELATED: How to make sure your ballot is counted this fall
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'If I mail in my ballot on Sunday and show up to the polling station on Tuesday, they won't know if I've already voted or not.' That wouldn't work in practice. All states have procedures in place to prevent double voting, and people who try it are likely to get caught. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[
"110360-proof-22-d16e880e6781f0df007a7157a4090a56.jpg"
] |
'If I mail in my ballot on Sunday and show up to the polling station on Tuesday, they won't know if I've already voted or not. That, my friends, is a serious concern for all of us.
|
Contradiction
|
A widespread Facebook post wrongly claims that a loophole in mail-in voting would let people cast two ballots without election officials catching on to the scheme. The supposed trick: Vote once by mail, and then a second time in person before the mail-in ballot gets counted. 'This is real,' says the Aug. 20 post, which has been shared thousands of times on the platform. 'If I mail in my ballot on Sunday and show up to the polling station on Tuesday, they won't know if I've already voted or not. That, my friends, is a serious concern for all of us.' 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.) Like claims that receiving multiple mail ballot applications means voters can return multiple ballots, it's inaccurate. The Associated Press has debunked the same claim, and elections experts told PolitiFact that every state has procedures to detect and prevent such double voting. 'The entire premise is wrong,' said Matthew Weil, director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank in Washington. 'All states have controls in place specifically to address this,' added Charles Stewart III, a political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 'States handle this differently, but the principle is that you only get to vote once.' How states check to ensure one vote per person Typically, experts said, poll books used for in-person voting will indicate whether you received a vote-by-mail or absentee ballot (there's no objective difference between the two). What happens when you show up in person depends on the state's laws and the type of poll book used. In general, experts described a handful of ways election systems would handle the Facebook post's hypothetical scenario, assuming you are duly registered to vote in the first place: Some states detail their procedures online. In California, for example, voters who receive vote-by-mail ballots but want to vote in person can hand over their mail-in ballot and vote in person, or fill out a provisional ballot. But in each case, only one vote per person counts. All mail-in ballots require verification before being counted. Matt Dietrich, a spokesperson for the Illinois State Board of Elections, said mail ballots in Illinois are 'extremely carefully tracked and verified,' with return envelopes that contain bar codes for the voter's unique voter ID number. Voter fraud is illegal There are reasons why people who request mail-in ballots might legitimately show up at the polls, said Lorraine Minnite, an associate professor of public policy at Rutgers University, Camden. 'People anticipate needing to vote by mail, and then their plans change and they show up at the polls,' Minnite said. 'Or sometimes, in the case of people whose memories are failing, they don't remember having voted a month or two before an election and proceed to the polls on Election Day, only to find out that they have already voted.' But as an intentional double-voting scheme, the process described in the Facebook post 'is not a viable loophole,' Dietrich said. In fact, it's a surefire way to get caught committing voter fraud. 'This is an easy felony to prove because the voter would be signing his or her name twice - once on the mail ballot and then again at the polling place,' Dietrich said. Weil, the director of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Elections Project, agreed: 'It's one of the most obvious ways to get caught because you're not actually casting any ballot that they don't know about ... You'd be giving them all the evidence they need to show that you double voted.' Weil said voters hoping to cast their ballots by mail should send them in early, rather than waiting until the Sunday before Election Day, to ensure that they are received on time and counted. RELATED: How to make sure your ballot is counted this fall
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'If I mail in my ballot on Sunday and show up to the polling station on Tuesday, they won't know if I've already voted or not.' That wouldn't work in practice. All states have procedures in place to prevent double voting, and people who try it are likely to get caught. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[
"110360-proof-22-d16e880e6781f0df007a7157a4090a56.jpg"
] |
'If I mail in my ballot on Sunday and show up to the polling station on Tuesday, they won't know if I've already voted or not. That, my friends, is a serious concern for all of us.
|
Contradiction
|
A widespread Facebook post wrongly claims that a loophole in mail-in voting would let people cast two ballots without election officials catching on to the scheme. The supposed trick: Vote once by mail, and then a second time in person before the mail-in ballot gets counted. 'This is real,' says the Aug. 20 post, which has been shared thousands of times on the platform. 'If I mail in my ballot on Sunday and show up to the polling station on Tuesday, they won't know if I've already voted or not. That, my friends, is a serious concern for all of us.' 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.) Like claims that receiving multiple mail ballot applications means voters can return multiple ballots, it's inaccurate. The Associated Press has debunked the same claim, and elections experts told PolitiFact that every state has procedures to detect and prevent such double voting. 'The entire premise is wrong,' said Matthew Weil, director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank in Washington. 'All states have controls in place specifically to address this,' added Charles Stewart III, a political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 'States handle this differently, but the principle is that you only get to vote once.' How states check to ensure one vote per person Typically, experts said, poll books used for in-person voting will indicate whether you received a vote-by-mail or absentee ballot (there's no objective difference between the two). What happens when you show up in person depends on the state's laws and the type of poll book used. In general, experts described a handful of ways election systems would handle the Facebook post's hypothetical scenario, assuming you are duly registered to vote in the first place: Some states detail their procedures online. In California, for example, voters who receive vote-by-mail ballots but want to vote in person can hand over their mail-in ballot and vote in person, or fill out a provisional ballot. But in each case, only one vote per person counts. All mail-in ballots require verification before being counted. Matt Dietrich, a spokesperson for the Illinois State Board of Elections, said mail ballots in Illinois are 'extremely carefully tracked and verified,' with return envelopes that contain bar codes for the voter's unique voter ID number. Voter fraud is illegal There are reasons why people who request mail-in ballots might legitimately show up at the polls, said Lorraine Minnite, an associate professor of public policy at Rutgers University, Camden. 'People anticipate needing to vote by mail, and then their plans change and they show up at the polls,' Minnite said. 'Or sometimes, in the case of people whose memories are failing, they don't remember having voted a month or two before an election and proceed to the polls on Election Day, only to find out that they have already voted.' But as an intentional double-voting scheme, the process described in the Facebook post 'is not a viable loophole,' Dietrich said. In fact, it's a surefire way to get caught committing voter fraud. 'This is an easy felony to prove because the voter would be signing his or her name twice - once on the mail ballot and then again at the polling place,' Dietrich said. Weil, the director of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Elections Project, agreed: 'It's one of the most obvious ways to get caught because you're not actually casting any ballot that they don't know about ... You'd be giving them all the evidence they need to show that you double voted.' Weil said voters hoping to cast their ballots by mail should send them in early, rather than waiting until the Sunday before Election Day, to ensure that they are received on time and counted. RELATED: How to make sure your ballot is counted this fall
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'If I mail in my ballot on Sunday and show up to the polling station on Tuesday, they won't know if I've already voted or not.' That wouldn't work in practice. All states have procedures in place to prevent double voting, and people who try it are likely to get caught. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[
"110360-proof-22-d16e880e6781f0df007a7157a4090a56.jpg"
] |
'Bikers show up to The Walter Reed Hospital to pray for President Trump.
|
Contradiction
|
News that President Donald Trump tested positive for COVID-19 drew prayers from supporters and political adversaries, like Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. But a recording that pans over of a crowd of people kneeling has been mischaracterized as showing motorcyclists praying for the president outside of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where the president was admitted on Oct. 2 to treat COVID-19. 'Washington D.C - Bikers show up to The Walter Reed Hospital to pray for President Trump,' one post says. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This video has been circulating in the United States since at least Sept. 11, when a TikTok user posted it on the social media platform. The caption doesn't explain where the video was taken but comments acknowledge the anniversary of 9/11. 'Never forget and God bless these riders,' one person wrote. The same TikTok user posted the video again on Oct. 2, when Trump was admitted to the medical center, with several hashtags including #trump2020. However, the video wasn't even shot in the United States. It appears to show bikers protesting the killings of farmers in South Africa. In August, bikers from across the country gathered for a demonstration in Pretoria. The BBC shared another TikTok account that posted the video in the Facebook post on Aug. 29. It includes the hashtags #alllivesmatter and #stopfarmmurders. Another, similar video posted on YouTube on Aug. 31 shows people kneeling with their heads bowed under the title, 'Bikers pray in Pretoria against farm murders.' We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Photo shows Laurel Hubbard 'winning the women's weight lifting competition' at the Olympics.
|
Contradiction
|
New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard, the first openly transgender woman to compete in the Olympics, didn't win a medal in Tokyo, but a photo that's being shared on social media has led some people to believe otherwise. 'Congrats to this man who identifies as female on winning the women's weight lifting competition must be so proud,' one Facebook post said. It shows a photo of Hubbard standing on what appears to be a first place podium and wearing medals around her neck. But this photo isn't from the 2021 Olympic Games. 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 picture of Hubbard is from 2019, when she won gold at the Pacific Games in Samoa. The words 'Pacific Games' and 'Samoa' and '2019' are all visible in the photo. But some people seeing this photo on social media seemed confused about the context of the image. 'People should just stop watching Olympics in support of these women,' one person commented on the Facebook post, referring to Hubbard's competitors, who are also shown in the image. 'This is just not fair.' 'He should participate in the trans Olympics,' someone else wrote. 'Why didn't the real women withdraw?' Hubbard has drawn wide attention, both positive and negative, since securing her place at the Olympics. After competing, she said she would retire from professional weightlifting and said she was 'looking forward to this being the end of my journey as an athlete and the attention that comes from it.' Claims that this photo shows her winning a medal at the Olympics are wrong. We rate it False.
|
Claims that this photo shows her winning a medal at the Olympics are wrong. We rate it False.
|
[] |
'40,000+ votes for Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen magically become votes for Joe Biden.
|
Contradiction
|
Social media posts are promoting misinformation about the presidential election about lost and found ballots. A Facebook post falsely claimed that Wisconsin 'found' 112,000 ballots at 3 a.m.' Another post also wrongly claimed that 'Wisconsin took a break, and when they returned' Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden 'coincidentally came back ahead by 100k.' President Donald Trump, in his quest for reelection, falsely claimed there were 'surprise ballot dumps' in several states. Now, posts on Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok are claiming that more than 40,000 votes once counted for Libertarian presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen in Pennsylvania 'magically' went to Biden. A video posted on TikTok Nov. 5 shows what appears to be a screenshot of a Facebook post, which said: 'Wanna see 40,000+ votes for Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen magically become votes for Joe Biden? Abra cadabra! Nope. No fraud here.' The Facebook post included two screenshots seemingly taken 12 minutes apart: one claimed to show Pennsylvania results at 56% reporting, the other, results at 59% reporting. The 56% reporting screenshot had these vote counts: Trump: 2,158,770 Biden: 1,571,693 Jorgensen: 89,025 The 59% reporting screenshot had these vote counts: Trump: 2,286,966 Biden: 1,674,122 Jorgensen: 46,987 So from one screenshot to the other, Jorgensen's vote count is down 42,038. But the images do not show or prove that those votes became Biden votes. According to the screenshots, Biden's count increased by more than 102,000, not just the 42,038 purportedly taken away from Jorgensen. Trump's count also increased by more than 128,000, yet the social media posts don't similarly link Jorgensen's alleged lost votes to Trump. We found no evidence that the screenshots even represent true counts at any point in time. The images are not from Pennsylvania's official elections page; they match the look of images from Google's election count, which says it relies on data provided by the Associated Press. We can't verify the authenticity of the images in the social media posts. By 5 p.m. eastern time Nov. 5, results posted by election officials in Pennsylvania showed that Jorgensen had around 74,000 votes, with about 93% of the state's total votes counted. That tally is less than the amount she supposedly had at 56% reporting. PolitiFact reached out to Pennsylvania's secretary of state for more information, but we did not hear back.
|
Our ruling Social media posts claimed, '40,000+ votes for Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen magically become votes for Joe Biden.' We found no evidence that supports the claim. The posts claimed that by the time Pennsylvania had reported 56% of votes, Jorgensen had 89,000 votes, and that her count declined by 40,000 votes shortly after. The latest information available from Pennsylvania election officials, with about 93% of votes counted, showed that Jorgensen had not yet reached 89,000 votes. Given that Jorgensen did not have those 89,000 votes to begin with, the claim that 40,000 of her votes 'magically' became Biden's is baseless. Other data included in the posts also do not prove the claim. We rate the posts False.
|
[
"110469-proof-19-0966004d0933ac222d40c9b030d037bf.jpg"
] |
'40,000+ votes for Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen magically become votes for Joe Biden.
|
Contradiction
|
Social media posts are promoting misinformation about the presidential election about lost and found ballots. A Facebook post falsely claimed that Wisconsin 'found' 112,000 ballots at 3 a.m.' Another post also wrongly claimed that 'Wisconsin took a break, and when they returned' Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden 'coincidentally came back ahead by 100k.' President Donald Trump, in his quest for reelection, falsely claimed there were 'surprise ballot dumps' in several states. Now, posts on Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok are claiming that more than 40,000 votes once counted for Libertarian presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen in Pennsylvania 'magically' went to Biden. A video posted on TikTok Nov. 5 shows what appears to be a screenshot of a Facebook post, which said: 'Wanna see 40,000+ votes for Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen magically become votes for Joe Biden? Abra cadabra! Nope. No fraud here.' The Facebook post included two screenshots seemingly taken 12 minutes apart: one claimed to show Pennsylvania results at 56% reporting, the other, results at 59% reporting. The 56% reporting screenshot had these vote counts: Trump: 2,158,770 Biden: 1,571,693 Jorgensen: 89,025 The 59% reporting screenshot had these vote counts: Trump: 2,286,966 Biden: 1,674,122 Jorgensen: 46,987 So from one screenshot to the other, Jorgensen's vote count is down 42,038. But the images do not show or prove that those votes became Biden votes. According to the screenshots, Biden's count increased by more than 102,000, not just the 42,038 purportedly taken away from Jorgensen. Trump's count also increased by more than 128,000, yet the social media posts don't similarly link Jorgensen's alleged lost votes to Trump. We found no evidence that the screenshots even represent true counts at any point in time. The images are not from Pennsylvania's official elections page; they match the look of images from Google's election count, which says it relies on data provided by the Associated Press. We can't verify the authenticity of the images in the social media posts. By 5 p.m. eastern time Nov. 5, results posted by election officials in Pennsylvania showed that Jorgensen had around 74,000 votes, with about 93% of the state's total votes counted. That tally is less than the amount she supposedly had at 56% reporting. PolitiFact reached out to Pennsylvania's secretary of state for more information, but we did not hear back.
|
Our ruling Social media posts claimed, '40,000+ votes for Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen magically become votes for Joe Biden.' We found no evidence that supports the claim. The posts claimed that by the time Pennsylvania had reported 56% of votes, Jorgensen had 89,000 votes, and that her count declined by 40,000 votes shortly after. The latest information available from Pennsylvania election officials, with about 93% of votes counted, showed that Jorgensen had not yet reached 89,000 votes. Given that Jorgensen did not have those 89,000 votes to begin with, the claim that 40,000 of her votes 'magically' became Biden's is baseless. Other data included in the posts also do not prove the claim. We rate the posts False.
|
[
"110469-proof-19-0966004d0933ac222d40c9b030d037bf.jpg"
] |
'40,000+ votes for Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen magically become votes for Joe Biden.
|
Contradiction
|
Social media posts are promoting misinformation about the presidential election about lost and found ballots. A Facebook post falsely claimed that Wisconsin 'found' 112,000 ballots at 3 a.m.' Another post also wrongly claimed that 'Wisconsin took a break, and when they returned' Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden 'coincidentally came back ahead by 100k.' President Donald Trump, in his quest for reelection, falsely claimed there were 'surprise ballot dumps' in several states. Now, posts on Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok are claiming that more than 40,000 votes once counted for Libertarian presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen in Pennsylvania 'magically' went to Biden. A video posted on TikTok Nov. 5 shows what appears to be a screenshot of a Facebook post, which said: 'Wanna see 40,000+ votes for Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen magically become votes for Joe Biden? Abra cadabra! Nope. No fraud here.' The Facebook post included two screenshots seemingly taken 12 minutes apart: one claimed to show Pennsylvania results at 56% reporting, the other, results at 59% reporting. The 56% reporting screenshot had these vote counts: Trump: 2,158,770 Biden: 1,571,693 Jorgensen: 89,025 The 59% reporting screenshot had these vote counts: Trump: 2,286,966 Biden: 1,674,122 Jorgensen: 46,987 So from one screenshot to the other, Jorgensen's vote count is down 42,038. But the images do not show or prove that those votes became Biden votes. According to the screenshots, Biden's count increased by more than 102,000, not just the 42,038 purportedly taken away from Jorgensen. Trump's count also increased by more than 128,000, yet the social media posts don't similarly link Jorgensen's alleged lost votes to Trump. We found no evidence that the screenshots even represent true counts at any point in time. The images are not from Pennsylvania's official elections page; they match the look of images from Google's election count, which says it relies on data provided by the Associated Press. We can't verify the authenticity of the images in the social media posts. By 5 p.m. eastern time Nov. 5, results posted by election officials in Pennsylvania showed that Jorgensen had around 74,000 votes, with about 93% of the state's total votes counted. That tally is less than the amount she supposedly had at 56% reporting. PolitiFact reached out to Pennsylvania's secretary of state for more information, but we did not hear back.
|
Our ruling Social media posts claimed, '40,000+ votes for Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen magically become votes for Joe Biden.' We found no evidence that supports the claim. The posts claimed that by the time Pennsylvania had reported 56% of votes, Jorgensen had 89,000 votes, and that her count declined by 40,000 votes shortly after. The latest information available from Pennsylvania election officials, with about 93% of votes counted, showed that Jorgensen had not yet reached 89,000 votes. Given that Jorgensen did not have those 89,000 votes to begin with, the claim that 40,000 of her votes 'magically' became Biden's is baseless. Other data included in the posts also do not prove the claim. We rate the posts False.
|
[
"110469-proof-19-0966004d0933ac222d40c9b030d037bf.jpg"
] |
Ethylene oxide used in COVID-19 testing swabs 'literally changes the structure of the building blocks of your own body.
|
Contradiction
|
A video on Facebook is throwing doubt on the safety of COVID-19 tests, claiming the swabs used in the tests are covered in a cancer-causing chemical that will change a person's DNA. In the video shared July 18, a man appears to be at a drive-thru COVID-19 testing site where he's handed a testing kit by a woman off-camera and he begins to examine the cotton nasal swab that's included. The man says the swab contains 'sterile EO,' and he asks the woman if she knows about the substance. 'Ethylene oxide is the number one ingredient used in antifreeze. For cars and machinery, et cetera,' the man claims in the one-minute video. 'Ethylene oxide is a mass carcinogen and a mutagen. So it'll give you Hodgkin's lymphoma and, in females, greatly increase the chances of breast cancer.' The man says ethylene oxide messes with a person's DNA and it 'literally changes the structure of the building blocks of your own body.' 'You can look it up, that's going to kill, that's actually killing people,' he tells the woman. The video ends with the man declining to take the test and driving away. The video appears to have originated on the social media platform TikTok. 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.) Ethylene oxide is considered a carcinogen and a mutagen (a chemical or physical agent that changes an organism's DNA), and it is used in the production of antifreeze. But the man in the video misrepresents its use in sterilizing medical equipment such as cotton swabs and misleads about its impact on public health. Medical use of ethylene oxide Around 50% of all medical items in the United States are sterilized using ethylene oxide gas, according to the federal Food and Drug Administration. The gas is used on equipment that would be damaged or harder to sterilize using other techniques such as heating or steaming. Items containing certain plastics, metals, glass and gauze are likely sterilized with the gas, according to the FDA. Following sterilization, items are then aerated so that any remaining ethylene oxide is released. Although short-term exposure to high concentrations of ethylene oxide gas can cause health problems such as headaches, nausea and breathing problems, the trace amounts of gas that may be left on an item like a cotton swab are not enough to trigger any health issues, including cancer, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The residual amount of ethylene oxide is also not enough to cause any mutagenic effects on people; using a treated swab to test for COVID-19 won't change a person's DNA. Such damage would occur only after long-term exposure to the gas, the EPA said. A 2016 study on the effects of ethylene oxide on rayon and cotton swabs used in DNA collection found that the amount of gas remaining on the items was well below any measurable levels three weeks after sterilization.
|
Our ruling A video shared on Facebook claims that the ethylene oxide used in COVID-19 testing swabs 'literally changes the structure of the building blocks of your own body.' The swabs and many other types of medical equipment are sterilized using ethylene oxide gas. The gas is considered a carcinogen and a mutagen, but any traces of the gas left on a cotton swab after sterilization would be below measurable levels and harmless. A person wouldn't have their DNA damaged or develop cancer by using a swab. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
Ethylene oxide used in COVID-19 testing swabs 'literally changes the structure of the building blocks of your own body.
|
Contradiction
|
A video on Facebook is throwing doubt on the safety of COVID-19 tests, claiming the swabs used in the tests are covered in a cancer-causing chemical that will change a person's DNA. In the video shared July 18, a man appears to be at a drive-thru COVID-19 testing site where he's handed a testing kit by a woman off-camera and he begins to examine the cotton nasal swab that's included. The man says the swab contains 'sterile EO,' and he asks the woman if she knows about the substance. 'Ethylene oxide is the number one ingredient used in antifreeze. For cars and machinery, et cetera,' the man claims in the one-minute video. 'Ethylene oxide is a mass carcinogen and a mutagen. So it'll give you Hodgkin's lymphoma and, in females, greatly increase the chances of breast cancer.' The man says ethylene oxide messes with a person's DNA and it 'literally changes the structure of the building blocks of your own body.' 'You can look it up, that's going to kill, that's actually killing people,' he tells the woman. The video ends with the man declining to take the test and driving away. The video appears to have originated on the social media platform TikTok. 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.) Ethylene oxide is considered a carcinogen and a mutagen (a chemical or physical agent that changes an organism's DNA), and it is used in the production of antifreeze. But the man in the video misrepresents its use in sterilizing medical equipment such as cotton swabs and misleads about its impact on public health. Medical use of ethylene oxide Around 50% of all medical items in the United States are sterilized using ethylene oxide gas, according to the federal Food and Drug Administration. The gas is used on equipment that would be damaged or harder to sterilize using other techniques such as heating or steaming. Items containing certain plastics, metals, glass and gauze are likely sterilized with the gas, according to the FDA. Following sterilization, items are then aerated so that any remaining ethylene oxide is released. Although short-term exposure to high concentrations of ethylene oxide gas can cause health problems such as headaches, nausea and breathing problems, the trace amounts of gas that may be left on an item like a cotton swab are not enough to trigger any health issues, including cancer, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The residual amount of ethylene oxide is also not enough to cause any mutagenic effects on people; using a treated swab to test for COVID-19 won't change a person's DNA. Such damage would occur only after long-term exposure to the gas, the EPA said. A 2016 study on the effects of ethylene oxide on rayon and cotton swabs used in DNA collection found that the amount of gas remaining on the items was well below any measurable levels three weeks after sterilization.
|
Our ruling A video shared on Facebook claims that the ethylene oxide used in COVID-19 testing swabs 'literally changes the structure of the building blocks of your own body.' The swabs and many other types of medical equipment are sterilized using ethylene oxide gas. The gas is considered a carcinogen and a mutagen, but any traces of the gas left on a cotton swab after sterilization would be below measurable levels and harmless. A person wouldn't have their DNA damaged or develop cancer by using a swab. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'Black Lives Matter of Atlanta Charged with Wire Fraud, Money Laundering and Allegedly Using almost 500k in Donations For Personal Use.
|
Contradiction
|
Social media users are wrongly claiming that an official Black Lives Matter organization was charged with committing wire fraud, laundering money and misusing donation money. The reality is different: a lone Ohio activist was indicted on similar charges after he allegedly created a Facebook page that he passed off as a Black Lives Matter charity. The facts haven't stopped the spread of misleading claims about what happened. 'Black Lives Matter of Atlanta Charged with Wire Fraud, Money Laundering and Allegedly Using almost 500k in Donations For Personal Use,' said conservative commentator Chuck Callesto, a former Republican congressional candidate, in one such tweet posted March 16. Screenshots of Callesto's tweet were shared on Facebook, along with other posts that repeated versions of the same claim. They were flagged as part of the platform's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The posts give the misleading impression that the wire fraud and money laundering charges were filed against an official chapter of the Black Lives Matter movement formed in 2013 after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, a Black teenager, in Florida. But Black Lives Matter was not charged. The charges are actually against a 32-year-old activist named Sir Maejor Page, or Tyree Conyers-Page, according to the Justice Department. Page is accused of using a Facebook page called 'Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta,' an illegitimate nonprofit, to defraud donors on the platform who thought they were supporting a legitimate social justice organization. Page created the Facebook account and registered 'Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta' as a nonprofit organization in 2016, and he continued soliciting donations through Facebook after the group's tax-exempt status was revoked for failure to submit required IRS forms for three years, according to the indictment against him. Prosecutors say Page misled Facebook users into believing their donations would be used to back protests in support of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement. He received donations from more than 100 people through the Facebook page. He put thousands of dollars toward personal items, entertainment, hotel rooms and a house, the indictment says. The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a charity created as an outgrowth of the Black Lives Matter movement, said in September that it was not affiliated with Page and that it rejected 'the extreme misleading behaviors of people who utilize our name for their own personal wealth and gain.' 'Our stance remains that Mr. Page is not affiliated with Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, nor is he an activist for the movement,' the foundation told PolitiFact. Fox 5 Atlanta, a local TV station, reported in 2016 that Page had 'parted ways' with the Black Lives Matter movement in Atlanta before starting his Facebook page. A Twitter account for 'Black Lives Matter Atlanta' posted two tweets that same year saying Page's group was 'not a real chapter' and 'not aligned w/ principles of BLM.' The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation confirmed that the Twitter account is legitimate. Using Facebook, PolitiFact messaged Callesto, who created the tweet that appeared on Facebook as a screenshot. After we reached out, he acknowledged that his tweet 'could mislead' and posted a follow-up tweet in a thread under the original. 'This tweet is missing CONTEXT,' Callesto wrote in the March 18 update. 'It should read.. 'Black Lives Matter of GREATER Atlanta' Charged with Wire Fraud, Money Laundering... 'Black Lives Matter of GREATER Atlanta' refers to a(n) illegitimate nonprofit organization.' Callesto cited a Toledo Blade article about Page's indictment. He said he had copied the original claim from a headline on a news site. But PolitiFact searched Google and the Nexis news database and did not find a headline that matched the language in his tweet. Conservative activist Jack Posobiec tweeted a similar claim while sharing a Daily Caller story about Page's indictment. Posobiec wrote, misleadingly, 'Black Lives Matter of Atlanta Charged with Money Laundering, Wire Fraud, Allegedly Used $450,000 in Donations for Personal use.'
|
Our ruling A tweet reposted to Facebook said, 'Black Lives Matter of Atlanta Charged with Wire Fraud, Money Laundering and Allegedly Using almost 500k in Donations For Personal Use.' That's misleading. Black Lives Matter was not charged. The charges are against one person accused of misusing donations to what the Justice Department says was an illegitimate nonprofit posing as a Black Lives Matter charity. The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation said in a September statement that it was not affiliated with that person. A local news report from 2016 said he had 'parted ways' with the Black Lives Matter of Atlanta movement. We rate this tweet False.
|
[] |
'Black Lives Matter of Atlanta Charged with Wire Fraud, Money Laundering and Allegedly Using almost 500k in Donations For Personal Use.
|
Contradiction
|
Social media users are wrongly claiming that an official Black Lives Matter organization was charged with committing wire fraud, laundering money and misusing donation money. The reality is different: a lone Ohio activist was indicted on similar charges after he allegedly created a Facebook page that he passed off as a Black Lives Matter charity. The facts haven't stopped the spread of misleading claims about what happened. 'Black Lives Matter of Atlanta Charged with Wire Fraud, Money Laundering and Allegedly Using almost 500k in Donations For Personal Use,' said conservative commentator Chuck Callesto, a former Republican congressional candidate, in one such tweet posted March 16. Screenshots of Callesto's tweet were shared on Facebook, along with other posts that repeated versions of the same claim. They were flagged as part of the platform's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The posts give the misleading impression that the wire fraud and money laundering charges were filed against an official chapter of the Black Lives Matter movement formed in 2013 after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, a Black teenager, in Florida. But Black Lives Matter was not charged. The charges are actually against a 32-year-old activist named Sir Maejor Page, or Tyree Conyers-Page, according to the Justice Department. Page is accused of using a Facebook page called 'Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta,' an illegitimate nonprofit, to defraud donors on the platform who thought they were supporting a legitimate social justice organization. Page created the Facebook account and registered 'Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta' as a nonprofit organization in 2016, and he continued soliciting donations through Facebook after the group's tax-exempt status was revoked for failure to submit required IRS forms for three years, according to the indictment against him. Prosecutors say Page misled Facebook users into believing their donations would be used to back protests in support of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement. He received donations from more than 100 people through the Facebook page. He put thousands of dollars toward personal items, entertainment, hotel rooms and a house, the indictment says. The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a charity created as an outgrowth of the Black Lives Matter movement, said in September that it was not affiliated with Page and that it rejected 'the extreme misleading behaviors of people who utilize our name for their own personal wealth and gain.' 'Our stance remains that Mr. Page is not affiliated with Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, nor is he an activist for the movement,' the foundation told PolitiFact. Fox 5 Atlanta, a local TV station, reported in 2016 that Page had 'parted ways' with the Black Lives Matter movement in Atlanta before starting his Facebook page. A Twitter account for 'Black Lives Matter Atlanta' posted two tweets that same year saying Page's group was 'not a real chapter' and 'not aligned w/ principles of BLM.' The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation confirmed that the Twitter account is legitimate. Using Facebook, PolitiFact messaged Callesto, who created the tweet that appeared on Facebook as a screenshot. After we reached out, he acknowledged that his tweet 'could mislead' and posted a follow-up tweet in a thread under the original. 'This tweet is missing CONTEXT,' Callesto wrote in the March 18 update. 'It should read.. 'Black Lives Matter of GREATER Atlanta' Charged with Wire Fraud, Money Laundering... 'Black Lives Matter of GREATER Atlanta' refers to a(n) illegitimate nonprofit organization.' Callesto cited a Toledo Blade article about Page's indictment. He said he had copied the original claim from a headline on a news site. But PolitiFact searched Google and the Nexis news database and did not find a headline that matched the language in his tweet. Conservative activist Jack Posobiec tweeted a similar claim while sharing a Daily Caller story about Page's indictment. Posobiec wrote, misleadingly, 'Black Lives Matter of Atlanta Charged with Money Laundering, Wire Fraud, Allegedly Used $450,000 in Donations for Personal use.'
|
Our ruling A tweet reposted to Facebook said, 'Black Lives Matter of Atlanta Charged with Wire Fraud, Money Laundering and Allegedly Using almost 500k in Donations For Personal Use.' That's misleading. Black Lives Matter was not charged. The charges are against one person accused of misusing donations to what the Justice Department says was an illegitimate nonprofit posing as a Black Lives Matter charity. The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation said in a September statement that it was not affiliated with that person. A local news report from 2016 said he had 'parted ways' with the Black Lives Matter of Atlanta movement. We rate this tweet False.
|
[] |
'Black Lives Matter of Atlanta Charged with Wire Fraud, Money Laundering and Allegedly Using almost 500k in Donations For Personal Use.
|
Contradiction
|
Social media users are wrongly claiming that an official Black Lives Matter organization was charged with committing wire fraud, laundering money and misusing donation money. The reality is different: a lone Ohio activist was indicted on similar charges after he allegedly created a Facebook page that he passed off as a Black Lives Matter charity. The facts haven't stopped the spread of misleading claims about what happened. 'Black Lives Matter of Atlanta Charged with Wire Fraud, Money Laundering and Allegedly Using almost 500k in Donations For Personal Use,' said conservative commentator Chuck Callesto, a former Republican congressional candidate, in one such tweet posted March 16. Screenshots of Callesto's tweet were shared on Facebook, along with other posts that repeated versions of the same claim. They were flagged as part of the platform's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The posts give the misleading impression that the wire fraud and money laundering charges were filed against an official chapter of the Black Lives Matter movement formed in 2013 after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, a Black teenager, in Florida. But Black Lives Matter was not charged. The charges are actually against a 32-year-old activist named Sir Maejor Page, or Tyree Conyers-Page, according to the Justice Department. Page is accused of using a Facebook page called 'Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta,' an illegitimate nonprofit, to defraud donors on the platform who thought they were supporting a legitimate social justice organization. Page created the Facebook account and registered 'Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta' as a nonprofit organization in 2016, and he continued soliciting donations through Facebook after the group's tax-exempt status was revoked for failure to submit required IRS forms for three years, according to the indictment against him. Prosecutors say Page misled Facebook users into believing their donations would be used to back protests in support of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement. He received donations from more than 100 people through the Facebook page. He put thousands of dollars toward personal items, entertainment, hotel rooms and a house, the indictment says. The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a charity created as an outgrowth of the Black Lives Matter movement, said in September that it was not affiliated with Page and that it rejected 'the extreme misleading behaviors of people who utilize our name for their own personal wealth and gain.' 'Our stance remains that Mr. Page is not affiliated with Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, nor is he an activist for the movement,' the foundation told PolitiFact. Fox 5 Atlanta, a local TV station, reported in 2016 that Page had 'parted ways' with the Black Lives Matter movement in Atlanta before starting his Facebook page. A Twitter account for 'Black Lives Matter Atlanta' posted two tweets that same year saying Page's group was 'not a real chapter' and 'not aligned w/ principles of BLM.' The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation confirmed that the Twitter account is legitimate. Using Facebook, PolitiFact messaged Callesto, who created the tweet that appeared on Facebook as a screenshot. After we reached out, he acknowledged that his tweet 'could mislead' and posted a follow-up tweet in a thread under the original. 'This tweet is missing CONTEXT,' Callesto wrote in the March 18 update. 'It should read.. 'Black Lives Matter of GREATER Atlanta' Charged with Wire Fraud, Money Laundering... 'Black Lives Matter of GREATER Atlanta' refers to a(n) illegitimate nonprofit organization.' Callesto cited a Toledo Blade article about Page's indictment. He said he had copied the original claim from a headline on a news site. But PolitiFact searched Google and the Nexis news database and did not find a headline that matched the language in his tweet. Conservative activist Jack Posobiec tweeted a similar claim while sharing a Daily Caller story about Page's indictment. Posobiec wrote, misleadingly, 'Black Lives Matter of Atlanta Charged with Money Laundering, Wire Fraud, Allegedly Used $450,000 in Donations for Personal use.'
|
Our ruling A tweet reposted to Facebook said, 'Black Lives Matter of Atlanta Charged with Wire Fraud, Money Laundering and Allegedly Using almost 500k in Donations For Personal Use.' That's misleading. Black Lives Matter was not charged. The charges are against one person accused of misusing donations to what the Justice Department says was an illegitimate nonprofit posing as a Black Lives Matter charity. The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation said in a September statement that it was not affiliated with that person. A local news report from 2016 said he had 'parted ways' with the Black Lives Matter of Atlanta movement. We rate this tweet False.
|
[] |
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper 'has not left the Governor's Mansion since the start of the #COVID19 crisis.
|
Contradiction
|
Add North Carolina's governor to the list of politicians accused of hiding from the public. During campaign season, Republicans on several occasions accused Democrats of hiding in their basements amid the coronavirus pandemic. That trend continued the Sunday after Christmas, when the North Carolina GOP tweeted about Gov. Roy Cooper. 'Democrat Governor @RoyCooperNC has not left the Governor's Mansion since the start of the #COVID19 crisis,' the party tweeted on Dec. 27. Compared to similar claims and barbs, this particular tweet stood out. For one, North Carolina's gubernatorial race is over. Incumbent Cooper defeated Republican Dan Forest by about 250,000 votes - or about 4 percentage points - over a month ago. Second, the North Carolina Republican Party's claim is very specific. So is it true that Cooper hasn't left the Governor's Mansion in Raleigh since March, when the pandemic started? No. There are numerous examples of Cooper leaving the executive mansion. On Dec. 21, less than a week before the NC GOP's tweet, Cooper visited Duke Hospital to see health care workers receive COVID-19 vaccinations. He did the same at UNC Hospital in Chapel Hill on Dec. 17. Earlier this month, he toured a factory in Pittsboro that makes personal protective equipment. And in November, he toured a face shield production line. Cooper met with residents in August, when he visited Windsor in Bertie County after the town was hit by a tornado. He has held multiple press conferences about the coronavirus pandemic from the Emergency Management building across town from the executive mansion. Cooper also made a couple of high-profile appearances on the campaign trail in October, debating Forest at a studio in Research Triangle Park and greeting Joe Biden at RDU-International Airport. We know the NC GOP is aware of Cooper's trip to the airport because it issued a press release about his conversation with Biden. The list of trips in this fact-check is not comprehensive. So why did the NC GOP tweet that Cooper hasn't left his house? Party spokesman Tim Wigginton told PolitiFact NC that the tweet is not meant to be taken literally. 'The tweet is meant metaphorically,' Wigginton said, adding that it's meant to critique the frequency of Cooper's visits with business owners. He accused Cooper of living 'in a bubble ... instead of meeting with people devastated by his orders.' The NC GOP's tweet gave no indication that the party was calling on Cooper to meet with business owners.
|
Our ruling The NC GOP tweeted that Cooper 'has not left the Governor's Mansion since the start of the (COVID-19) crisis.' That's not only false, the party knows it's false. Cooper has left the mansion numerous times since March, and made many public appearances. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"110504-proof-08-d19a7fa3e35d60523621c060fa4fd39d.jpg"
] |
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper 'has not left the Governor's Mansion since the start of the #COVID19 crisis.
|
Contradiction
|
Add North Carolina's governor to the list of politicians accused of hiding from the public. During campaign season, Republicans on several occasions accused Democrats of hiding in their basements amid the coronavirus pandemic. That trend continued the Sunday after Christmas, when the North Carolina GOP tweeted about Gov. Roy Cooper. 'Democrat Governor @RoyCooperNC has not left the Governor's Mansion since the start of the #COVID19 crisis,' the party tweeted on Dec. 27. Compared to similar claims and barbs, this particular tweet stood out. For one, North Carolina's gubernatorial race is over. Incumbent Cooper defeated Republican Dan Forest by about 250,000 votes - or about 4 percentage points - over a month ago. Second, the North Carolina Republican Party's claim is very specific. So is it true that Cooper hasn't left the Governor's Mansion in Raleigh since March, when the pandemic started? No. There are numerous examples of Cooper leaving the executive mansion. On Dec. 21, less than a week before the NC GOP's tweet, Cooper visited Duke Hospital to see health care workers receive COVID-19 vaccinations. He did the same at UNC Hospital in Chapel Hill on Dec. 17. Earlier this month, he toured a factory in Pittsboro that makes personal protective equipment. And in November, he toured a face shield production line. Cooper met with residents in August, when he visited Windsor in Bertie County after the town was hit by a tornado. He has held multiple press conferences about the coronavirus pandemic from the Emergency Management building across town from the executive mansion. Cooper also made a couple of high-profile appearances on the campaign trail in October, debating Forest at a studio in Research Triangle Park and greeting Joe Biden at RDU-International Airport. We know the NC GOP is aware of Cooper's trip to the airport because it issued a press release about his conversation with Biden. The list of trips in this fact-check is not comprehensive. So why did the NC GOP tweet that Cooper hasn't left his house? Party spokesman Tim Wigginton told PolitiFact NC that the tweet is not meant to be taken literally. 'The tweet is meant metaphorically,' Wigginton said, adding that it's meant to critique the frequency of Cooper's visits with business owners. He accused Cooper of living 'in a bubble ... instead of meeting with people devastated by his orders.' The NC GOP's tweet gave no indication that the party was calling on Cooper to meet with business owners.
|
Our ruling The NC GOP tweeted that Cooper 'has not left the Governor's Mansion since the start of the (COVID-19) crisis.' That's not only false, the party knows it's false. Cooper has left the mansion numerous times since March, and made many public appearances. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"110504-proof-08-d19a7fa3e35d60523621c060fa4fd39d.jpg"
] |
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper 'has not left the Governor's Mansion since the start of the #COVID19 crisis.
|
Contradiction
|
Add North Carolina's governor to the list of politicians accused of hiding from the public. During campaign season, Republicans on several occasions accused Democrats of hiding in their basements amid the coronavirus pandemic. That trend continued the Sunday after Christmas, when the North Carolina GOP tweeted about Gov. Roy Cooper. 'Democrat Governor @RoyCooperNC has not left the Governor's Mansion since the start of the #COVID19 crisis,' the party tweeted on Dec. 27. Compared to similar claims and barbs, this particular tweet stood out. For one, North Carolina's gubernatorial race is over. Incumbent Cooper defeated Republican Dan Forest by about 250,000 votes - or about 4 percentage points - over a month ago. Second, the North Carolina Republican Party's claim is very specific. So is it true that Cooper hasn't left the Governor's Mansion in Raleigh since March, when the pandemic started? No. There are numerous examples of Cooper leaving the executive mansion. On Dec. 21, less than a week before the NC GOP's tweet, Cooper visited Duke Hospital to see health care workers receive COVID-19 vaccinations. He did the same at UNC Hospital in Chapel Hill on Dec. 17. Earlier this month, he toured a factory in Pittsboro that makes personal protective equipment. And in November, he toured a face shield production line. Cooper met with residents in August, when he visited Windsor in Bertie County after the town was hit by a tornado. He has held multiple press conferences about the coronavirus pandemic from the Emergency Management building across town from the executive mansion. Cooper also made a couple of high-profile appearances on the campaign trail in October, debating Forest at a studio in Research Triangle Park and greeting Joe Biden at RDU-International Airport. We know the NC GOP is aware of Cooper's trip to the airport because it issued a press release about his conversation with Biden. The list of trips in this fact-check is not comprehensive. So why did the NC GOP tweet that Cooper hasn't left his house? Party spokesman Tim Wigginton told PolitiFact NC that the tweet is not meant to be taken literally. 'The tweet is meant metaphorically,' Wigginton said, adding that it's meant to critique the frequency of Cooper's visits with business owners. He accused Cooper of living 'in a bubble ... instead of meeting with people devastated by his orders.' The NC GOP's tweet gave no indication that the party was calling on Cooper to meet with business owners.
|
Our ruling The NC GOP tweeted that Cooper 'has not left the Governor's Mansion since the start of the (COVID-19) crisis.' That's not only false, the party knows it's false. Cooper has left the mansion numerous times since March, and made many public appearances. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[
"110504-proof-08-d19a7fa3e35d60523621c060fa4fd39d.jpg"
] |
Dr. Anthony Fauci 'has known for 15 years that chloroquine and ... hydroxychloroquine will not only treat a current case of coronavirus but prevent future cases.
|
Contradiction
|
A widely shared conspiracy theory on Facebook alleges that Dr. Anthony Fauci is knowingly advocating against a treatment for the novel coronavirus. An April 27 article says the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has known since 2005 that hydroxychloroquine, a drug used to treat conditions like lupus and arthritis, is effective against coronaviruses like the one that causes COVID-19. 'Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose 'expert' advice to President Trump has resulted in the complete shutdown of the greatest economic engine in world history, has known since 2005 that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of coronaviruses,' reads the article. 'How did he know this? Because of research done by the National Institutes of Health, of which he is the director.' The source of the article is One News Now, a website operated by the American Family Association, a Christian fundamentalist nonprofit founded by Mississippi pastor Donald Wildmon. The Southern Poverty Law Center has classified the political organization as an anti-LGBTQ hate group. One News Now's 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.) It has been shared more than 27,000 times. (Screenshot from One News Now) Despite being one of the most trusted coronavirus experts in the United States, Fauci has been the target of several conspiracy theories about his handling of the pandemic - particularly since he tempered expectations for hydroxychloroquine during a March press conference. So we wanted to check out this article, too. There are several things wrong with the One News Now story. First: The article relies on a 2005 study about the effect of chloroquine on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, more commonly called SARS. Chloroquine is chemically similar to hydroxychloroquine, but it is a different drug and is primarily used to treat malaria. Both drugs pose risks for people with heart problems. The One News Now story claims the journal that published the study is 'the official publication of Dr. Fauci's National Institutes of Health.' That's inaccurate. While the 2005 study has been indexed by the NIH's National Library of Medicine, it was published in the peer-reviewed Virology Journal. The journal is produced by BioMed Central, a United Kingdom-based for-profit publisher. The study's authors worked for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal, and the study was funded by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We reached out to the NIH for more context, but we haven't heard back. Second: The study does not suggest that hydroxychloroquine could be effective at treating or preventing COVID-19, as One News Now claims. 'HCQ functions as both a cure and a vaccine,' the website wrote. 'In other words, it's a wonder drug for coronavirus.' This is inaccurate - there is no cure or vaccine for SARS or the novel coronavirus. While some studies have found that hydroxychloroquine could mitigate some of the symptoms associated with COVID-19, other research has found no such effect. With more than 50 studies in the works, as well as an NIH clinical trial, it's too soon to say whether the drug is a viable treatment for the coronavirus. The 2005 study found that chloroquine - not hydroxychloroquine - was 'effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV,' the official name for SARS. The research was conducted in 'cell culture conditions,' meaning the drug was not administered to actual SARS patients. The authors wrote that more research was needed on how the drug interacts with SARS in animal test subjects. 'Cell culture testing of an antiviral drug against the virus is only the first step, of many steps, necessary to develop an antiviral drug,' said Kate Fowlie, a press officer for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in an email. 'It is important to realize that most antivirals that pass this cell culture test hurdle fail at later steps in the development process.' RELATED: Hydroxychloroquine and coronavirus: what you need to know Finally: Fauci could not have known in 2005 that hydroxychloroquine was a potential treatment for COVID-19. Available evidence shows that the novel coronavirus first emerged in Hubei Province, China, in November. While the novel coronavirus is similar to SARS in some respects - both are human coronaviruses that originated in bats, cause respiratory illness and spread through coughs and sneezes - they are different diseases. COVID-19 has infected more than 3.5 million people worldwide compared to the 8,000 who were sickened during the 2003 SARS outbreak. While SARS cases are generally more severe, scientists believe that COVID-19 is more transmissible. As One News Now notes, the novel coronavirus and SARS have a 79% genetic similarity and use the same 'host cell receptor,' meaning they infect people in similar ways. But that doesn't mean the findings of the 2005 study apply to COVID-19. 'Whether chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine are of value for treating infections with the different, but related, SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be answered by the data in the 2005 study,' Fowlie said.
|
Our ruling One News Now wrote that Fauci 'has known for 15 years that chloroquine and ... hydroxychloroquine will not only treat a current case of coronavirus but prevent future cases.' The website cited a study that has to do with SARS, not the novel coronavirus. It was published in 2005 in Virology Journal, which is not the 'official publication' of the NIH. While the study found that chloroquine helped inhibit the spread of SARS in cell cultures, those results do not suggest that the drug is an effective treatment for SARS or COVID-19. As of now, there is no approved treatment or vaccine for either coronavirus. The One News Now article is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"110519-proof-30-dfacc573a7d9cfe62a3782bed176d264.jpg",
"110519-proof-35-Screen_Shot_2020-05-06_at_1.50.57_PM.jpg"
] |
Dr. Anthony Fauci 'has known for 15 years that chloroquine and ... hydroxychloroquine will not only treat a current case of coronavirus but prevent future cases.
|
Contradiction
|
A widely shared conspiracy theory on Facebook alleges that Dr. Anthony Fauci is knowingly advocating against a treatment for the novel coronavirus. An April 27 article says the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has known since 2005 that hydroxychloroquine, a drug used to treat conditions like lupus and arthritis, is effective against coronaviruses like the one that causes COVID-19. 'Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose 'expert' advice to President Trump has resulted in the complete shutdown of the greatest economic engine in world history, has known since 2005 that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of coronaviruses,' reads the article. 'How did he know this? Because of research done by the National Institutes of Health, of which he is the director.' The source of the article is One News Now, a website operated by the American Family Association, a Christian fundamentalist nonprofit founded by Mississippi pastor Donald Wildmon. The Southern Poverty Law Center has classified the political organization as an anti-LGBTQ hate group. One News Now's 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.) It has been shared more than 27,000 times. (Screenshot from One News Now) Despite being one of the most trusted coronavirus experts in the United States, Fauci has been the target of several conspiracy theories about his handling of the pandemic - particularly since he tempered expectations for hydroxychloroquine during a March press conference. So we wanted to check out this article, too. There are several things wrong with the One News Now story. First: The article relies on a 2005 study about the effect of chloroquine on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, more commonly called SARS. Chloroquine is chemically similar to hydroxychloroquine, but it is a different drug and is primarily used to treat malaria. Both drugs pose risks for people with heart problems. The One News Now story claims the journal that published the study is 'the official publication of Dr. Fauci's National Institutes of Health.' That's inaccurate. While the 2005 study has been indexed by the NIH's National Library of Medicine, it was published in the peer-reviewed Virology Journal. The journal is produced by BioMed Central, a United Kingdom-based for-profit publisher. The study's authors worked for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal, and the study was funded by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We reached out to the NIH for more context, but we haven't heard back. Second: The study does not suggest that hydroxychloroquine could be effective at treating or preventing COVID-19, as One News Now claims. 'HCQ functions as both a cure and a vaccine,' the website wrote. 'In other words, it's a wonder drug for coronavirus.' This is inaccurate - there is no cure or vaccine for SARS or the novel coronavirus. While some studies have found that hydroxychloroquine could mitigate some of the symptoms associated with COVID-19, other research has found no such effect. With more than 50 studies in the works, as well as an NIH clinical trial, it's too soon to say whether the drug is a viable treatment for the coronavirus. The 2005 study found that chloroquine - not hydroxychloroquine - was 'effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV,' the official name for SARS. The research was conducted in 'cell culture conditions,' meaning the drug was not administered to actual SARS patients. The authors wrote that more research was needed on how the drug interacts with SARS in animal test subjects. 'Cell culture testing of an antiviral drug against the virus is only the first step, of many steps, necessary to develop an antiviral drug,' said Kate Fowlie, a press officer for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in an email. 'It is important to realize that most antivirals that pass this cell culture test hurdle fail at later steps in the development process.' RELATED: Hydroxychloroquine and coronavirus: what you need to know Finally: Fauci could not have known in 2005 that hydroxychloroquine was a potential treatment for COVID-19. Available evidence shows that the novel coronavirus first emerged in Hubei Province, China, in November. While the novel coronavirus is similar to SARS in some respects - both are human coronaviruses that originated in bats, cause respiratory illness and spread through coughs and sneezes - they are different diseases. COVID-19 has infected more than 3.5 million people worldwide compared to the 8,000 who were sickened during the 2003 SARS outbreak. While SARS cases are generally more severe, scientists believe that COVID-19 is more transmissible. As One News Now notes, the novel coronavirus and SARS have a 79% genetic similarity and use the same 'host cell receptor,' meaning they infect people in similar ways. But that doesn't mean the findings of the 2005 study apply to COVID-19. 'Whether chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine are of value for treating infections with the different, but related, SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be answered by the data in the 2005 study,' Fowlie said.
|
Our ruling One News Now wrote that Fauci 'has known for 15 years that chloroquine and ... hydroxychloroquine will not only treat a current case of coronavirus but prevent future cases.' The website cited a study that has to do with SARS, not the novel coronavirus. It was published in 2005 in Virology Journal, which is not the 'official publication' of the NIH. While the study found that chloroquine helped inhibit the spread of SARS in cell cultures, those results do not suggest that the drug is an effective treatment for SARS or COVID-19. As of now, there is no approved treatment or vaccine for either coronavirus. The One News Now article is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"110519-proof-30-dfacc573a7d9cfe62a3782bed176d264.jpg",
"110519-proof-35-Screen_Shot_2020-05-06_at_1.50.57_PM.jpg"
] |
Dr. Anthony Fauci 'has known for 15 years that chloroquine and ... hydroxychloroquine will not only treat a current case of coronavirus but prevent future cases.
|
Contradiction
|
A widely shared conspiracy theory on Facebook alleges that Dr. Anthony Fauci is knowingly advocating against a treatment for the novel coronavirus. An April 27 article says the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has known since 2005 that hydroxychloroquine, a drug used to treat conditions like lupus and arthritis, is effective against coronaviruses like the one that causes COVID-19. 'Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose 'expert' advice to President Trump has resulted in the complete shutdown of the greatest economic engine in world history, has known since 2005 that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of coronaviruses,' reads the article. 'How did he know this? Because of research done by the National Institutes of Health, of which he is the director.' The source of the article is One News Now, a website operated by the American Family Association, a Christian fundamentalist nonprofit founded by Mississippi pastor Donald Wildmon. The Southern Poverty Law Center has classified the political organization as an anti-LGBTQ hate group. One News Now's 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.) It has been shared more than 27,000 times. (Screenshot from One News Now) Despite being one of the most trusted coronavirus experts in the United States, Fauci has been the target of several conspiracy theories about his handling of the pandemic - particularly since he tempered expectations for hydroxychloroquine during a March press conference. So we wanted to check out this article, too. There are several things wrong with the One News Now story. First: The article relies on a 2005 study about the effect of chloroquine on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, more commonly called SARS. Chloroquine is chemically similar to hydroxychloroquine, but it is a different drug and is primarily used to treat malaria. Both drugs pose risks for people with heart problems. The One News Now story claims the journal that published the study is 'the official publication of Dr. Fauci's National Institutes of Health.' That's inaccurate. While the 2005 study has been indexed by the NIH's National Library of Medicine, it was published in the peer-reviewed Virology Journal. The journal is produced by BioMed Central, a United Kingdom-based for-profit publisher. The study's authors worked for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal, and the study was funded by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We reached out to the NIH for more context, but we haven't heard back. Second: The study does not suggest that hydroxychloroquine could be effective at treating or preventing COVID-19, as One News Now claims. 'HCQ functions as both a cure and a vaccine,' the website wrote. 'In other words, it's a wonder drug for coronavirus.' This is inaccurate - there is no cure or vaccine for SARS or the novel coronavirus. While some studies have found that hydroxychloroquine could mitigate some of the symptoms associated with COVID-19, other research has found no such effect. With more than 50 studies in the works, as well as an NIH clinical trial, it's too soon to say whether the drug is a viable treatment for the coronavirus. The 2005 study found that chloroquine - not hydroxychloroquine - was 'effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV,' the official name for SARS. The research was conducted in 'cell culture conditions,' meaning the drug was not administered to actual SARS patients. The authors wrote that more research was needed on how the drug interacts with SARS in animal test subjects. 'Cell culture testing of an antiviral drug against the virus is only the first step, of many steps, necessary to develop an antiviral drug,' said Kate Fowlie, a press officer for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in an email. 'It is important to realize that most antivirals that pass this cell culture test hurdle fail at later steps in the development process.' RELATED: Hydroxychloroquine and coronavirus: what you need to know Finally: Fauci could not have known in 2005 that hydroxychloroquine was a potential treatment for COVID-19. Available evidence shows that the novel coronavirus first emerged in Hubei Province, China, in November. While the novel coronavirus is similar to SARS in some respects - both are human coronaviruses that originated in bats, cause respiratory illness and spread through coughs and sneezes - they are different diseases. COVID-19 has infected more than 3.5 million people worldwide compared to the 8,000 who were sickened during the 2003 SARS outbreak. While SARS cases are generally more severe, scientists believe that COVID-19 is more transmissible. As One News Now notes, the novel coronavirus and SARS have a 79% genetic similarity and use the same 'host cell receptor,' meaning they infect people in similar ways. But that doesn't mean the findings of the 2005 study apply to COVID-19. 'Whether chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine are of value for treating infections with the different, but related, SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be answered by the data in the 2005 study,' Fowlie said.
|
Our ruling One News Now wrote that Fauci 'has known for 15 years that chloroquine and ... hydroxychloroquine will not only treat a current case of coronavirus but prevent future cases.' The website cited a study that has to do with SARS, not the novel coronavirus. It was published in 2005 in Virology Journal, which is not the 'official publication' of the NIH. While the study found that chloroquine helped inhibit the spread of SARS in cell cultures, those results do not suggest that the drug is an effective treatment for SARS or COVID-19. As of now, there is no approved treatment or vaccine for either coronavirus. The One News Now article is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"110519-proof-30-dfacc573a7d9cfe62a3782bed176d264.jpg",
"110519-proof-35-Screen_Shot_2020-05-06_at_1.50.57_PM.jpg"
] |
HR 1 'gives the federal government the power to establish their own committees' to take over the redistricting process.
|
Contradiction
|
An expansive voting rights bill known as H.R. 1 includes provisions on voter registration procedures, mail balloting, voter ID laws and campaign finance. One less-discussed, but far-reaching aspect of the law surrounds congressional redistricting - the process by which states redraw district lines for their House delegation every 10 years after the census. The bill has passed the House narrowly, on a near-party-line vote. It is now under consideration in the Senate. The redistricting provisions seek to address longstanding complaints that state legislators - who redraw the lines in most states - have a vested interest in drawing lines that benefit their own party, a practice known as gerrymandering. The bill would require all states to use a system like one used in several states already, where the final lines win approval from a cross-section of Republicans, Democrats and independents on a special commission. The redistricting provisions became the focus of an attack by the conservative group Turning Point USA in a recent video shared on Instagram. The video says in part, 'States have the sovereignty to redistrict their own states, to decide where their congressional districts are. H.R. 1 destroys that right and gives the federal government the power to establish their own committees to violate the states' sovereignty in drawing congressional districts. This is a federal committee you did not elect in charge of redistricting your state, your congressional district where you live.' 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, which owns Instagram.) We took a closer look at whether H.R. 1 'gives the federal government the power to establish their own committees' to take over the redistricting process. We found that this description is misleading. Turning Point USA did not respond to an inquiry for this article. How would H.R. 1 reshape congressional redistricting? Today, nine states have independent commissions that draw congressional district lines: Arizona, Colorado, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington state. Montana also has an independent commission, but it currently has only one statewide congressional seat. Iowa, meanwhile, has a nonpartisan system that is considered similarly removed from politics. In the other states, the legislature controls redistricting. Under H.R. 1, those states would need to shift the task to an independent commission. The expectation is that this switch would take place in time for the 2031 round of redistricting, said Michael Li, senior counsel at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. According to the bill, the process would start with an existing nonpartisan state agency assembling a pool of qualified commissioners, screened for conflicts of interest. (The bill is vague about which officials would do this, but for its current commission, Arizona uses an appellate court personnel board, while California uses its state auditor's office.) The state agency would appoint six members to the commission from that pool: two from each major party and two from neither party. Then those six commissioners would appoint nine other commissioners from the pool, three from each major party and three from neither. This 15-member board would scrutinize the maps and propose new lines, with their meetings and underlying data open to the public. A final map would have to win enough support from all three party groups. While H.R. 1 leaves the nitty gritty of line-drawing to the commission, it does spell out some principles that should be upheld. They include, 'to the extent practicable,' keeping 'communities of interest' - such as counties, municipalities and reservations - whole. And the bill explicitly says that the new map cannot be drawn with 'the intent or the effect of unduly favoring or disfavoring any political party.' Does H.R. 1 give the federal government 'the power to establish their own committees' for redistricting? The bill does mandate an overhaul of how redistricting is done in most states. But the video misinterprets this change. The bill 'requires that the states establish their own committees,' said David Daley, a senior fellow at FairVote, a voting-and-elections advocacy group. 'It does not give the federal government the power to establish those commissions for them.' Jon Eguia, a Michigan State University economist who has studied redistricting systems, agreed: 'I don't see the federal government establishing any committees under H.R. 1.' 'You can say that H.R. 1 is bossy toward states, or that it takes away their right to decide how to conduct elections,' he added. 'But I think the phrase (in the video) is misleading.' Would the change in H.R. 1 'violate the states' sovereignty in drawing congressional districts'? Whether the redistricting provisions of H.R. 1 would pass constitutional muster is still an open question. Redistricting experts said that both supporters and opponents of the law would argue their case using the Constitution's Elections Clause. That clause says: 'The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.' Critics of the bill will point to the phrase, 'shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,' arguing that the power rests with legislatures, rather than Congress. Meanwhile, supporters will point to the next phase, 'but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations,' arguing that this gives Congress the upper hand on this issue. 'The founders gave Congress this power for exactly this reason, concerned that states might develop unfair election processes,' Daley said. States might argue that requiring them to use commissions is an 'unconstitutional form of 'commandeering' of state government to serve a federal interest,' Li said, 'but states made that same argument about the National Voter Registration Act, which was also enacted under the Elections Clause, and courts rejected it.' Li also pointed to the 2019 Supreme Court case Rucho v. Common Cause, in which Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a 5-4 majority, highlighted Congress' power under the Elections Clause to overrule partisan gerrymanders. Specifically citing the precursor to H.R. 1, which was then pending in Congress, Roberts wrote that 'the Framers gave Congress the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering in the Elections Clause. ... The avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open.' Today, the Supreme Court has one more conservative member, however, so critics of H.R. 1 would likely sue if the bill passes.
|
Our ruling Turning Point USA said that H.R. 1 'gives the federal government the power to establish their own committees' to take over the redistricting process. H.R. 1 would overhaul how congressional redistricting would work in the states that do not already have independent redistricting commissions. States currently without one would have to appoint a 15-member panel composed of equal numbers of Democrats, Republicans and independents. The law also says, broadly, that lines should not be drawn for partisan gain and that communities, if possible, should not be divided. However, the bill says states - not the federal government - would choose the commissioners and equip them for the task. These panels would not become the federal government's 'own committees' handling redistricting. We rate the statement Mostly False.
|
[
"110521-proof-51-e8c3819e2ed66bb8e8bd33cdb1658ca0.jpg"
] |
HR 1 'gives the federal government the power to establish their own committees' to take over the redistricting process.
|
Contradiction
|
An expansive voting rights bill known as H.R. 1 includes provisions on voter registration procedures, mail balloting, voter ID laws and campaign finance. One less-discussed, but far-reaching aspect of the law surrounds congressional redistricting - the process by which states redraw district lines for their House delegation every 10 years after the census. The bill has passed the House narrowly, on a near-party-line vote. It is now under consideration in the Senate. The redistricting provisions seek to address longstanding complaints that state legislators - who redraw the lines in most states - have a vested interest in drawing lines that benefit their own party, a practice known as gerrymandering. The bill would require all states to use a system like one used in several states already, where the final lines win approval from a cross-section of Republicans, Democrats and independents on a special commission. The redistricting provisions became the focus of an attack by the conservative group Turning Point USA in a recent video shared on Instagram. The video says in part, 'States have the sovereignty to redistrict their own states, to decide where their congressional districts are. H.R. 1 destroys that right and gives the federal government the power to establish their own committees to violate the states' sovereignty in drawing congressional districts. This is a federal committee you did not elect in charge of redistricting your state, your congressional district where you live.' 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, which owns Instagram.) We took a closer look at whether H.R. 1 'gives the federal government the power to establish their own committees' to take over the redistricting process. We found that this description is misleading. Turning Point USA did not respond to an inquiry for this article. How would H.R. 1 reshape congressional redistricting? Today, nine states have independent commissions that draw congressional district lines: Arizona, Colorado, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington state. Montana also has an independent commission, but it currently has only one statewide congressional seat. Iowa, meanwhile, has a nonpartisan system that is considered similarly removed from politics. In the other states, the legislature controls redistricting. Under H.R. 1, those states would need to shift the task to an independent commission. The expectation is that this switch would take place in time for the 2031 round of redistricting, said Michael Li, senior counsel at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. According to the bill, the process would start with an existing nonpartisan state agency assembling a pool of qualified commissioners, screened for conflicts of interest. (The bill is vague about which officials would do this, but for its current commission, Arizona uses an appellate court personnel board, while California uses its state auditor's office.) The state agency would appoint six members to the commission from that pool: two from each major party and two from neither party. Then those six commissioners would appoint nine other commissioners from the pool, three from each major party and three from neither. This 15-member board would scrutinize the maps and propose new lines, with their meetings and underlying data open to the public. A final map would have to win enough support from all three party groups. While H.R. 1 leaves the nitty gritty of line-drawing to the commission, it does spell out some principles that should be upheld. They include, 'to the extent practicable,' keeping 'communities of interest' - such as counties, municipalities and reservations - whole. And the bill explicitly says that the new map cannot be drawn with 'the intent or the effect of unduly favoring or disfavoring any political party.' Does H.R. 1 give the federal government 'the power to establish their own committees' for redistricting? The bill does mandate an overhaul of how redistricting is done in most states. But the video misinterprets this change. The bill 'requires that the states establish their own committees,' said David Daley, a senior fellow at FairVote, a voting-and-elections advocacy group. 'It does not give the federal government the power to establish those commissions for them.' Jon Eguia, a Michigan State University economist who has studied redistricting systems, agreed: 'I don't see the federal government establishing any committees under H.R. 1.' 'You can say that H.R. 1 is bossy toward states, or that it takes away their right to decide how to conduct elections,' he added. 'But I think the phrase (in the video) is misleading.' Would the change in H.R. 1 'violate the states' sovereignty in drawing congressional districts'? Whether the redistricting provisions of H.R. 1 would pass constitutional muster is still an open question. Redistricting experts said that both supporters and opponents of the law would argue their case using the Constitution's Elections Clause. That clause says: 'The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.' Critics of the bill will point to the phrase, 'shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,' arguing that the power rests with legislatures, rather than Congress. Meanwhile, supporters will point to the next phase, 'but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations,' arguing that this gives Congress the upper hand on this issue. 'The founders gave Congress this power for exactly this reason, concerned that states might develop unfair election processes,' Daley said. States might argue that requiring them to use commissions is an 'unconstitutional form of 'commandeering' of state government to serve a federal interest,' Li said, 'but states made that same argument about the National Voter Registration Act, which was also enacted under the Elections Clause, and courts rejected it.' Li also pointed to the 2019 Supreme Court case Rucho v. Common Cause, in which Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a 5-4 majority, highlighted Congress' power under the Elections Clause to overrule partisan gerrymanders. Specifically citing the precursor to H.R. 1, which was then pending in Congress, Roberts wrote that 'the Framers gave Congress the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering in the Elections Clause. ... The avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open.' Today, the Supreme Court has one more conservative member, however, so critics of H.R. 1 would likely sue if the bill passes.
|
Our ruling Turning Point USA said that H.R. 1 'gives the federal government the power to establish their own committees' to take over the redistricting process. H.R. 1 would overhaul how congressional redistricting would work in the states that do not already have independent redistricting commissions. States currently without one would have to appoint a 15-member panel composed of equal numbers of Democrats, Republicans and independents. The law also says, broadly, that lines should not be drawn for partisan gain and that communities, if possible, should not be divided. However, the bill says states - not the federal government - would choose the commissioners and equip them for the task. These panels would not become the federal government's 'own committees' handling redistricting. We rate the statement Mostly False.
|
[
"110521-proof-51-e8c3819e2ed66bb8e8bd33cdb1658ca0.jpg"
] |
Says Nancy Pelosi was photographed with the Manson Family.
|
Contradiction
|
A black-and-white photo of nine members of the Charles Manson 'family,' a Los Angeles cult responsible for several grisly murders, has been making rounds on social media. Circled in red is a woman in the back in a striped tank top, staring into the camera. Facebook users are convinced that woman is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It's not. 'Manson's gang Nancy Pelosi circled,' reads a recent post by Don Mentzer. 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 woman circled in the photo is Mary Brunner, a prominent member of the Manson Family and Manson's first recruit. Brunner was first identified to PolitiFact by Joan Renner, a historian and expert on Los Angeles crimes. Renner recognized Brunner right away. 'She has a very distinctive look,' Renner said. 'You can take that to the bank.' Renner didn't know the origins of the photo, but said the setting looked like the Spahn Ranch, where members of the Manson Family stayed in the early 1970s after Manson was arrested in August 1969. So we kept asking around. Tom O'Neill, who wrote a book about the Manson Family, also confirmed Brunner's identity. He connected PolitiFact with Bo Emerson, who collects documents and photos from the Manson case. He recognized the photo as one published in the August 1970 article of LIFE Magazine. The photo was taken by Michael Haering, a Los Angeles photojournalist. Other photos of Brunner in the same outfit credited to Haering can be found online. In 1968, Pelosi was living in New York City and had four children, Pelosi's spokesperson Drew Hamill pointed out. She and her husband moved to San Francisco - about 370 miles away from the Spahn Ranch - in 1969, when they had their fifth child. Renner said Manson and his cult despised politicians and would never have affiliated himself with a member of a prominent political family. 'Pelosi would've been on their 'political piggies' list,' Renner said, referring to a term Manson often used to justify his killings. 'There's no way in the world that she would've been anything else other than their possible victim.'
|
Our ruling The Facebook post claimed that Pelosi was photographed with the Manson Family in the late 1960s. The meme circled a woman in the middle back. She has been identified as Mary Brunner, a prominent member of the Manson Family. The photo was taken in 1970. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Says Nancy Pelosi was photographed with the Manson Family.
|
Contradiction
|
A black-and-white photo of nine members of the Charles Manson 'family,' a Los Angeles cult responsible for several grisly murders, has been making rounds on social media. Circled in red is a woman in the back in a striped tank top, staring into the camera. Facebook users are convinced that woman is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It's not. 'Manson's gang Nancy Pelosi circled,' reads a recent post by Don Mentzer. 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 woman circled in the photo is Mary Brunner, a prominent member of the Manson Family and Manson's first recruit. Brunner was first identified to PolitiFact by Joan Renner, a historian and expert on Los Angeles crimes. Renner recognized Brunner right away. 'She has a very distinctive look,' Renner said. 'You can take that to the bank.' Renner didn't know the origins of the photo, but said the setting looked like the Spahn Ranch, where members of the Manson Family stayed in the early 1970s after Manson was arrested in August 1969. So we kept asking around. Tom O'Neill, who wrote a book about the Manson Family, also confirmed Brunner's identity. He connected PolitiFact with Bo Emerson, who collects documents and photos from the Manson case. He recognized the photo as one published in the August 1970 article of LIFE Magazine. The photo was taken by Michael Haering, a Los Angeles photojournalist. Other photos of Brunner in the same outfit credited to Haering can be found online. In 1968, Pelosi was living in New York City and had four children, Pelosi's spokesperson Drew Hamill pointed out. She and her husband moved to San Francisco - about 370 miles away from the Spahn Ranch - in 1969, when they had their fifth child. Renner said Manson and his cult despised politicians and would never have affiliated himself with a member of a prominent political family. 'Pelosi would've been on their 'political piggies' list,' Renner said, referring to a term Manson often used to justify his killings. 'There's no way in the world that she would've been anything else other than their possible victim.'
|
Our ruling The Facebook post claimed that Pelosi was photographed with the Manson Family in the late 1960s. The meme circled a woman in the middle back. She has been identified as Mary Brunner, a prominent member of the Manson Family. The photo was taken in 1970. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Says Nancy Pelosi was photographed with the Manson Family.
|
Contradiction
|
A black-and-white photo of nine members of the Charles Manson 'family,' a Los Angeles cult responsible for several grisly murders, has been making rounds on social media. Circled in red is a woman in the back in a striped tank top, staring into the camera. Facebook users are convinced that woman is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It's not. 'Manson's gang Nancy Pelosi circled,' reads a recent post by Don Mentzer. 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 woman circled in the photo is Mary Brunner, a prominent member of the Manson Family and Manson's first recruit. Brunner was first identified to PolitiFact by Joan Renner, a historian and expert on Los Angeles crimes. Renner recognized Brunner right away. 'She has a very distinctive look,' Renner said. 'You can take that to the bank.' Renner didn't know the origins of the photo, but said the setting looked like the Spahn Ranch, where members of the Manson Family stayed in the early 1970s after Manson was arrested in August 1969. So we kept asking around. Tom O'Neill, who wrote a book about the Manson Family, also confirmed Brunner's identity. He connected PolitiFact with Bo Emerson, who collects documents and photos from the Manson case. He recognized the photo as one published in the August 1970 article of LIFE Magazine. The photo was taken by Michael Haering, a Los Angeles photojournalist. Other photos of Brunner in the same outfit credited to Haering can be found online. In 1968, Pelosi was living in New York City and had four children, Pelosi's spokesperson Drew Hamill pointed out. She and her husband moved to San Francisco - about 370 miles away from the Spahn Ranch - in 1969, when they had their fifth child. Renner said Manson and his cult despised politicians and would never have affiliated himself with a member of a prominent political family. 'Pelosi would've been on their 'political piggies' list,' Renner said, referring to a term Manson often used to justify his killings. 'There's no way in the world that she would've been anything else other than their possible victim.'
|
Our ruling The Facebook post claimed that Pelosi was photographed with the Manson Family in the late 1960s. The meme circled a woman in the middle back. She has been identified as Mary Brunner, a prominent member of the Manson Family. The photo was taken in 1970. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'CNN reports DemDebate had 2.3 million viewers. Trump rally had 6.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post claims that far more people tuned in to watch a rally for President Donald Trump than to view the Democratic presidential debate televised the same night. 'CNN reports DemDebate had 2.3 million viewers. Trump rally had 6.7 million last night!' said a Jan. 15 Facebook post, published a day after the Democratic debate in Iowa and the Trump rally in Wisconsin. The post, shared more than 700 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.) It's inaccurate. CNN said the debate had an average 7.3 million television viewers, plus 4 million live starts on CNN's platforms such as CNN.com and mobile apps. (Live starts refers to the number of times a play button was clicked on during a live event, or if a user opened the CNNgo app via Apple TV and selected 'live TV' to start playing the debate.) The debate started at 9 p.m. eastern time and ended shortly after 11 p.m., and Trump's rally began shortly after 8 p.m. eastern time. He spoke for about 1.5 hours at the UW-Milwaukee Panther Arena in Milwaukee, Wisc. (The arena's capacity is 12,700.) Neither the White House nor Trump's 2020 re-election campaign provided viewership numbers for Trump's Milwaukee rally. Fox Business channel aired the rally in its entirety. It had about 662,000 total viewers during the 8 p.m. time slot, and about 476,000 total viewers in the 9 p.m. hour, according to Nielsen data. Fox News channel's 8 p.m. show, 'Tucker Carlson Tonight,' aired the rally for 1 minute and had about 3.3 million total viewers for the show's entirety. Fox News' 9 p.m. show, 'Hannity,' aired it for 12 minutes and the show had about 3.4 million total viewers. (Those two shows usually have about that many viewers.) MSNBC did not air the rally, according to a review of MSNBC programming on the media monitoring service TVEyes. An ABC spokesperson said the network did not air the rally live on television, and while it did provide streaming of the event online at ABC News Live, it did not provide viewer numbers. PolitiFact also asked CBS and NBC if they aired the rally live in its entirety or in part, but we did not get a response.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'CNN reports DemDebate had 2.3 million viewers. Trump rally had 6.7 million last night!' The post vastly underreported the viewership numbers for the Democratic debate aired on CNN; there were 7.3 million viewers on TV alone. As to the number of viewers the Trump rally received, we know that Fox Business, a cable channel that aired the rally in its entirety (as CNN did for the debate), pulled in 662,000 viewers at 8 p.m. and 476,000 viewers at 9 p.m. Combined, 'Hannity' and 'Tucker Carlson Tonight,' two top shows on Fox News, aired less than 15 minutes of the hour-plus Trump rally. Each show had more than 3 million viewers that night, as they typically do. But it would be a stretch to conclude that the millions who watched the two shows equal millions who tuned in to solely watch Trump's rally. The Facebook post makes a claim with numbers that don't add up. We rate it False.
|
[] |
'CNN reports DemDebate had 2.3 million viewers. Trump rally had 6.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post claims that far more people tuned in to watch a rally for President Donald Trump than to view the Democratic presidential debate televised the same night. 'CNN reports DemDebate had 2.3 million viewers. Trump rally had 6.7 million last night!' said a Jan. 15 Facebook post, published a day after the Democratic debate in Iowa and the Trump rally in Wisconsin. The post, shared more than 700 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.) It's inaccurate. CNN said the debate had an average 7.3 million television viewers, plus 4 million live starts on CNN's platforms such as CNN.com and mobile apps. (Live starts refers to the number of times a play button was clicked on during a live event, or if a user opened the CNNgo app via Apple TV and selected 'live TV' to start playing the debate.) The debate started at 9 p.m. eastern time and ended shortly after 11 p.m., and Trump's rally began shortly after 8 p.m. eastern time. He spoke for about 1.5 hours at the UW-Milwaukee Panther Arena in Milwaukee, Wisc. (The arena's capacity is 12,700.) Neither the White House nor Trump's 2020 re-election campaign provided viewership numbers for Trump's Milwaukee rally. Fox Business channel aired the rally in its entirety. It had about 662,000 total viewers during the 8 p.m. time slot, and about 476,000 total viewers in the 9 p.m. hour, according to Nielsen data. Fox News channel's 8 p.m. show, 'Tucker Carlson Tonight,' aired the rally for 1 minute and had about 3.3 million total viewers for the show's entirety. Fox News' 9 p.m. show, 'Hannity,' aired it for 12 minutes and the show had about 3.4 million total viewers. (Those two shows usually have about that many viewers.) MSNBC did not air the rally, according to a review of MSNBC programming on the media monitoring service TVEyes. An ABC spokesperson said the network did not air the rally live on television, and while it did provide streaming of the event online at ABC News Live, it did not provide viewer numbers. PolitiFact also asked CBS and NBC if they aired the rally live in its entirety or in part, but we did not get a response.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'CNN reports DemDebate had 2.3 million viewers. Trump rally had 6.7 million last night!' The post vastly underreported the viewership numbers for the Democratic debate aired on CNN; there were 7.3 million viewers on TV alone. As to the number of viewers the Trump rally received, we know that Fox Business, a cable channel that aired the rally in its entirety (as CNN did for the debate), pulled in 662,000 viewers at 8 p.m. and 476,000 viewers at 9 p.m. Combined, 'Hannity' and 'Tucker Carlson Tonight,' two top shows on Fox News, aired less than 15 minutes of the hour-plus Trump rally. Each show had more than 3 million viewers that night, as they typically do. But it would be a stretch to conclude that the millions who watched the two shows equal millions who tuned in to solely watch Trump's rally. The Facebook post makes a claim with numbers that don't add up. We rate it False.
|
[] |
'CNN reports DemDebate had 2.3 million viewers. Trump rally had 6.
|
Contradiction
|
A Facebook post claims that far more people tuned in to watch a rally for President Donald Trump than to view the Democratic presidential debate televised the same night. 'CNN reports DemDebate had 2.3 million viewers. Trump rally had 6.7 million last night!' said a Jan. 15 Facebook post, published a day after the Democratic debate in Iowa and the Trump rally in Wisconsin. The post, shared more than 700 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.) It's inaccurate. CNN said the debate had an average 7.3 million television viewers, plus 4 million live starts on CNN's platforms such as CNN.com and mobile apps. (Live starts refers to the number of times a play button was clicked on during a live event, or if a user opened the CNNgo app via Apple TV and selected 'live TV' to start playing the debate.) The debate started at 9 p.m. eastern time and ended shortly after 11 p.m., and Trump's rally began shortly after 8 p.m. eastern time. He spoke for about 1.5 hours at the UW-Milwaukee Panther Arena in Milwaukee, Wisc. (The arena's capacity is 12,700.) Neither the White House nor Trump's 2020 re-election campaign provided viewership numbers for Trump's Milwaukee rally. Fox Business channel aired the rally in its entirety. It had about 662,000 total viewers during the 8 p.m. time slot, and about 476,000 total viewers in the 9 p.m. hour, according to Nielsen data. Fox News channel's 8 p.m. show, 'Tucker Carlson Tonight,' aired the rally for 1 minute and had about 3.3 million total viewers for the show's entirety. Fox News' 9 p.m. show, 'Hannity,' aired it for 12 minutes and the show had about 3.4 million total viewers. (Those two shows usually have about that many viewers.) MSNBC did not air the rally, according to a review of MSNBC programming on the media monitoring service TVEyes. An ABC spokesperson said the network did not air the rally live on television, and while it did provide streaming of the event online at ABC News Live, it did not provide viewer numbers. PolitiFact also asked CBS and NBC if they aired the rally live in its entirety or in part, but we did not get a response.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said, 'CNN reports DemDebate had 2.3 million viewers. Trump rally had 6.7 million last night!' The post vastly underreported the viewership numbers for the Democratic debate aired on CNN; there were 7.3 million viewers on TV alone. As to the number of viewers the Trump rally received, we know that Fox Business, a cable channel that aired the rally in its entirety (as CNN did for the debate), pulled in 662,000 viewers at 8 p.m. and 476,000 viewers at 9 p.m. Combined, 'Hannity' and 'Tucker Carlson Tonight,' two top shows on Fox News, aired less than 15 minutes of the hour-plus Trump rally. Each show had more than 3 million viewers that night, as they typically do. But it would be a stretch to conclude that the millions who watched the two shows equal millions who tuned in to solely watch Trump's rally. The Facebook post makes a claim with numbers that don't add up. We rate it False.
|
[] |
'The MOB in PA was HIRED by the Biden team to create fake ballots by the thousands!!'
|
Contradiction
|
If you've seen a post that claims Joe Biden hired the Philadelphia mob to rig the presidential election results, you should forget about it. In a Nov. 17 Facebook post, Jeremy Herrell, a Donald Trump supporter and hip-hop artist who runs a popular conservative page whose handle is @TheHipHopPatriot, said Biden hired the mob to 'crate (sic) fake ballots by the thousands.' 'We have breaking news of how the mob, reportedly at this point, has helped Joe Biden get thousands and thousands and thousands of fraudulent votes,' he said during a Facebook Live video. 'You cannot make this stuff up, ladies and gentlemen.' Actually, you can - the claim is baseless. Herrell's video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It has more than 176,000 views. (Screenshot from Facebook) We reached out to his page for a comment, but we haven't heard back. During his video, Herrell cites a Nov. 14 report from the Buffalo Chronicle with the headline: 'How a Philly mob boss stole the election - and why he may flip on Joe Biden.' The Buffalo Chronicle website is owned by businessman Matthew Ricchiazzi. It has published false claims about prospective members of the Biden administration, Canadian politics and New York's response to COVID-19. This new Buffalo Chronicle article cites anonymous sources to say the Biden campaign paid $3 million to 'Skinny Joey' Merlino, a reputed mafia veteran in Philadelphia, and Merlino's associates to fabricate 300,000 ballots in the battleground state. On Election Night, the site claims, Merlino and his team were creating 6,000 fraudulent ballots per hour. 'They were then packaged into non-descript cardboard boxes and dropped off outside the Philadelphia Convention Center,' the article says. 'The ballots were purchased in cash.' The Buffalo Chronicle wrote that Merlino 'might just be willing to flip on Biden' if Trump expunges his criminal record. Merlino would 'really like a job with the National Parks Service,' according to the site's anonymous source. There is no evidence the Biden campaign hired a mob boss to fabricate hundreds of thousands of ballots in Pennsylvania. The article plays into other baseless claims that widespread voter fraud in battleground states affected the outcome of the presidential race. On Nov. 16, the Buffalo Chronicle story was shared on Twitter by attorney Jordan Sekulow, who - along with his father Jay Sekulow - is a member of Trump's legal team. The Sekulows have helped the president mount legal challenges in battleground states over the election results. 'This is being reported by the Buffalo Chronicle,' Herrell said in his video. 'And it is verified by Jordan Sekulow.' Jordan Sekulow shared the link and said 'follow all leads.' Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer who recently falsely claimed there were hundreds of thousands of 'unlawful votes' in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, told Fox Business the allegation was 'far-fetched.' We reached out to the Buffalo Chronicle for a comment, but we haven't heard back. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Philadelphia - and certainly not hundreds of thousands of fabricated ballots favoring Biden. 'We just had the most transparent and secure election in the history of Philadelphia,' said Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican who sits on the city's elections board, in a Nov. 11 interview with CNN. 'I have seen the most fantastical things on social media, making completely ridiculous allegations that have no basis in fact at all.' In a Nov. 12 statement, a committee made up of U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency officials and its election partners said that, nationwide, this election was 'the most secure in American history.' RELATED: How we know Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential race 'There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised,' the agency wrote. 'While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too.' As for Merlino, the purported mob boss has been on supervised release in South Florida since 2018, when he took a plea deal in a racketeering and conspiracy case. During his most recent trial, Merlino said he had retired from the mob and was focused on running an upscale Italian restaurant in Boca Raton, Fla. Merlino's lawyer denied his client was part of any voter fraud scheme in Pennsylvania. 'My client categorically denies all the allegations and Joey would rather die than ever be a snitch,' John Meringolo told the New York Daily News. We reached out to the Biden transition team for a comment, but we haven't heard back. The Facebook post is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
The Facebook post is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
[
"110546-proof-01-Screen_Shot_2020-11-18_at_15_43_31.jpg",
"110546-proof-13-49185552d35554d7a8f6b6f28cc2365f.jpg"
] |
'The MOB in PA was HIRED by the Biden team to create fake ballots by the thousands!!'
|
Contradiction
|
If you've seen a post that claims Joe Biden hired the Philadelphia mob to rig the presidential election results, you should forget about it. In a Nov. 17 Facebook post, Jeremy Herrell, a Donald Trump supporter and hip-hop artist who runs a popular conservative page whose handle is @TheHipHopPatriot, said Biden hired the mob to 'crate (sic) fake ballots by the thousands.' 'We have breaking news of how the mob, reportedly at this point, has helped Joe Biden get thousands and thousands and thousands of fraudulent votes,' he said during a Facebook Live video. 'You cannot make this stuff up, ladies and gentlemen.' Actually, you can - the claim is baseless. Herrell's video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It has more than 176,000 views. (Screenshot from Facebook) We reached out to his page for a comment, but we haven't heard back. During his video, Herrell cites a Nov. 14 report from the Buffalo Chronicle with the headline: 'How a Philly mob boss stole the election - and why he may flip on Joe Biden.' The Buffalo Chronicle website is owned by businessman Matthew Ricchiazzi. It has published false claims about prospective members of the Biden administration, Canadian politics and New York's response to COVID-19. This new Buffalo Chronicle article cites anonymous sources to say the Biden campaign paid $3 million to 'Skinny Joey' Merlino, a reputed mafia veteran in Philadelphia, and Merlino's associates to fabricate 300,000 ballots in the battleground state. On Election Night, the site claims, Merlino and his team were creating 6,000 fraudulent ballots per hour. 'They were then packaged into non-descript cardboard boxes and dropped off outside the Philadelphia Convention Center,' the article says. 'The ballots were purchased in cash.' The Buffalo Chronicle wrote that Merlino 'might just be willing to flip on Biden' if Trump expunges his criminal record. Merlino would 'really like a job with the National Parks Service,' according to the site's anonymous source. There is no evidence the Biden campaign hired a mob boss to fabricate hundreds of thousands of ballots in Pennsylvania. The article plays into other baseless claims that widespread voter fraud in battleground states affected the outcome of the presidential race. On Nov. 16, the Buffalo Chronicle story was shared on Twitter by attorney Jordan Sekulow, who - along with his father Jay Sekulow - is a member of Trump's legal team. The Sekulows have helped the president mount legal challenges in battleground states over the election results. 'This is being reported by the Buffalo Chronicle,' Herrell said in his video. 'And it is verified by Jordan Sekulow.' Jordan Sekulow shared the link and said 'follow all leads.' Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer who recently falsely claimed there were hundreds of thousands of 'unlawful votes' in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, told Fox Business the allegation was 'far-fetched.' We reached out to the Buffalo Chronicle for a comment, but we haven't heard back. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Philadelphia - and certainly not hundreds of thousands of fabricated ballots favoring Biden. 'We just had the most transparent and secure election in the history of Philadelphia,' said Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican who sits on the city's elections board, in a Nov. 11 interview with CNN. 'I have seen the most fantastical things on social media, making completely ridiculous allegations that have no basis in fact at all.' In a Nov. 12 statement, a committee made up of U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency officials and its election partners said that, nationwide, this election was 'the most secure in American history.' RELATED: How we know Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential race 'There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised,' the agency wrote. 'While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too.' As for Merlino, the purported mob boss has been on supervised release in South Florida since 2018, when he took a plea deal in a racketeering and conspiracy case. During his most recent trial, Merlino said he had retired from the mob and was focused on running an upscale Italian restaurant in Boca Raton, Fla. Merlino's lawyer denied his client was part of any voter fraud scheme in Pennsylvania. 'My client categorically denies all the allegations and Joey would rather die than ever be a snitch,' John Meringolo told the New York Daily News. We reached out to the Biden transition team for a comment, but we haven't heard back. The Facebook post is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
The Facebook post is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
[
"110546-proof-01-Screen_Shot_2020-11-18_at_15_43_31.jpg",
"110546-proof-13-49185552d35554d7a8f6b6f28cc2365f.jpg"
] |
'The MOB in PA was HIRED by the Biden team to create fake ballots by the thousands!!'
|
Contradiction
|
If you've seen a post that claims Joe Biden hired the Philadelphia mob to rig the presidential election results, you should forget about it. In a Nov. 17 Facebook post, Jeremy Herrell, a Donald Trump supporter and hip-hop artist who runs a popular conservative page whose handle is @TheHipHopPatriot, said Biden hired the mob to 'crate (sic) fake ballots by the thousands.' 'We have breaking news of how the mob, reportedly at this point, has helped Joe Biden get thousands and thousands and thousands of fraudulent votes,' he said during a Facebook Live video. 'You cannot make this stuff up, ladies and gentlemen.' Actually, you can - the claim is baseless. Herrell's video was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) It has more than 176,000 views. (Screenshot from Facebook) We reached out to his page for a comment, but we haven't heard back. During his video, Herrell cites a Nov. 14 report from the Buffalo Chronicle with the headline: 'How a Philly mob boss stole the election - and why he may flip on Joe Biden.' The Buffalo Chronicle website is owned by businessman Matthew Ricchiazzi. It has published false claims about prospective members of the Biden administration, Canadian politics and New York's response to COVID-19. This new Buffalo Chronicle article cites anonymous sources to say the Biden campaign paid $3 million to 'Skinny Joey' Merlino, a reputed mafia veteran in Philadelphia, and Merlino's associates to fabricate 300,000 ballots in the battleground state. On Election Night, the site claims, Merlino and his team were creating 6,000 fraudulent ballots per hour. 'They were then packaged into non-descript cardboard boxes and dropped off outside the Philadelphia Convention Center,' the article says. 'The ballots were purchased in cash.' The Buffalo Chronicle wrote that Merlino 'might just be willing to flip on Biden' if Trump expunges his criminal record. Merlino would 'really like a job with the National Parks Service,' according to the site's anonymous source. There is no evidence the Biden campaign hired a mob boss to fabricate hundreds of thousands of ballots in Pennsylvania. The article plays into other baseless claims that widespread voter fraud in battleground states affected the outcome of the presidential race. On Nov. 16, the Buffalo Chronicle story was shared on Twitter by attorney Jordan Sekulow, who - along with his father Jay Sekulow - is a member of Trump's legal team. The Sekulows have helped the president mount legal challenges in battleground states over the election results. 'This is being reported by the Buffalo Chronicle,' Herrell said in his video. 'And it is verified by Jordan Sekulow.' Jordan Sekulow shared the link and said 'follow all leads.' Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer who recently falsely claimed there were hundreds of thousands of 'unlawful votes' in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, told Fox Business the allegation was 'far-fetched.' We reached out to the Buffalo Chronicle for a comment, but we haven't heard back. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Philadelphia - and certainly not hundreds of thousands of fabricated ballots favoring Biden. 'We just had the most transparent and secure election in the history of Philadelphia,' said Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican who sits on the city's elections board, in a Nov. 11 interview with CNN. 'I have seen the most fantastical things on social media, making completely ridiculous allegations that have no basis in fact at all.' In a Nov. 12 statement, a committee made up of U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency officials and its election partners said that, nationwide, this election was 'the most secure in American history.' RELATED: How we know Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential race 'There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised,' the agency wrote. 'While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too.' As for Merlino, the purported mob boss has been on supervised release in South Florida since 2018, when he took a plea deal in a racketeering and conspiracy case. During his most recent trial, Merlino said he had retired from the mob and was focused on running an upscale Italian restaurant in Boca Raton, Fla. Merlino's lawyer denied his client was part of any voter fraud scheme in Pennsylvania. 'My client categorically denies all the allegations and Joey would rather die than ever be a snitch,' John Meringolo told the New York Daily News. We reached out to the Biden transition team for a comment, but we haven't heard back. The Facebook post is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
The Facebook post is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
[
"110546-proof-01-Screen_Shot_2020-11-18_at_15_43_31.jpg",
"110546-proof-13-49185552d35554d7a8f6b6f28cc2365f.jpg"
] |
'Half the workforce in the country may have just been idled' by coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
U.S. Rep. Dan Bishop has been one of North Carolina's most vocal opponents of Gov. Roy Cooper's stay-at-home order. Bishop, a Republican elected in 2019 to represent southwest NC, has attended protests urging Cooper to 'reopen' the state's economy. But in an interview on April 24, the congressman made a comment about the U.S. economy that caught our attention. On Spicer & Co., the show of former White House press secretary Sean Spicer on the conservative Newsmax TV, he said 'half the workforce in the country may have just been idled.' Here are his full comments: 'People who are elderly or who have underlying conditions that would subject them to the worst ravages of the coronavirus should take additional measures and, in fact, I don't object to government taking measures to see to it that those people are particularly protected,' he said. 'But it's quite another step to utterly devastate the economic landscape in a way - and I don't know that I've seen a figure that better summarizes how bad it is, as the suggestion you just put up - that half the workforce in the country may have just been idled.' Is it true that half of the American workforce has been idled? And what 'figure' is Bishop referring to? According to Bishop's spokeswoman, Hannah Hummelberg, the congressman was referring to a New York Times stat that Spicer mentioned earlier in the segment. 'The number of unemployment claims filed so far is equal to the total workforce, get this, of 25 states,' Spicer said. (Spicer's comment comes around the 1:15 mark of this video, while Bishop makes his claim shortly after the 4:30 mark.) Clearly, a chunk of the American population has filed for unemployment. But does it add up to half of the U.S. workforce? No. Unemployment By citing the New York Times stat, Bishop tied his definition of 'idle' to unemployment numbers. So let's put the Times' stat in perspective. There were about 160 million workers in the U.S. around the start of the year. That's according to experts we interviewed, previous PolitiFact reporting, and numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Obviously, 26 million workers - the New York Times unemployment stat cited by Bishop - is not half of 160 million. So it's wrong to suggest half of the U.S. is unemployed. And it's not 'statistically sound' to equate 26 million workers with 'half' of the country, said Ryan Bourne, the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute. Cato is a think tank that advocates for free markets. And the New York Times comparison wouldn't work with just any grouping of 25 states. In California alone, there are 19 million workers. 'Since our population is not spread evenly across the states, the working population of 25 states doesn't provide an estimate of 50% of the national workforce,' said Tara Sinclair, associate professor of economics and international affairs at George Washington University. Uncounted workers The Times' stat alone isn't enough to support Bishop's claim. So let's explore other estimates of U.S. unemployment. There are people that unemployment reports don't account for, such as those who are furloughed or who are working reduced hours. Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said the number of people who filed for unemployment isn't complete. He said there are several million more people who either could not get their forms in or were ineligible. (In North Carolina, for example, the phone lines at the state's unemployment office were so busy that many people claimed they couldn't get through to file claims.) Baker thinks the number of unemployed Americans is somewhere between 20-25%, he said in an May 5 email. 'I would be hesitant to use one much higher,' he said. CNN estimated that 43 million workers were either out of work or working reduced hours in April alone. Public surveys Bourne, the CATO expert, said Bishop's claim would only be valid if considered very broadly. He referenced a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation that said 55% of workers had either lost jobs, lost pay, lost hours, or been furloughed since Feb. 1. The definition of 'idled' is to not work or not do something. It's a reference to inaction. The Kaiser survey included people who lost pay, but might still be working. 'This, as you can see, highlights the scale of the economic impacts of the virus and response, but is a different claim entirely,' Bourne said. On April 21, three days before Bishop's claim, the Pew Research Center published a study on how the coronavirus response affected the wages of American workers. About 28% said they or someone in their household has been laid off or lost their job. When asked if someone in the house had lost their job or taken a pay cut, 43% said yes. Gross Domestic Product Chris Lafakis, a director at Moody's Analytics, said the workforce can also be judged by the U.S. GDP. GDP measures the total value of goods and services produced in the U.S. over the course of a year. It fell 4.8% in the first three months of the year (the first quarter), according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The bureau's second quarter numbers run through June and are not yet available. Deutsche Bank expects GDP to drop 'nearly 40%' in the second quarter, according to Business Insider. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office almost mirrors that estimate, expecting a 39% drop. 'Most economists' don't expect GDP to dip by 50%, Lafakis said. Moody's expects GDP to decline 33% at an annualized rate in quarter two.
|
Our ruling Bishop said 'half the workforce in the country may have just been idled.' Bishop took a stat that's meant to illustrate the magnitude of unemployment and misused it to falsely say half of the country's workers are unemployed. The U.S. workforce is roughly 160 million people. We found no official counts or expert estimates showing unemployment has reached half of that figure. Bishop's claim is only valid if we consider that 26 million people is equal to the working population of a specific group of 25 states, or if we look past the definition of 'idle' and consider Americans who weren't laid off, but whose wages were affected by the coronavirus outbreak. His claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"110548-proof-22-ac6cff03faaf4c62067b3dc5de5762e7.jpg"
] |
'Half the workforce in the country may have just been idled' by coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
U.S. Rep. Dan Bishop has been one of North Carolina's most vocal opponents of Gov. Roy Cooper's stay-at-home order. Bishop, a Republican elected in 2019 to represent southwest NC, has attended protests urging Cooper to 'reopen' the state's economy. But in an interview on April 24, the congressman made a comment about the U.S. economy that caught our attention. On Spicer & Co., the show of former White House press secretary Sean Spicer on the conservative Newsmax TV, he said 'half the workforce in the country may have just been idled.' Here are his full comments: 'People who are elderly or who have underlying conditions that would subject them to the worst ravages of the coronavirus should take additional measures and, in fact, I don't object to government taking measures to see to it that those people are particularly protected,' he said. 'But it's quite another step to utterly devastate the economic landscape in a way - and I don't know that I've seen a figure that better summarizes how bad it is, as the suggestion you just put up - that half the workforce in the country may have just been idled.' Is it true that half of the American workforce has been idled? And what 'figure' is Bishop referring to? According to Bishop's spokeswoman, Hannah Hummelberg, the congressman was referring to a New York Times stat that Spicer mentioned earlier in the segment. 'The number of unemployment claims filed so far is equal to the total workforce, get this, of 25 states,' Spicer said. (Spicer's comment comes around the 1:15 mark of this video, while Bishop makes his claim shortly after the 4:30 mark.) Clearly, a chunk of the American population has filed for unemployment. But does it add up to half of the U.S. workforce? No. Unemployment By citing the New York Times stat, Bishop tied his definition of 'idle' to unemployment numbers. So let's put the Times' stat in perspective. There were about 160 million workers in the U.S. around the start of the year. That's according to experts we interviewed, previous PolitiFact reporting, and numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Obviously, 26 million workers - the New York Times unemployment stat cited by Bishop - is not half of 160 million. So it's wrong to suggest half of the U.S. is unemployed. And it's not 'statistically sound' to equate 26 million workers with 'half' of the country, said Ryan Bourne, the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute. Cato is a think tank that advocates for free markets. And the New York Times comparison wouldn't work with just any grouping of 25 states. In California alone, there are 19 million workers. 'Since our population is not spread evenly across the states, the working population of 25 states doesn't provide an estimate of 50% of the national workforce,' said Tara Sinclair, associate professor of economics and international affairs at George Washington University. Uncounted workers The Times' stat alone isn't enough to support Bishop's claim. So let's explore other estimates of U.S. unemployment. There are people that unemployment reports don't account for, such as those who are furloughed or who are working reduced hours. Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said the number of people who filed for unemployment isn't complete. He said there are several million more people who either could not get their forms in or were ineligible. (In North Carolina, for example, the phone lines at the state's unemployment office were so busy that many people claimed they couldn't get through to file claims.) Baker thinks the number of unemployed Americans is somewhere between 20-25%, he said in an May 5 email. 'I would be hesitant to use one much higher,' he said. CNN estimated that 43 million workers were either out of work or working reduced hours in April alone. Public surveys Bourne, the CATO expert, said Bishop's claim would only be valid if considered very broadly. He referenced a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation that said 55% of workers had either lost jobs, lost pay, lost hours, or been furloughed since Feb. 1. The definition of 'idled' is to not work or not do something. It's a reference to inaction. The Kaiser survey included people who lost pay, but might still be working. 'This, as you can see, highlights the scale of the economic impacts of the virus and response, but is a different claim entirely,' Bourne said. On April 21, three days before Bishop's claim, the Pew Research Center published a study on how the coronavirus response affected the wages of American workers. About 28% said they or someone in their household has been laid off or lost their job. When asked if someone in the house had lost their job or taken a pay cut, 43% said yes. Gross Domestic Product Chris Lafakis, a director at Moody's Analytics, said the workforce can also be judged by the U.S. GDP. GDP measures the total value of goods and services produced in the U.S. over the course of a year. It fell 4.8% in the first three months of the year (the first quarter), according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The bureau's second quarter numbers run through June and are not yet available. Deutsche Bank expects GDP to drop 'nearly 40%' in the second quarter, according to Business Insider. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office almost mirrors that estimate, expecting a 39% drop. 'Most economists' don't expect GDP to dip by 50%, Lafakis said. Moody's expects GDP to decline 33% at an annualized rate in quarter two.
|
Our ruling Bishop said 'half the workforce in the country may have just been idled.' Bishop took a stat that's meant to illustrate the magnitude of unemployment and misused it to falsely say half of the country's workers are unemployed. The U.S. workforce is roughly 160 million people. We found no official counts or expert estimates showing unemployment has reached half of that figure. Bishop's claim is only valid if we consider that 26 million people is equal to the working population of a specific group of 25 states, or if we look past the definition of 'idle' and consider Americans who weren't laid off, but whose wages were affected by the coronavirus outbreak. His claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"110548-proof-22-ac6cff03faaf4c62067b3dc5de5762e7.jpg"
] |
'Half the workforce in the country may have just been idled' by coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
U.S. Rep. Dan Bishop has been one of North Carolina's most vocal opponents of Gov. Roy Cooper's stay-at-home order. Bishop, a Republican elected in 2019 to represent southwest NC, has attended protests urging Cooper to 'reopen' the state's economy. But in an interview on April 24, the congressman made a comment about the U.S. economy that caught our attention. On Spicer & Co., the show of former White House press secretary Sean Spicer on the conservative Newsmax TV, he said 'half the workforce in the country may have just been idled.' Here are his full comments: 'People who are elderly or who have underlying conditions that would subject them to the worst ravages of the coronavirus should take additional measures and, in fact, I don't object to government taking measures to see to it that those people are particularly protected,' he said. 'But it's quite another step to utterly devastate the economic landscape in a way - and I don't know that I've seen a figure that better summarizes how bad it is, as the suggestion you just put up - that half the workforce in the country may have just been idled.' Is it true that half of the American workforce has been idled? And what 'figure' is Bishop referring to? According to Bishop's spokeswoman, Hannah Hummelberg, the congressman was referring to a New York Times stat that Spicer mentioned earlier in the segment. 'The number of unemployment claims filed so far is equal to the total workforce, get this, of 25 states,' Spicer said. (Spicer's comment comes around the 1:15 mark of this video, while Bishop makes his claim shortly after the 4:30 mark.) Clearly, a chunk of the American population has filed for unemployment. But does it add up to half of the U.S. workforce? No. Unemployment By citing the New York Times stat, Bishop tied his definition of 'idle' to unemployment numbers. So let's put the Times' stat in perspective. There were about 160 million workers in the U.S. around the start of the year. That's according to experts we interviewed, previous PolitiFact reporting, and numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Obviously, 26 million workers - the New York Times unemployment stat cited by Bishop - is not half of 160 million. So it's wrong to suggest half of the U.S. is unemployed. And it's not 'statistically sound' to equate 26 million workers with 'half' of the country, said Ryan Bourne, the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute. Cato is a think tank that advocates for free markets. And the New York Times comparison wouldn't work with just any grouping of 25 states. In California alone, there are 19 million workers. 'Since our population is not spread evenly across the states, the working population of 25 states doesn't provide an estimate of 50% of the national workforce,' said Tara Sinclair, associate professor of economics and international affairs at George Washington University. Uncounted workers The Times' stat alone isn't enough to support Bishop's claim. So let's explore other estimates of U.S. unemployment. There are people that unemployment reports don't account for, such as those who are furloughed or who are working reduced hours. Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said the number of people who filed for unemployment isn't complete. He said there are several million more people who either could not get their forms in or were ineligible. (In North Carolina, for example, the phone lines at the state's unemployment office were so busy that many people claimed they couldn't get through to file claims.) Baker thinks the number of unemployed Americans is somewhere between 20-25%, he said in an May 5 email. 'I would be hesitant to use one much higher,' he said. CNN estimated that 43 million workers were either out of work or working reduced hours in April alone. Public surveys Bourne, the CATO expert, said Bishop's claim would only be valid if considered very broadly. He referenced a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation that said 55% of workers had either lost jobs, lost pay, lost hours, or been furloughed since Feb. 1. The definition of 'idled' is to not work or not do something. It's a reference to inaction. The Kaiser survey included people who lost pay, but might still be working. 'This, as you can see, highlights the scale of the economic impacts of the virus and response, but is a different claim entirely,' Bourne said. On April 21, three days before Bishop's claim, the Pew Research Center published a study on how the coronavirus response affected the wages of American workers. About 28% said they or someone in their household has been laid off or lost their job. When asked if someone in the house had lost their job or taken a pay cut, 43% said yes. Gross Domestic Product Chris Lafakis, a director at Moody's Analytics, said the workforce can also be judged by the U.S. GDP. GDP measures the total value of goods and services produced in the U.S. over the course of a year. It fell 4.8% in the first three months of the year (the first quarter), according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The bureau's second quarter numbers run through June and are not yet available. Deutsche Bank expects GDP to drop 'nearly 40%' in the second quarter, according to Business Insider. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office almost mirrors that estimate, expecting a 39% drop. 'Most economists' don't expect GDP to dip by 50%, Lafakis said. Moody's expects GDP to decline 33% at an annualized rate in quarter two.
|
Our ruling Bishop said 'half the workforce in the country may have just been idled.' Bishop took a stat that's meant to illustrate the magnitude of unemployment and misused it to falsely say half of the country's workers are unemployed. The U.S. workforce is roughly 160 million people. We found no official counts or expert estimates showing unemployment has reached half of that figure. Bishop's claim is only valid if we consider that 26 million people is equal to the working population of a specific group of 25 states, or if we look past the definition of 'idle' and consider Americans who weren't laid off, but whose wages were affected by the coronavirus outbreak. His claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"110548-proof-22-ac6cff03faaf4c62067b3dc5de5762e7.jpg"
] |
Says the NBA is asking Donald Trump to 'resign or we'll never play again.
|
Contradiction
|
A fake news story shared on Facebook claims the NBA is considering canceling its season not because of the coronavirus, but because President Donald Trump is still in office. The article, published on a website called 'NewYork One News' on April 5, says players 'held a secret vote' prior to the start of the season to suspend games until Trump is removed or voted out of office. As evidence, it cites anonymous sources. 'Since much of the league is made up of Hollywood actor and musician wannabes, these millionaire crybabies overwhelming voted to approve the measure,' reads the story, which has been shared in pro-Trump and Fox News fan groups on Facebook. 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.) (Screenshot from NewYorkOneNews.com) The NBA suspended its season in mid-March after a Utah Jazz player tested positive for the coronavirus. More recent reports suggest the league could cancel the rest of its season due to the pandemic. But there is no evidence that NBA players voted to suspend games until Trump was removed from office. The fake news story was copied from a website that claims to be satirical. The website, BustaTroll.org, says on its about page that it's part of the ''America's Last Line of Defense' network of parody, satire, and tomfoolery' and 'everything on this website is fiction.' The network is run by a man named Christopher Blair, a Maine man who has said his goal is to trick conservatives into sharing made-up content on Facebook. Fake news websites often copy Blair's stories to get clicks and generate digital advertising revenue. While Blair's sites have disclaimers warning that the content is made-up, websites that copy his content typically do not. In January, we investigated how a network of more than 100 hoax sites republished Blair's articles to become a popular source of misinformation on Facebook, where users shared the stories as if they were true. Just like those sites, NewYork One News is bogus. Public domain records indicate the site was registered in mid-February and uses Google AdSense to monetize its articles. The article is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
The article is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
[
"110554-proof-24-bc75ea101ccc2b5925271f3578aac403.jpg",
"110554-proof-34-Screen_Shot_2020-04-06_at_12.10.12_PM.jpg"
] |
Says the NBA is asking Donald Trump to 'resign or we'll never play again.
|
Contradiction
|
A fake news story shared on Facebook claims the NBA is considering canceling its season not because of the coronavirus, but because President Donald Trump is still in office. The article, published on a website called 'NewYork One News' on April 5, says players 'held a secret vote' prior to the start of the season to suspend games until Trump is removed or voted out of office. As evidence, it cites anonymous sources. 'Since much of the league is made up of Hollywood actor and musician wannabes, these millionaire crybabies overwhelming voted to approve the measure,' reads the story, which has been shared in pro-Trump and Fox News fan groups on Facebook. 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.) (Screenshot from NewYorkOneNews.com) The NBA suspended its season in mid-March after a Utah Jazz player tested positive for the coronavirus. More recent reports suggest the league could cancel the rest of its season due to the pandemic. But there is no evidence that NBA players voted to suspend games until Trump was removed from office. The fake news story was copied from a website that claims to be satirical. The website, BustaTroll.org, says on its about page that it's part of the ''America's Last Line of Defense' network of parody, satire, and tomfoolery' and 'everything on this website is fiction.' The network is run by a man named Christopher Blair, a Maine man who has said his goal is to trick conservatives into sharing made-up content on Facebook. Fake news websites often copy Blair's stories to get clicks and generate digital advertising revenue. While Blair's sites have disclaimers warning that the content is made-up, websites that copy his content typically do not. In January, we investigated how a network of more than 100 hoax sites republished Blair's articles to become a popular source of misinformation on Facebook, where users shared the stories as if they were true. Just like those sites, NewYork One News is bogus. Public domain records indicate the site was registered in mid-February and uses Google AdSense to monetize its articles. The article is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
The article is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
[
"110554-proof-24-bc75ea101ccc2b5925271f3578aac403.jpg",
"110554-proof-34-Screen_Shot_2020-04-06_at_12.10.12_PM.jpg"
] |
Says series of 11 photos are 'from the 1918 flu pandemic.
|
Contradiction
|
Women in gas masks, others with bags on their heads and stay at home posters. If posts on social media are to be believed, these images and more come from the 1918 flu pandemic. 'Photos from the 1918 flu pandemic,' proclaimed one such recent Facebook post that contained 11 photos. 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.) PolitiFact conducted reverse image searches to determine the origins of the photos. Of the 11 photos, six bear no connection to the 1918 flu pandemic. Let's take a look at those first. What is on their heads? The first photo features two women with what look like bags over their heads. According to the Associated Press, it was captured in November 1953. 'War surplus gas capes are used by Meriel Bush, left, and Ruth Neuer, in an attempt to dodge the eye-stinging effects of a low-hanging smog and smoke which enveloped Philadelphia for the second straight day,' reads the AP's caption. Well-dressed ladies on street A reverse image search located the image of masked women walking arm in arm on a stock photo website. On the site, the photo is described as, 'Ladies' fashion from 1913. New veil fashions, based on Turkish nose veils.' When debunking claims that the photo was of the 1918 flu pandemic, AFP Fact Check's bureau in Thailand contacted the German photo agency, Süddeutsche Zeitung Photo, which was listed as the photographer. 'The original picture description says that the nose veils were the fashion for ladies after the Balkan war,' Süddeutsche Zeitung's spokesperson told AFP in an email. The Balkan Wars unfolded from 1912 to 1913. Gas masks and a stroller A photo of women in gas masks tending to a stroller is from a June 1941 gas test during World War II, according to Getty Images. '9th June 1941: A gas masked young mother attends to her child's pram gas mask during a surprise gas test in Kingston,' reads the Getty Images photo description. Quarantine telephone service One of the images from the post is an advertisement for a Bell Telephone Co. 'People who are in quarantine are not isolated if they have a Bell Telephone,' the ad reads. Back in May, Snopes.com debunked the claim that this ad was connected to the 1918 pandemic. Versions of this ad existed as early as November 1910. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran an ad that was nearly identical, but with a different tag, 'The Bell Telephone Company of Missouri.' The ad mentions 'quarantine' and 'the sick,' but there is no indication it is a direct reference to any particular illness. 'Stay at Home' ad An image of an ad that encouraged people to stay home was created not in 1918, but in 2020. 'Stay At Home,' the ad says. 'It has never been easier to save lives.' Though the graphic illustration may appear vintage, it was made in March in response to the current COVID-19 pandemic. A French illustrator named Mathieu Persan made versions of the poster in various languages and posted them on Twitter. If you look closely, you can see his signature on the right side of the illustration. Masked ladies chatting A photo of two women who appear to be visiting over a car window while wearing masks was taken in 1929, during a separate flu epidemic. 'Two women wearing flu masks during a flu epidemic in 1929,' reads Getty Images' photo description. The 1928-29 flu epidemic was studied by health professionals using data from the 1918 pandemic. Photos linked to the 1918 flu pandemic Here's what we can tell you about the five photos that are actually from the 1918 influenza pandemic time period. A reverse image search identified a photo of a woman wearing a mask as a Getty Images stock photo from February 1919. 'A woman wearing a flu mask during the flu epidemic which followed the First World War,' reads Getty Images' caption. A photo showing a sign on a streetcar proclaims, 'Spit spreads death.' A reverse image search revealed the New York Times had used this photo as a feature image for a story about the 1918 flu. Crediting the photo to the Historical Medical Library of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, the Times caption reads, 'An anti-spitting sign posted on streetcar in Philadelphia, October 1918.' An image shows rows of beds used for treating flu patients from the 1918 pandemic, according to Getty Images. The photo was featured in Wired and Business Insider stories about the visuals from the 1918 flu pandemic. 'All theatres closed until further notice at request of mayor,' reads a sign behind a young boy. The photo was used in a story published by the Seattle Times in July. Credited to the Museum of History & Industry, the Times' caption reads, 'A masked newsboy looks west outside the closed Pantages Theatre box office during the influenza pandemic of nearly 102 years ago. Likely, the photo was taken between Oct. 5 and Nov. 11, 1918.' It was also used in the museum's webinar about the 1918 pandemic. And a news announcement with a Red Cross nurse wearing a mask is legitimately from 1918, according to The Washington Post and The Guardian. 'A Red Cross nurse wears a gauze mask over her nose and mouth in this 1918 imaged published in the Illustrated Current News of New Haven, Conn.,' the Washington Post reported in its description of the photo.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims 11 photos are 'photos from the 1918 flu pandemic.' This is not the case. Five of the 11 photos are from the 1918 influenza pandemic time period; six are not. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"110557-proof-25-a720c940934c54d4b88f50059fdfae92.jpeg"
] |
Vitamin D, vitamin C, colloidal silver and black seed oil can kill the coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
A post that's being shared widely on Instagram discourages people from getting a COVID-19 vaccine and instead advocates for 'naturopathic solutions.' A man speaking in a video clip in the post mentions vitamin D, vitamin C 'and everything else from colloidal silver to the black seed oil - there are so many things that are killing this virus.' 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.) Vitamin D In May 2020, Glenn Grothman, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, said that research illustrated a correlation between vitamin D deficiencies and higher COVID-19 mortality rates. We rated that True. And what's more: early studies suggested that vitamin D could possibly curb the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and reduce mortality rates. But the latest research isn't so hopeful on that front. A study from McGill University in Canada found no evidence that vitamin D supplements could improve coronavirus outcomes, Business Insider reported on March 10. And unlike earlier research into vitamin D deficiencies, another study from Aristotle University in Greece found no correlation between such deficiencies and higher mortality rates. Neither of these new studies has been peer-reviewed but as The Guardian noted, they reached the same conclusion: 'evidence for a direct link between vitamin D deficiency and Covid outcomes is lacking.' In December, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England published a rapid review of recent studies on vitamin D and COVID-19. Its conclusion: sufficient evidence to support using vitamin D supplements to prevent or treat COVID-19 is still lacking and should be further investigated, according to The Lancet. Vitamin C Back in January 2020, we rated False a claim that the coronavirus could be slowed or stopped with the 'immediate widespread use of high doses of vitamin C' because there was no evidence that the supplement has any effect on the COVID-19. According to the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, that's still true today. In its COVID-19 treatment guidelines, last updated in November 2020, the National Institutes of Health notes that there is insufficient data to 'recommend either for or against the use of vitamin C' for treating both critically ill and non-critically ill COVID-19 patients. Vitamin C is believed to benefit patients with severe and critical illnesses, according to the National Institutes of Health, but there have been no completed controlled trials of vitamin C in COVID-19 patients and 'the available observational data are sparse and inconclusive.' Colloidal silver Colloidal silver - a liquid that contains silver particles - is often billed as a cure for disease, but there isn't scientific evidence to back that up. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said that it's not safe or effective for treating any disease or condition, and the agency has issued warning letters to companies selling the product as a treatment or prevention for COVID-19. Black seed oil People selling black seed oil - extracted from Nigella sativa, or black cumin seeds - as a COVID-19 treatment have also come under federal scrutiny. In a May warning letter to a company encouraging consumers to fight the coronavirus with black seed oil, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission wrote that no reliable scientific evidence supported claims that black seed oil can prevent or treat COVID-19. The FDA has sent similar warning letters to companies selling black seed oil to treat or prevent COVID-19 as recently as September. The Journal of Pharmacopuncture, which is focused in part on alternative medicines, published an article in June on Nigella sativa as a 'potential herb for COVID-19,' but its conclusion was far from the claim in the Instagram post, saying that such a supplement 'may reduce the adverse effects of conventional medicines' but that randomized controlled trials were needed to determine any benefits in treating COVID-19 patients.
|
Our ruling A post on Instagram discourages people from getting a COVID-19 vaccine and instead advocates for 'naturopathic solutions,' including vitamins D and C, colloidal silver and black seed oil. While research into some supplements like vitamin D has seemed promising, subsequent studies have questioned whether it can protect against COVID-19. And there's no reliable scientific evidence to support the idea that vitamin D, vitamin C, colloidal silver or black seed oil can kill the coronavirus, as this post claims. Research to date shows COVID-19 vaccines available in the U.S. are safe and effective at preventing known and potential harms of becoming infected with COVID-19. We rate the claim in this post False.
|
[] |
'Fish tank additive may treat coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
An Arizona man is dead and his wife was hospitalized after the couple ingested a fish-tank solvent with chloroquine phosphate, the same active ingredient found in anti-malarial drugs that President Donald Trump has hailed as a possible treatment for the novel coronavirus. The woman told NBC News that the couple thought the drug compound Trump mentioned in a televised press conference was the same as the fish-tank cleaner they had in their home pantry. The two are not the same. Chloroquine, also known as chloroquine phosphate, is used in anti-malarial drugs available in the U.S. by prescription only, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A variant, hydroxychloroquine, is an arthritis medicine that can also prevent malaria. The husband and wife were not alone in their confusion. A number of headlines describing the fatal mishap, including from mainstream news outlets, did not make it clear that the couple ingested fish-tank cleaner, rather than the drug form of chloroquine. One headline published before the Arizona couple's accident missed the distinction entirely. 'Fish tank additive may treat coronavirus,' said a March 20 headline from Valley News Live, a local news network serving TV stations in North Dakota. That headline is wrong. Fish-tank cleaners containing chloroquine phosphate are not the same as the prescription drugs used for malaria. Nor are they suitable for human consumption. Moreover, as anti-viral drugs, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have shown the ability to combat some diseases, but they have not yet been proven to disrupt COVID-19. RELATED: A 100% COVID-19 cure? No, chloroquine effectiveness only anecdotal Valley News Live did not respond to requests for comment by deadline. What happened in Arizona Officials from Banner Health, the Phoenix hospital system that treated the husband and wife, warned in a March 23 statement against self-medicating and said the couple's case was a cautionary tale. The man who died was in his 60s, as is his wife, the statement said. The woman later told NBC News that the solvent made her and her husband feel 'dizzy and hot.' She said she started vomiting and her husband developed respiratory problems. NBC: Did you see the President's press conference? Where did you hear about-- Patient: Yeah. Yeah, we saw his press conference. It was on a lot, actually. NBC: And then did you did you seek out Chloroquine? Patient: I had it in the house because I used to have koi fish. https://t.co/C8EiTQQ3r1 pic.twitter.com/QgmElANCEG- Vaughn Hillyard (@VaughnHillyard) March 24, 2020 She said that she had seen Trump talk in a press conference about the promise of chloroquine as a possible coronavirus cure, and that she had the fish-tank cleaner stored away. 'We saw his press conference. It was on a lot, actually,' she said. 'I had it in the house because I used to have koi fish.' 'I just saw it sitting on the back shelf and said, 'Hey, isn't that that stuff they're talking about on TV?'' she said. She and her husband mixed about one teaspoon each with soda and drank the concoction as a preventative measure, she said. Trump has touted chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as potential coronavirus treatments, and he tweeted that hydroxychloroquine, combined with an antibiotic called azithromycin, could 'be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.' HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains - Thank You! Hopefully they will BOTH (H works better with A, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents).....- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 21, 2020 But Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has said there had only been anecdotal evidence that the drugs could knock down COVID-19. The drugs are currently being studied and tested in clinical trials, according to the CDC. According to the New York Times, prices for the fish-tank additive have skyrocketed on eBay as the coronavirus has continued to spread through the U.S. and around the world. Don't drink the fish cleaner Drugs containing chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are not yet proven to prevent, treat or cure patients of the coronavirus, as we've noted. A recent French study of 20 COVID-19 patients indicated that the prescription-drug version of chloroquine might help treat the disease. And the CDC notes that a study in China found that patients treated with chloroquine 'had clinical and virologic benefit versus a comparison group.' More study is still needed. 'There are no US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs specifically for the treatment of patients with COVID-19,' the CDC says on its website. But the fish-tank cleaner is a definite no-no. In a statement, the FDA said Americans should be wary of products that claim to prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19. 'Products marketed for veterinary use or 'for research only,' or otherwise not for human consumption have not been evaluated for safety and should never be used,' the FDA said. 'The FDA is aware that chloroquine is marketed as an unapproved drug to treat external parasites in aquarium fish, but these products have not been evaluated by FDA to determine if they are safe, effective, properly manufactured, and adequately labeled.' 'Don't take any form of chloroquine unless it has been prescribed for you and obtained from legitimate sources,' the agency said.
|
Our ruling A Valley News Live headline said, 'Fish tank additive may treat coronavirus.' Chloroquine, a compound commonly found in fish-tank cleaners, also forms the basis of a prescription drug used for malaria. There are studies underway to conclude whether that drug, and a variant called hydroxychloroquine, could combat the coronavirus. But the fish-tank cleaner is not the same as the prescription drug, and it shouldn't be substituted as such. A man in Arizona recently died from ingesting it. We rate this statement False.
|
[
"110594-proof-24-99721508a59f52f75e34965fc2883b85.jpg"
] |
'Fish tank additive may treat coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
An Arizona man is dead and his wife was hospitalized after the couple ingested a fish-tank solvent with chloroquine phosphate, the same active ingredient found in anti-malarial drugs that President Donald Trump has hailed as a possible treatment for the novel coronavirus. The woman told NBC News that the couple thought the drug compound Trump mentioned in a televised press conference was the same as the fish-tank cleaner they had in their home pantry. The two are not the same. Chloroquine, also known as chloroquine phosphate, is used in anti-malarial drugs available in the U.S. by prescription only, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A variant, hydroxychloroquine, is an arthritis medicine that can also prevent malaria. The husband and wife were not alone in their confusion. A number of headlines describing the fatal mishap, including from mainstream news outlets, did not make it clear that the couple ingested fish-tank cleaner, rather than the drug form of chloroquine. One headline published before the Arizona couple's accident missed the distinction entirely. 'Fish tank additive may treat coronavirus,' said a March 20 headline from Valley News Live, a local news network serving TV stations in North Dakota. That headline is wrong. Fish-tank cleaners containing chloroquine phosphate are not the same as the prescription drugs used for malaria. Nor are they suitable for human consumption. Moreover, as anti-viral drugs, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have shown the ability to combat some diseases, but they have not yet been proven to disrupt COVID-19. RELATED: A 100% COVID-19 cure? No, chloroquine effectiveness only anecdotal Valley News Live did not respond to requests for comment by deadline. What happened in Arizona Officials from Banner Health, the Phoenix hospital system that treated the husband and wife, warned in a March 23 statement against self-medicating and said the couple's case was a cautionary tale. The man who died was in his 60s, as is his wife, the statement said. The woman later told NBC News that the solvent made her and her husband feel 'dizzy and hot.' She said she started vomiting and her husband developed respiratory problems. NBC: Did you see the President's press conference? Where did you hear about-- Patient: Yeah. Yeah, we saw his press conference. It was on a lot, actually. NBC: And then did you did you seek out Chloroquine? Patient: I had it in the house because I used to have koi fish. https://t.co/C8EiTQQ3r1 pic.twitter.com/QgmElANCEG- Vaughn Hillyard (@VaughnHillyard) March 24, 2020 She said that she had seen Trump talk in a press conference about the promise of chloroquine as a possible coronavirus cure, and that she had the fish-tank cleaner stored away. 'We saw his press conference. It was on a lot, actually,' she said. 'I had it in the house because I used to have koi fish.' 'I just saw it sitting on the back shelf and said, 'Hey, isn't that that stuff they're talking about on TV?'' she said. She and her husband mixed about one teaspoon each with soda and drank the concoction as a preventative measure, she said. Trump has touted chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as potential coronavirus treatments, and he tweeted that hydroxychloroquine, combined with an antibiotic called azithromycin, could 'be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.' HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains - Thank You! Hopefully they will BOTH (H works better with A, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents).....- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 21, 2020 But Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has said there had only been anecdotal evidence that the drugs could knock down COVID-19. The drugs are currently being studied and tested in clinical trials, according to the CDC. According to the New York Times, prices for the fish-tank additive have skyrocketed on eBay as the coronavirus has continued to spread through the U.S. and around the world. Don't drink the fish cleaner Drugs containing chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are not yet proven to prevent, treat or cure patients of the coronavirus, as we've noted. A recent French study of 20 COVID-19 patients indicated that the prescription-drug version of chloroquine might help treat the disease. And the CDC notes that a study in China found that patients treated with chloroquine 'had clinical and virologic benefit versus a comparison group.' More study is still needed. 'There are no US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs specifically for the treatment of patients with COVID-19,' the CDC says on its website. But the fish-tank cleaner is a definite no-no. In a statement, the FDA said Americans should be wary of products that claim to prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19. 'Products marketed for veterinary use or 'for research only,' or otherwise not for human consumption have not been evaluated for safety and should never be used,' the FDA said. 'The FDA is aware that chloroquine is marketed as an unapproved drug to treat external parasites in aquarium fish, but these products have not been evaluated by FDA to determine if they are safe, effective, properly manufactured, and adequately labeled.' 'Don't take any form of chloroquine unless it has been prescribed for you and obtained from legitimate sources,' the agency said.
|
Our ruling A Valley News Live headline said, 'Fish tank additive may treat coronavirus.' Chloroquine, a compound commonly found in fish-tank cleaners, also forms the basis of a prescription drug used for malaria. There are studies underway to conclude whether that drug, and a variant called hydroxychloroquine, could combat the coronavirus. But the fish-tank cleaner is not the same as the prescription drug, and it shouldn't be substituted as such. A man in Arizona recently died from ingesting it. We rate this statement False.
|
[
"110594-proof-24-99721508a59f52f75e34965fc2883b85.jpg"
] |
'Fish tank additive may treat coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
An Arizona man is dead and his wife was hospitalized after the couple ingested a fish-tank solvent with chloroquine phosphate, the same active ingredient found in anti-malarial drugs that President Donald Trump has hailed as a possible treatment for the novel coronavirus. The woman told NBC News that the couple thought the drug compound Trump mentioned in a televised press conference was the same as the fish-tank cleaner they had in their home pantry. The two are not the same. Chloroquine, also known as chloroquine phosphate, is used in anti-malarial drugs available in the U.S. by prescription only, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A variant, hydroxychloroquine, is an arthritis medicine that can also prevent malaria. The husband and wife were not alone in their confusion. A number of headlines describing the fatal mishap, including from mainstream news outlets, did not make it clear that the couple ingested fish-tank cleaner, rather than the drug form of chloroquine. One headline published before the Arizona couple's accident missed the distinction entirely. 'Fish tank additive may treat coronavirus,' said a March 20 headline from Valley News Live, a local news network serving TV stations in North Dakota. That headline is wrong. Fish-tank cleaners containing chloroquine phosphate are not the same as the prescription drugs used for malaria. Nor are they suitable for human consumption. Moreover, as anti-viral drugs, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have shown the ability to combat some diseases, but they have not yet been proven to disrupt COVID-19. RELATED: A 100% COVID-19 cure? No, chloroquine effectiveness only anecdotal Valley News Live did not respond to requests for comment by deadline. What happened in Arizona Officials from Banner Health, the Phoenix hospital system that treated the husband and wife, warned in a March 23 statement against self-medicating and said the couple's case was a cautionary tale. The man who died was in his 60s, as is his wife, the statement said. The woman later told NBC News that the solvent made her and her husband feel 'dizzy and hot.' She said she started vomiting and her husband developed respiratory problems. NBC: Did you see the President's press conference? Where did you hear about-- Patient: Yeah. Yeah, we saw his press conference. It was on a lot, actually. NBC: And then did you did you seek out Chloroquine? Patient: I had it in the house because I used to have koi fish. https://t.co/C8EiTQQ3r1 pic.twitter.com/QgmElANCEG- Vaughn Hillyard (@VaughnHillyard) March 24, 2020 She said that she had seen Trump talk in a press conference about the promise of chloroquine as a possible coronavirus cure, and that she had the fish-tank cleaner stored away. 'We saw his press conference. It was on a lot, actually,' she said. 'I had it in the house because I used to have koi fish.' 'I just saw it sitting on the back shelf and said, 'Hey, isn't that that stuff they're talking about on TV?'' she said. She and her husband mixed about one teaspoon each with soda and drank the concoction as a preventative measure, she said. Trump has touted chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as potential coronavirus treatments, and he tweeted that hydroxychloroquine, combined with an antibiotic called azithromycin, could 'be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.' HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains - Thank You! Hopefully they will BOTH (H works better with A, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents).....- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 21, 2020 But Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has said there had only been anecdotal evidence that the drugs could knock down COVID-19. The drugs are currently being studied and tested in clinical trials, according to the CDC. According to the New York Times, prices for the fish-tank additive have skyrocketed on eBay as the coronavirus has continued to spread through the U.S. and around the world. Don't drink the fish cleaner Drugs containing chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are not yet proven to prevent, treat or cure patients of the coronavirus, as we've noted. A recent French study of 20 COVID-19 patients indicated that the prescription-drug version of chloroquine might help treat the disease. And the CDC notes that a study in China found that patients treated with chloroquine 'had clinical and virologic benefit versus a comparison group.' More study is still needed. 'There are no US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs specifically for the treatment of patients with COVID-19,' the CDC says on its website. But the fish-tank cleaner is a definite no-no. In a statement, the FDA said Americans should be wary of products that claim to prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19. 'Products marketed for veterinary use or 'for research only,' or otherwise not for human consumption have not been evaluated for safety and should never be used,' the FDA said. 'The FDA is aware that chloroquine is marketed as an unapproved drug to treat external parasites in aquarium fish, but these products have not been evaluated by FDA to determine if they are safe, effective, properly manufactured, and adequately labeled.' 'Don't take any form of chloroquine unless it has been prescribed for you and obtained from legitimate sources,' the agency said.
|
Our ruling A Valley News Live headline said, 'Fish tank additive may treat coronavirus.' Chloroquine, a compound commonly found in fish-tank cleaners, also forms the basis of a prescription drug used for malaria. There are studies underway to conclude whether that drug, and a variant called hydroxychloroquine, could combat the coronavirus. But the fish-tank cleaner is not the same as the prescription drug, and it shouldn't be substituted as such. A man in Arizona recently died from ingesting it. We rate this statement False.
|
[
"110594-proof-24-99721508a59f52f75e34965fc2883b85.jpg"
] |
Image of expansive pit shows a lithium mine.
|
Contradiction
|
A frequently debunked meme purporting to show the barren landscape of a massive lithium mine is again making the rounds on social media. 'Finished pipeline,' the top of the image reads in a February Facebook post. It shows a pristine, grassy expanse allegedly covering an oil-extraction apparatus. 'Lithium mine,' reads the text across the adjoining bottom image showing an expansive and arrid pit. 'Your environmental argument is stupid.' 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.) (Screengrab from Facebook) The problem is that the photo allegedly showing the lithium mine isn't a lithium mine at all - a reverse Google Image search shows that the photo is actually a photo of a copper and cobalt mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo, published by Reuters in January 2013. Photos of other copper mines, such as this photo of the Escondida mine in Chile, have also previously been co-opted and falsely identified as lithium sites in other viral Facebook posts. The photo of the Escondida copper mine in particular has been published multiple times in varying contexts dating as far back as 2011. Unlike lithium, copper is primarily extracted from open-pit mines and typically involves tiered levels. Explosives and drills are used to break apart rock matter, according to a report from the University of Arizona's Superfund Research Center. Most lithium is extracted from salty liquid brines that are far beneath the Earth's surface, according to the Minerals Education Commission - not open-pit mines like the copper one shown in the photos.That's not to say lithium isn't ever extracted from open-pit mines, it's just less common and often involves smaller pits. While lithium is more frequently derived from these brines, according to MEC, the element can also be extracted from certain rock minerals like spodumene and petalite, though that process is more laborious and costly. Other fact-checking organizations - like Snopes in 2016 and Australian Associated Press FactCheck in February - have tackled similar misleading claims about lithium production over the years as they appear on social media.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says a photo of an expansive, arrid pit shows a lithium mine. While there are mines that sometimes extract lithium from rock mineral sources in open pits, the image in the post is of a copper mine, not a lithium mine. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'They eliminated the funding for community policing.
|
Contradiction
|
During a town hall hosted by ABC News, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden touted the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program, which was enacted as part of the 1994 crime bill. The 1994 bill, which Biden spearheaded, included some provisions on prosecution and sentencing that have recently been criticized for exacerbating criminal justice disparities for minority groups. But at the town hall, Biden highlighted other parts of the law that have been more popular. The idea behind community policing was to develop new policing strategies focused on engaging officers members of the community on their beat, rather than seeming like an occupying force. In an exchange with host George Stephanopoulos in the Oct. 15 town hall, Biden lamented that 'they eliminated the funding for community policing.' Biden was vague about who eliminated the funding, and when. Either way, he's wrong about the elimination of funding. Biden's campaign told PolitiFact that he was referring to Trump's fiscal 2019 budget proposal, which would have halved funding for the community policing program. But this proposal wasn't enacted, and it did not amount to an 'elimination.' The program is smaller than it was in its early years, when its budget ranged between $1.2 billion and $1.6 billion, and crime rates were higher. But funding was never zeroed out. Since 2012, which was under the Obama-Biden administration, funding has been around $200 million a year. Crime rates are also much lower now than they were during the early and mid-1990s. Here's a rundown of the annual budgetary authority for the COPS program from the Congressional Research Service:
|
Our ruling Biden said, 'They eliminated the funding for community policing.' That's incorrect. While the program's funding is lower than it was in the 1990s, it was never brought down to zero and remains in the neighborhood of $200 million a year. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"110618-proof-23-6a02d9822a1ac755dfec03ea9503af14.jpg"
] |
For coronavirus cases 'in the U.S. 38% of those hospitalized are under 35.
|
Contradiction
|
With plenty of college students congregating for spring break, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., warned on Twitter that coronavirus is not only afflicting the elderly. 'We only have 3 months of information on #Covid_19,' Rubio tweeted March 19 to his 4 million followers. 'We have created the perception that younger people have nothing to worry about. We now need to stop saying that. In the U.S. 38% of those hospitalized are under 35. In France half of those in the ICU are under 65.' We only have 3 months of information on #Covid_19 We have created the perception that younger people have nothing to worry about. We now need to stop saying that. In the U.S. 38% of those hospitalized are under 35. In France half of those in the ICU are under 65.- Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) March 19, 2020 Rubio's overall point that younger people are vulnerable has merit. But his U.S. number is wrong. For the record, his numbers on France were correct. The head of France's national health agency said March 15 that 50% of people in intensive care are under 60 or under age 65. But we wanted to focus on the U.S. numbers. Experts warn that U.S. hospitalization data is preliminary, which means the numbers could change in the coming weeks as testing becomes more widespread. Data shows younger people hospitalized, but older groups more frequently One day before Rubio's tweet, the CDC reported there were 508 patients known to have been hospitalized as a result of coronavirus. The hospitalizations represented 12% of U.S. cases between Feb. 12 and March 16. The data did not include an age group breakdown specific to those under 35. What the CDC did report was that 20% of those hospitalized were ages 20-44, and 18% were 45-54. If we add up those two age groups, we get a total of 38%. We asked Rubio's spokespersons if that was the 38% he was referencing, but we did not get a response. Major news outlets including the New York Times and NPR used that 38% statistic to point out that younger populations are also vulnerable to coronavirus. That's an important message amid spring break, as some college students have ignored the recommendations to avoid large gatherings and have poured onto beaches in Florida, leading many counties or cities to close beaches. The CDC data shows that the elderly have the highest fatality rate. The March 18 report by the CDC states that the figures are based on preliminary data and include several limitations, including that data on age and outcomes, including hospitalization, were missing for between 9% and 53% of the cases. Also, further follow-up is needed to determine the outcomes among active cases and data on other risk factors, including if patients had underlying health conditions. 'At the current point, the data is too fluid to have confidence in the accuracy of any statement regarding how COVID-19 affects different age groups,' said Volker Mai, a University of Florida epidemiologist. However, Mai said, it's important to clear up any misperception that young people are immune from the disease. Younger populations are at risk of contracting COVID-19, especially young people with underlying conditions. 'Since we are just at the start of the epidemic here, we don't have enough data to make strong conclusions about age-specific risk of serious illness and/or death in the U.S. yet,' said Cindy Prins, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida, in an email. The reason, Prins said, is a lack or lag in testing
|
Our ruling Rubio tweeted 'in the U.S. 38% of those hospitalized are under 35.' We could not find any current data that matches Rubio's tweet. It is possible that he was citing widely reported data that included people up to age 54. The CDC reported that 20% of the hospitalizations were ages 20-44 and 18% were 45-54. But the data is preliminary, so it's challenging to draw conclusions at this stage about the ages of people hospitalized. Rubio's office didn't get back to us but we have to wonder if the mistake in his tweet amounted to a simple transcription error. Rubio does have a point that younger people are vulnerable to coronavirus - it's not only older people who have been hospitalized. But because the data point is wrong, we rate this statement Mostly False.
|
[
"110637-proof-01-95d63c36b1d06d74fa0024a2b27c0ca1.jpg"
] |
For coronavirus cases 'in the U.S. 38% of those hospitalized are under 35.
|
Contradiction
|
With plenty of college students congregating for spring break, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., warned on Twitter that coronavirus is not only afflicting the elderly. 'We only have 3 months of information on #Covid_19,' Rubio tweeted March 19 to his 4 million followers. 'We have created the perception that younger people have nothing to worry about. We now need to stop saying that. In the U.S. 38% of those hospitalized are under 35. In France half of those in the ICU are under 65.' We only have 3 months of information on #Covid_19 We have created the perception that younger people have nothing to worry about. We now need to stop saying that. In the U.S. 38% of those hospitalized are under 35. In France half of those in the ICU are under 65.- Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) March 19, 2020 Rubio's overall point that younger people are vulnerable has merit. But his U.S. number is wrong. For the record, his numbers on France were correct. The head of France's national health agency said March 15 that 50% of people in intensive care are under 60 or under age 65. But we wanted to focus on the U.S. numbers. Experts warn that U.S. hospitalization data is preliminary, which means the numbers could change in the coming weeks as testing becomes more widespread. Data shows younger people hospitalized, but older groups more frequently One day before Rubio's tweet, the CDC reported there were 508 patients known to have been hospitalized as a result of coronavirus. The hospitalizations represented 12% of U.S. cases between Feb. 12 and March 16. The data did not include an age group breakdown specific to those under 35. What the CDC did report was that 20% of those hospitalized were ages 20-44, and 18% were 45-54. If we add up those two age groups, we get a total of 38%. We asked Rubio's spokespersons if that was the 38% he was referencing, but we did not get a response. Major news outlets including the New York Times and NPR used that 38% statistic to point out that younger populations are also vulnerable to coronavirus. That's an important message amid spring break, as some college students have ignored the recommendations to avoid large gatherings and have poured onto beaches in Florida, leading many counties or cities to close beaches. The CDC data shows that the elderly have the highest fatality rate. The March 18 report by the CDC states that the figures are based on preliminary data and include several limitations, including that data on age and outcomes, including hospitalization, were missing for between 9% and 53% of the cases. Also, further follow-up is needed to determine the outcomes among active cases and data on other risk factors, including if patients had underlying health conditions. 'At the current point, the data is too fluid to have confidence in the accuracy of any statement regarding how COVID-19 affects different age groups,' said Volker Mai, a University of Florida epidemiologist. However, Mai said, it's important to clear up any misperception that young people are immune from the disease. Younger populations are at risk of contracting COVID-19, especially young people with underlying conditions. 'Since we are just at the start of the epidemic here, we don't have enough data to make strong conclusions about age-specific risk of serious illness and/or death in the U.S. yet,' said Cindy Prins, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida, in an email. The reason, Prins said, is a lack or lag in testing
|
Our ruling Rubio tweeted 'in the U.S. 38% of those hospitalized are under 35.' We could not find any current data that matches Rubio's tweet. It is possible that he was citing widely reported data that included people up to age 54. The CDC reported that 20% of the hospitalizations were ages 20-44 and 18% were 45-54. But the data is preliminary, so it's challenging to draw conclusions at this stage about the ages of people hospitalized. Rubio's office didn't get back to us but we have to wonder if the mistake in his tweet amounted to a simple transcription error. Rubio does have a point that younger people are vulnerable to coronavirus - it's not only older people who have been hospitalized. But because the data point is wrong, we rate this statement Mostly False.
|
[
"110637-proof-01-95d63c36b1d06d74fa0024a2b27c0ca1.jpg"
] |
For coronavirus cases 'in the U.S. 38% of those hospitalized are under 35.
|
Contradiction
|
With plenty of college students congregating for spring break, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., warned on Twitter that coronavirus is not only afflicting the elderly. 'We only have 3 months of information on #Covid_19,' Rubio tweeted March 19 to his 4 million followers. 'We have created the perception that younger people have nothing to worry about. We now need to stop saying that. In the U.S. 38% of those hospitalized are under 35. In France half of those in the ICU are under 65.' We only have 3 months of information on #Covid_19 We have created the perception that younger people have nothing to worry about. We now need to stop saying that. In the U.S. 38% of those hospitalized are under 35. In France half of those in the ICU are under 65.- Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) March 19, 2020 Rubio's overall point that younger people are vulnerable has merit. But his U.S. number is wrong. For the record, his numbers on France were correct. The head of France's national health agency said March 15 that 50% of people in intensive care are under 60 or under age 65. But we wanted to focus on the U.S. numbers. Experts warn that U.S. hospitalization data is preliminary, which means the numbers could change in the coming weeks as testing becomes more widespread. Data shows younger people hospitalized, but older groups more frequently One day before Rubio's tweet, the CDC reported there were 508 patients known to have been hospitalized as a result of coronavirus. The hospitalizations represented 12% of U.S. cases between Feb. 12 and March 16. The data did not include an age group breakdown specific to those under 35. What the CDC did report was that 20% of those hospitalized were ages 20-44, and 18% were 45-54. If we add up those two age groups, we get a total of 38%. We asked Rubio's spokespersons if that was the 38% he was referencing, but we did not get a response. Major news outlets including the New York Times and NPR used that 38% statistic to point out that younger populations are also vulnerable to coronavirus. That's an important message amid spring break, as some college students have ignored the recommendations to avoid large gatherings and have poured onto beaches in Florida, leading many counties or cities to close beaches. The CDC data shows that the elderly have the highest fatality rate. The March 18 report by the CDC states that the figures are based on preliminary data and include several limitations, including that data on age and outcomes, including hospitalization, were missing for between 9% and 53% of the cases. Also, further follow-up is needed to determine the outcomes among active cases and data on other risk factors, including if patients had underlying health conditions. 'At the current point, the data is too fluid to have confidence in the accuracy of any statement regarding how COVID-19 affects different age groups,' said Volker Mai, a University of Florida epidemiologist. However, Mai said, it's important to clear up any misperception that young people are immune from the disease. Younger populations are at risk of contracting COVID-19, especially young people with underlying conditions. 'Since we are just at the start of the epidemic here, we don't have enough data to make strong conclusions about age-specific risk of serious illness and/or death in the U.S. yet,' said Cindy Prins, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida, in an email. The reason, Prins said, is a lack or lag in testing
|
Our ruling Rubio tweeted 'in the U.S. 38% of those hospitalized are under 35.' We could not find any current data that matches Rubio's tweet. It is possible that he was citing widely reported data that included people up to age 54. The CDC reported that 20% of the hospitalizations were ages 20-44 and 18% were 45-54. But the data is preliminary, so it's challenging to draw conclusions at this stage about the ages of people hospitalized. Rubio's office didn't get back to us but we have to wonder if the mistake in his tweet amounted to a simple transcription error. Rubio does have a point that younger people are vulnerable to coronavirus - it's not only older people who have been hospitalized. But because the data point is wrong, we rate this statement Mostly False.
|
[
"110637-proof-01-95d63c36b1d06d74fa0024a2b27c0ca1.jpg"
] |
Says 'some people in the Great State of North Carolina have been sent TWO BALLOTS.
|
Contradiction
|
President Trump believes he sees signs of potential election corruption in North Carolina. 'Just out: Some people in the Great State of North Carolina have been sent TWO BALLOTS. RIGGED ELECTION in waiting!' he tweeted on Thursday. North Carolina could prove key for Trump in the upcoming election, and he has previously tweeted questionable information about the state. So is this more recent tweet true? Election officials in Mecklenburg County this week announced that a mixup with the first wave of absentee ballots caused some voters to receive two identical ballots, the Associated Press reported. Fewer than 500 voters were affected, Mecklenburg's election director Michael Dickerson told the AP. As for the suggestion that North Carolina's election could be 'rigged,' North Carolina's election director said the state's ballot management system will not allow a voter to vote twice in an election. 'Each absentee voter has a unique identifier barcode for their return application, and the state system will not permit two ballots from the same person to be accepted or counted,' Karen Brinson Bell said in a statement on Thursday. 'Once one ballot is returned and accepted, the voter's record reflects that he or she has already voted,' she said. 'Therefore, if that voter returned another ballot, it would not count. The state has already processed 88,000 of 817,000 ballots that have been mailed out, she said. The president's claim contains an element of truth: an elections board sent two ballots to about 500 voters. But it ignores some very important context: North Carolina election officials say their ballot-counting system doesn't allow an individual's quote to be counted twice. That means this type of mistake is very unlikely to alter or 'rig' the election, as Trump suggests. So we rate this claim Mostly False.
|
So we rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"110641-proof-23-37b418321f08ce175c88377733175b8b.jpg"
] |
Says 'some people in the Great State of North Carolina have been sent TWO BALLOTS.
|
Contradiction
|
President Trump believes he sees signs of potential election corruption in North Carolina. 'Just out: Some people in the Great State of North Carolina have been sent TWO BALLOTS. RIGGED ELECTION in waiting!' he tweeted on Thursday. North Carolina could prove key for Trump in the upcoming election, and he has previously tweeted questionable information about the state. So is this more recent tweet true? Election officials in Mecklenburg County this week announced that a mixup with the first wave of absentee ballots caused some voters to receive two identical ballots, the Associated Press reported. Fewer than 500 voters were affected, Mecklenburg's election director Michael Dickerson told the AP. As for the suggestion that North Carolina's election could be 'rigged,' North Carolina's election director said the state's ballot management system will not allow a voter to vote twice in an election. 'Each absentee voter has a unique identifier barcode for their return application, and the state system will not permit two ballots from the same person to be accepted or counted,' Karen Brinson Bell said in a statement on Thursday. 'Once one ballot is returned and accepted, the voter's record reflects that he or she has already voted,' she said. 'Therefore, if that voter returned another ballot, it would not count. The state has already processed 88,000 of 817,000 ballots that have been mailed out, she said. The president's claim contains an element of truth: an elections board sent two ballots to about 500 voters. But it ignores some very important context: North Carolina election officials say their ballot-counting system doesn't allow an individual's quote to be counted twice. That means this type of mistake is very unlikely to alter or 'rig' the election, as Trump suggests. So we rate this claim Mostly False.
|
So we rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"110641-proof-23-37b418321f08ce175c88377733175b8b.jpg"
] |
Says 'some people in the Great State of North Carolina have been sent TWO BALLOTS.
|
Contradiction
|
President Trump believes he sees signs of potential election corruption in North Carolina. 'Just out: Some people in the Great State of North Carolina have been sent TWO BALLOTS. RIGGED ELECTION in waiting!' he tweeted on Thursday. North Carolina could prove key for Trump in the upcoming election, and he has previously tweeted questionable information about the state. So is this more recent tweet true? Election officials in Mecklenburg County this week announced that a mixup with the first wave of absentee ballots caused some voters to receive two identical ballots, the Associated Press reported. Fewer than 500 voters were affected, Mecklenburg's election director Michael Dickerson told the AP. As for the suggestion that North Carolina's election could be 'rigged,' North Carolina's election director said the state's ballot management system will not allow a voter to vote twice in an election. 'Each absentee voter has a unique identifier barcode for their return application, and the state system will not permit two ballots from the same person to be accepted or counted,' Karen Brinson Bell said in a statement on Thursday. 'Once one ballot is returned and accepted, the voter's record reflects that he or she has already voted,' she said. 'Therefore, if that voter returned another ballot, it would not count. The state has already processed 88,000 of 817,000 ballots that have been mailed out, she said. The president's claim contains an element of truth: an elections board sent two ballots to about 500 voters. But it ignores some very important context: North Carolina election officials say their ballot-counting system doesn't allow an individual's quote to be counted twice. That means this type of mistake is very unlikely to alter or 'rig' the election, as Trump suggests. So we rate this claim Mostly False.
|
So we rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"110641-proof-23-37b418321f08ce175c88377733175b8b.jpg"
] |
'Houston Texans coming out for the Black National Anthem then going into the locker room for THE REAL NATIONAL ANTHEM is DISGRACEFUL.
|
Contradiction
|
The NFL season kicked off on Sept. 10 with the Kansas City Chiefs beating the Houston Texans. But before the game started, according to a Facebook post, the Texans drew attention for a protest. 'Houston Texans coming out for the Black National Anthem then going into the locker room for THE REAL NATIONAL ANTHEM IS DISGRACEFUL,' the post says. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post gets part of the story right: Texans did stay in their locker room for 'The Star-Spangled Banner.' But they also stayed in the locker room for the song known as the Black national anthem. In July, news broke that the NFL would play 'Lift Every Voice And Sing,' before every game during the first week of the season in response to recent protests over police brutality. Written by civil rights activist James Weldon Johnson in 1900 and set to music by his brother, John Rosamond Johnson, the song was adopted by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as its official song in 1918 and is often referred to as the Black national anthem. During the Chiefs-Texans game, Chiefs players and coaches stretched across one of the end zones while a video of Alicia Keys singing the Black anthem played on video boards, USA Today reported, while the Texans remained in their locker room. When the song ended, the Chiefs jogged off the field and players stood on the sideline for the national anthem. One player, defensive end Alex Okafor, took a knee. The Texans continued to remain in their locker room until the 'Star-Spangled Banner' ended. At that point, the Texans ran onto the field and 'both teams came together at the center of the field for what the public address announcer called 'a moment of silence to support racial equality in our country,'' according to USA Today. 'The Texans had discussed staging a protest during both anthems in an attempt to continue to draw attention to the ongoing problems of police brutality against people of color and systemic oppression,' the newspaper said. While this Facebook post is correct that the Texans stayed in their locker room for the national anthem, it's wrong about the team's actions during the song known as the Black national anthem, and it misleads readers into thinking the players pointedly took the field for one song and not the other. We rate this Facebook post Mostly False.
|
We rate this Facebook post Mostly False.
|
[] |
'The infrastructure bill itself is only 10% true infrastructure.
|
Contradiction
|
In a long-awaited vote, the U.S. House of Representatives on Nov. 5 approved an infrastructure bill crafted by a bipartisan group of lawmakers and supported by President Joe Biden. The measure, which includes more than $500 billion in new spending plus additional money from reallocated funds, has already passed the Senate and awaits Biden's signature. When the House voted, six progressive Democrats opposed it, which would have been enough to tank the bill had 13 Republicans not crossed party lines to vote with most Democrats. (In the earlier Senate vote, 19 Republicans joined all of the chamber's Democrats in supporting the bill.) One Republican who voted against the infrastructure bill was Rep. Bob Good from Virginia's 5th congressional district. He assailed the bill as a Democratic boondoggle during a Nov. 4 interview with John Fredericks, a conservative radio host. 'The infrastructure bill is only 10% true infrastructure,' Good said. He made the same claim during a Nov. 9 television interview and in an Oct. 29 video. Saying that just 10% of the bill is 'true infrastructure' is incredibly off-base, as PolitiFact has pointed out before. When Biden first proposed what would eventually become the infrastructure bill in April, PolitiFact National gave a Pants on Fire rating to Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., for saying 'something less than 6%' of the proposal 'is actually focused on infrastructure.' The figure Cheney cited applied to spending on roads, bridges and highways but excluded items in Biden's proposal that are widely considered to be infrastructure, including public transit, rail, airports, ports, waterways, the electrical grid, drinking water systems and broadband. Good's statement is, if anything, more inaccurate than Cheney's, because several large elements of the original proposal that had the weakest claims to be considered 'infrastructure' were stricken from the bill that passed both chambers. The transformation of the bill happened because Biden and congressional leaders decided to seek bipartisan buy-in for a pure infrastructure bill and then vote separately on a set of safety-net measures that are more polarizing between, and within, the parties. For instance, when Cheney made her statement, Biden was seeking $400 billion for expanding access to long-term, home and community-based care under Medicaid. That never made it into the bill that passed both chambers. Other elements of Biden's original plan fell into a gray area, fitting under some definitions of infrastructure but not others. These included $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 these did not make it into the final infrastructure bill. Instead, the bill that passed Congress consisted almost entirely of traditional infrastructure provisions. Here's one categorization by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an independent group that scrutinizes federal spending. • Roads, bridges and major projects: $110 billion • Passenger and freight rail: $66 billion • Public transit: $39 billion • Airports: $25 billion • Ports and waterways: $17 billion • Electric vehicles: $15 billion • Road safety: $11 billion • Reconnecting communities: $1 billion • Electricity infrastructure: $73 billion • Broadband: $65 billion • Water infrastructure, including lead pipe replacement: $55 billion • Resiliency and Western water storage: $50 billion • Environmental remediation: $21 billion Total: $548 billion A few of these categories might be called infrastructure-adjacent rather than pure infrastructure, such as road safety and environmental remediation. But even if you set those two categories aside, roughly 94% of the spending is allocated to categories that are pretty clearly infrastructure - not the 10% Good said. The bill will provide Good's home state of Virginia $7 billion for highway repairs and more than $537 million for bridge work over the next five years, according to White House estimates. Why does Good say only 10% of the money is going to 'true infrastructure?' We asked his office three times for an explanation but did not get one. Good is not alone in making the 10% claim. PolitiFact National recently gave a Pants of Fire to Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., for a similar comment. She said in the bill 'only 10% is actual infrastructure.' Funding for airports, ports, waterways, broadband, the electric grid and drinking water systems are 'not only infrastructure but critical infrastructure,' Robert Greer, an associate professor in public service and administration at the Texas A&M University Bush School of Government and Public Service, told PolitiFact National in April. 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' Biden's agenda, Tomer said in April. 'For decades, and in some cases centuries, the federal government has supported direct investment in these physical capital systems and related policies like workforce development and planning grants.'
|
Our ruling Good said that in the infrastructure bill that just passed the House, 'only 10% is true infrastructure.' This is a version of a Republican talking point that was inaccurate months ago and has been rendered even more inaccurate since then. Because Biden and congressional Democrats split their agenda into an infrastructure-only bill and a separate measure that deals with social safety-net spending, the bill that passed the House was almost entirely pure infrastructure spending. We rate Good's statement Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
'The infrastructure bill itself is only 10% true infrastructure.
|
Contradiction
|
In a long-awaited vote, the U.S. House of Representatives on Nov. 5 approved an infrastructure bill crafted by a bipartisan group of lawmakers and supported by President Joe Biden. The measure, which includes more than $500 billion in new spending plus additional money from reallocated funds, has already passed the Senate and awaits Biden's signature. When the House voted, six progressive Democrats opposed it, which would have been enough to tank the bill had 13 Republicans not crossed party lines to vote with most Democrats. (In the earlier Senate vote, 19 Republicans joined all of the chamber's Democrats in supporting the bill.) One Republican who voted against the infrastructure bill was Rep. Bob Good from Virginia's 5th congressional district. He assailed the bill as a Democratic boondoggle during a Nov. 4 interview with John Fredericks, a conservative radio host. 'The infrastructure bill is only 10% true infrastructure,' Good said. He made the same claim during a Nov. 9 television interview and in an Oct. 29 video. Saying that just 10% of the bill is 'true infrastructure' is incredibly off-base, as PolitiFact has pointed out before. When Biden first proposed what would eventually become the infrastructure bill in April, PolitiFact National gave a Pants on Fire rating to Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., for saying 'something less than 6%' of the proposal 'is actually focused on infrastructure.' The figure Cheney cited applied to spending on roads, bridges and highways but excluded items in Biden's proposal that are widely considered to be infrastructure, including public transit, rail, airports, ports, waterways, the electrical grid, drinking water systems and broadband. Good's statement is, if anything, more inaccurate than Cheney's, because several large elements of the original proposal that had the weakest claims to be considered 'infrastructure' were stricken from the bill that passed both chambers. The transformation of the bill happened because Biden and congressional leaders decided to seek bipartisan buy-in for a pure infrastructure bill and then vote separately on a set of safety-net measures that are more polarizing between, and within, the parties. For instance, when Cheney made her statement, Biden was seeking $400 billion for expanding access to long-term, home and community-based care under Medicaid. That never made it into the bill that passed both chambers. Other elements of Biden's original plan fell into a gray area, fitting under some definitions of infrastructure but not others. These included $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 these did not make it into the final infrastructure bill. Instead, the bill that passed Congress consisted almost entirely of traditional infrastructure provisions. Here's one categorization by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an independent group that scrutinizes federal spending. • Roads, bridges and major projects: $110 billion • Passenger and freight rail: $66 billion • Public transit: $39 billion • Airports: $25 billion • Ports and waterways: $17 billion • Electric vehicles: $15 billion • Road safety: $11 billion • Reconnecting communities: $1 billion • Electricity infrastructure: $73 billion • Broadband: $65 billion • Water infrastructure, including lead pipe replacement: $55 billion • Resiliency and Western water storage: $50 billion • Environmental remediation: $21 billion Total: $548 billion A few of these categories might be called infrastructure-adjacent rather than pure infrastructure, such as road safety and environmental remediation. But even if you set those two categories aside, roughly 94% of the spending is allocated to categories that are pretty clearly infrastructure - not the 10% Good said. The bill will provide Good's home state of Virginia $7 billion for highway repairs and more than $537 million for bridge work over the next five years, according to White House estimates. Why does Good say only 10% of the money is going to 'true infrastructure?' We asked his office three times for an explanation but did not get one. Good is not alone in making the 10% claim. PolitiFact National recently gave a Pants of Fire to Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., for a similar comment. She said in the bill 'only 10% is actual infrastructure.' Funding for airports, ports, waterways, broadband, the electric grid and drinking water systems are 'not only infrastructure but critical infrastructure,' Robert Greer, an associate professor in public service and administration at the Texas A&M University Bush School of Government and Public Service, told PolitiFact National in April. 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' Biden's agenda, Tomer said in April. 'For decades, and in some cases centuries, the federal government has supported direct investment in these physical capital systems and related policies like workforce development and planning grants.'
|
Our ruling Good said that in the infrastructure bill that just passed the House, 'only 10% is true infrastructure.' This is a version of a Republican talking point that was inaccurate months ago and has been rendered even more inaccurate since then. Because Biden and congressional Democrats split their agenda into an infrastructure-only bill and a separate measure that deals with social safety-net spending, the bill that passed the House was almost entirely pure infrastructure spending. We rate Good's statement Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
'The recent statement by Chris Krebs on the security of the 2020 Election was highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud.
|
Contradiction
|
In a Nov. 17 tweet, Donald Trump fired his most senior cybersecurity official for affirming the security of the 2020 presidential election. Christopher Krebs, a Trump appointee, headed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) at the Department of Homeland Security and directed efforts to shore up election security. He has repeatedly contradicted Trump's baseless claims that voter fraud swung the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden. 'The recent statement by Chris Krebs on the security of the 2020 Election was highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud,' Trump tweeted. 'Therefore, effective immediately, Chris Krebs has been terminated.' The recent statement by Chris Krebs on the security of the 2020 Election was highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud - including dead people voting, Poll Watchers not allowed into polling locations, 'glitches' in the voting machines which changed...- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 18, 2020 The statement Trump was referring to was released by officials from two Department of Homeland Security committees - the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council and the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council overseeing cybersecurity. Krebs' agency released the statement, but his name is not attached. Although the statement did not mention Trump directly, the officials contradicted his claims that the Nov. 3 election was rigged against him. They called it the most secure election in U.S. history. 'There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised,' the statement reads. Even though Krebs lost his job, his assessment of the election wasn't wrong. Evidence shows it's Trump's claim that is lacking in accuracy. Substantial evidence supports CISA statement The CISA statement that led to Krebs' ouster is supported by a multitude of evidence. Fifty-nine election and cybersecurity experts agreed in a public statement that claims of a 'rigged' election 'either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.' David Evans, a professor of computer science at the University of Virginia, told PolitiFact that he signed the joint statement because 'there is no substance ... no credible specifics, and no evidence to support any of the claims' of a rigged election. 'It is always difficult to prove something did not occur, which is why people who work in security are so careful to avoid strong statements,' Evans said. 'But in this case, because of the size of the margin, all of the security measures that were in place and worked as intended, and the lack of any evidence of anything fraudulent happening, one can be highly confident that there is no credible possibility that the results of the election are invalid.' Dan Wallach, a professor of computer science at Rice University who studies the security of election voting systems, also co-signed the statement. 'It's one thing to say we're aware of vulnerabilities' in our election system, he told PolitiFact. 'It's a whole other game to claim that vulnerabilities have been actively exploited. Making that claim requires evidence.' Trump's litany of debunked 'evidence' As evidence for his claim that the statement was 'highly inaccurate,' Trump said in his tweet that 'dead people' voted in the election, Republican poll watchers were barred from polling locations, 'glitches' in voting machines changed votes from Trump to Biden, voters were allowed to vote late, 'and many more.' We have fact-checked all of these claims and found them lacking evidence. Trump and his campaign have so far failed to prove that fraudulent votes cast in the name of dead people altered the outcome of the election. (See examples from Detroit, Michigan, Virginia, Nevada and Wisconsin.) We have found that many people whose names appear on viral lists of dead voters are still living, did not vote in the election, or were mistakenly recorded as having voted because they shared a name with a living person. The claim that Republican poll watchers were barred from polling locations is False. In both Pennsylvania and Michigan, the two states where Trump has claimed that Republican poll watchers were shut out, hundreds of Republican challengers were allowed into polling stations to observe the count. Trump's lawyers have acknowledged this fact in lawsuits and court hearings. The claim that glitches in voting machines swapped votes from Trump to Biden is also baseless. Many of these claims center on Dominion Voting Systems, which makes software and hardware for election officials to use around the country. Minor issues reported after the election were either the result of human error or temporary malfunctions, and they were quickly resolved. Experts told us that many of the claims about Dominion show a misunderstanding of how voting administration actually works. Finally, Trump's claim that voters were allowed to vote late is misleading. Some states allow mailed ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day a grace period if they arrive shortly after Election Day. All such votes would be legally cast under state law.
|
Our ruling Trump tweeted that 'the recent statement by Chris Krebs on the security of the 2020 Election was highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud.' A multitude of evidence supports the statement released by Krebs' former agency that the election was not rigged. Trump's claim is not grounded in evidence. We rate it Pants on Fire! This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more.
|
[
"110674-proof-26-abcb95dd09fad9f806bad0e772ab3101.jpg"
] |
'The recent statement by Chris Krebs on the security of the 2020 Election was highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud.
|
Contradiction
|
In a Nov. 17 tweet, Donald Trump fired his most senior cybersecurity official for affirming the security of the 2020 presidential election. Christopher Krebs, a Trump appointee, headed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) at the Department of Homeland Security and directed efforts to shore up election security. He has repeatedly contradicted Trump's baseless claims that voter fraud swung the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden. 'The recent statement by Chris Krebs on the security of the 2020 Election was highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud,' Trump tweeted. 'Therefore, effective immediately, Chris Krebs has been terminated.' The recent statement by Chris Krebs on the security of the 2020 Election was highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud - including dead people voting, Poll Watchers not allowed into polling locations, 'glitches' in the voting machines which changed...- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 18, 2020 The statement Trump was referring to was released by officials from two Department of Homeland Security committees - the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council and the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council overseeing cybersecurity. Krebs' agency released the statement, but his name is not attached. Although the statement did not mention Trump directly, the officials contradicted his claims that the Nov. 3 election was rigged against him. They called it the most secure election in U.S. history. 'There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised,' the statement reads. Even though Krebs lost his job, his assessment of the election wasn't wrong. Evidence shows it's Trump's claim that is lacking in accuracy. Substantial evidence supports CISA statement The CISA statement that led to Krebs' ouster is supported by a multitude of evidence. Fifty-nine election and cybersecurity experts agreed in a public statement that claims of a 'rigged' election 'either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.' David Evans, a professor of computer science at the University of Virginia, told PolitiFact that he signed the joint statement because 'there is no substance ... no credible specifics, and no evidence to support any of the claims' of a rigged election. 'It is always difficult to prove something did not occur, which is why people who work in security are so careful to avoid strong statements,' Evans said. 'But in this case, because of the size of the margin, all of the security measures that were in place and worked as intended, and the lack of any evidence of anything fraudulent happening, one can be highly confident that there is no credible possibility that the results of the election are invalid.' Dan Wallach, a professor of computer science at Rice University who studies the security of election voting systems, also co-signed the statement. 'It's one thing to say we're aware of vulnerabilities' in our election system, he told PolitiFact. 'It's a whole other game to claim that vulnerabilities have been actively exploited. Making that claim requires evidence.' Trump's litany of debunked 'evidence' As evidence for his claim that the statement was 'highly inaccurate,' Trump said in his tweet that 'dead people' voted in the election, Republican poll watchers were barred from polling locations, 'glitches' in voting machines changed votes from Trump to Biden, voters were allowed to vote late, 'and many more.' We have fact-checked all of these claims and found them lacking evidence. Trump and his campaign have so far failed to prove that fraudulent votes cast in the name of dead people altered the outcome of the election. (See examples from Detroit, Michigan, Virginia, Nevada and Wisconsin.) We have found that many people whose names appear on viral lists of dead voters are still living, did not vote in the election, or were mistakenly recorded as having voted because they shared a name with a living person. The claim that Republican poll watchers were barred from polling locations is False. In both Pennsylvania and Michigan, the two states where Trump has claimed that Republican poll watchers were shut out, hundreds of Republican challengers were allowed into polling stations to observe the count. Trump's lawyers have acknowledged this fact in lawsuits and court hearings. The claim that glitches in voting machines swapped votes from Trump to Biden is also baseless. Many of these claims center on Dominion Voting Systems, which makes software and hardware for election officials to use around the country. Minor issues reported after the election were either the result of human error or temporary malfunctions, and they were quickly resolved. Experts told us that many of the claims about Dominion show a misunderstanding of how voting administration actually works. Finally, Trump's claim that voters were allowed to vote late is misleading. Some states allow mailed ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day a grace period if they arrive shortly after Election Day. All such votes would be legally cast under state law.
|
Our ruling Trump tweeted that 'the recent statement by Chris Krebs on the security of the 2020 Election was highly inaccurate, in that there were massive improprieties and fraud.' A multitude of evidence supports the statement released by Krebs' former agency that the election was not rigged. Trump's claim is not grounded in evidence. We rate it Pants on Fire! This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more.
|
[
"110674-proof-26-abcb95dd09fad9f806bad0e772ab3101.jpg"
] |
Says Georgia 'has more day-of voting rights than Colorado.
|
Contradiction
|
Republicans are heaping scorn on Major League Baseball for moving the All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver in protest of Georgia's new voting laws. MLB joined Georgia-based businesses like Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines in voicing its opposition to the legislation. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., took a swing at the league and the new game venue, tweeting that Georgia actually offers more days for early voting - 17, compared with Colorado's 15 days. 'The MLB is moving the All Star Game out of Atlanta which has more day-of voting rights than Colorado?' Scott tweeted April 6, 2021. Georgia: Voter ID, 17 days of early voting. Colorado: Voter ID, 15 days of early voting. Atlanta is 51% Black. Denver is 9.2% Black. The @MLB is moving the #MLBAllStarGame out of ATL which has more day-of voting rights than CO? The Wokes are at it again, folks.- Tim Scott (@SenatorTimScott) April 6, 2021 Day-of voting rights refers to access to voting on Election Day, either in person or through dropboxes. On this issue, Scott is off the mark. Colorado allows election day registration, while in Georgia, registration closes about a month earlier. Colorado also makes greater use of dropboxes, keeping them open until the evening on election day for voters to submit their ballots. Under Georgia's new law, drop boxes are pulled the Friday before the election. Scott's spokesperson Ken Farnaso said there was a 'mistype' in the tweet, and it should have said 'more days of voting rights.' So we checked the claim on that basis, too, and found that he left out important context in comparing voting in Colorado with Georgia. Number of early voting days Georgia's new law expanded early voting by one day. The rules already required early voting for three weeks before election day, but only required that local officials include a single Saturday in that period. The new law requires two Saturdays, so Scott's figure of 17 days fits. And the law allows for as many as 19 days. Colorado says that early voting centers must open 15 days before an election. 'The point of the tweet was to show that Georgia has more days to vote in person than Colorado, contrary to the left's narrative that it restricts early voting,' Farnaso said. Colorado uses an all-mail system But Scott's comparison overlooks that the two states run their elections in very different ways. Colorado relies almost entirely on mail-in ballots. The state sends every registered voter a ballot, and all they have to do is fill it out and put it in the mail in time. 'Colorado has less of a need to rely on in-person voting than Georgia does because fewer of Colorado's voters cast in-person votes,' said University of Florida political science professor Michael McDonald. Data from the last general elections in both states show 94% of Colorado voters cast their ballots by mail, while in Georgia, 26% did. As for early voting, 3% of Colorado voters used that option, compared with over half in Georgia. 'There are no reports of long voting lines in Colorado at the state's vote centers, and the state has the second highest turnout rate in the country,' McDonald said. 'Compared to Georgia, there is less evidence of a need for Colorado to provide more voting options.'
|
Our ruling Scott cited the rules for early voting to say that Georgia has more days for in-person voting than Colorado. But the comparison doesn't account for Colorado's universal vote-by-mail option. When 94% of voters mail their ballots, early voting days play a nominal role in elections. And in Colorado, voters have more options to register and use dropboxes on election day. Scott's claim has a thread of accuracy, but what it leaves out creates a misleading impression about how voting access compares in the two states. We rate this Mostly False.
|
[
"110692-proof-15-19c157282f9c4db8930fca4bc853ddc3.jpg"
] |
Says Georgia 'has more day-of voting rights than Colorado.
|
Contradiction
|
Republicans are heaping scorn on Major League Baseball for moving the All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver in protest of Georgia's new voting laws. MLB joined Georgia-based businesses like Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines in voicing its opposition to the legislation. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., took a swing at the league and the new game venue, tweeting that Georgia actually offers more days for early voting - 17, compared with Colorado's 15 days. 'The MLB is moving the All Star Game out of Atlanta which has more day-of voting rights than Colorado?' Scott tweeted April 6, 2021. Georgia: Voter ID, 17 days of early voting. Colorado: Voter ID, 15 days of early voting. Atlanta is 51% Black. Denver is 9.2% Black. The @MLB is moving the #MLBAllStarGame out of ATL which has more day-of voting rights than CO? The Wokes are at it again, folks.- Tim Scott (@SenatorTimScott) April 6, 2021 Day-of voting rights refers to access to voting on Election Day, either in person or through dropboxes. On this issue, Scott is off the mark. Colorado allows election day registration, while in Georgia, registration closes about a month earlier. Colorado also makes greater use of dropboxes, keeping them open until the evening on election day for voters to submit their ballots. Under Georgia's new law, drop boxes are pulled the Friday before the election. Scott's spokesperson Ken Farnaso said there was a 'mistype' in the tweet, and it should have said 'more days of voting rights.' So we checked the claim on that basis, too, and found that he left out important context in comparing voting in Colorado with Georgia. Number of early voting days Georgia's new law expanded early voting by one day. The rules already required early voting for three weeks before election day, but only required that local officials include a single Saturday in that period. The new law requires two Saturdays, so Scott's figure of 17 days fits. And the law allows for as many as 19 days. Colorado says that early voting centers must open 15 days before an election. 'The point of the tweet was to show that Georgia has more days to vote in person than Colorado, contrary to the left's narrative that it restricts early voting,' Farnaso said. Colorado uses an all-mail system But Scott's comparison overlooks that the two states run their elections in very different ways. Colorado relies almost entirely on mail-in ballots. The state sends every registered voter a ballot, and all they have to do is fill it out and put it in the mail in time. 'Colorado has less of a need to rely on in-person voting than Georgia does because fewer of Colorado's voters cast in-person votes,' said University of Florida political science professor Michael McDonald. Data from the last general elections in both states show 94% of Colorado voters cast their ballots by mail, while in Georgia, 26% did. As for early voting, 3% of Colorado voters used that option, compared with over half in Georgia. 'There are no reports of long voting lines in Colorado at the state's vote centers, and the state has the second highest turnout rate in the country,' McDonald said. 'Compared to Georgia, there is less evidence of a need for Colorado to provide more voting options.'
|
Our ruling Scott cited the rules for early voting to say that Georgia has more days for in-person voting than Colorado. But the comparison doesn't account for Colorado's universal vote-by-mail option. When 94% of voters mail their ballots, early voting days play a nominal role in elections. And in Colorado, voters have more options to register and use dropboxes on election day. Scott's claim has a thread of accuracy, but what it leaves out creates a misleading impression about how voting access compares in the two states. We rate this Mostly False.
|
[
"110692-proof-15-19c157282f9c4db8930fca4bc853ddc3.jpg"
] |
Says Georgia 'has more day-of voting rights than Colorado.
|
Contradiction
|
Republicans are heaping scorn on Major League Baseball for moving the All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver in protest of Georgia's new voting laws. MLB joined Georgia-based businesses like Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines in voicing its opposition to the legislation. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., took a swing at the league and the new game venue, tweeting that Georgia actually offers more days for early voting - 17, compared with Colorado's 15 days. 'The MLB is moving the All Star Game out of Atlanta which has more day-of voting rights than Colorado?' Scott tweeted April 6, 2021. Georgia: Voter ID, 17 days of early voting. Colorado: Voter ID, 15 days of early voting. Atlanta is 51% Black. Denver is 9.2% Black. The @MLB is moving the #MLBAllStarGame out of ATL which has more day-of voting rights than CO? The Wokes are at it again, folks.- Tim Scott (@SenatorTimScott) April 6, 2021 Day-of voting rights refers to access to voting on Election Day, either in person or through dropboxes. On this issue, Scott is off the mark. Colorado allows election day registration, while in Georgia, registration closes about a month earlier. Colorado also makes greater use of dropboxes, keeping them open until the evening on election day for voters to submit their ballots. Under Georgia's new law, drop boxes are pulled the Friday before the election. Scott's spokesperson Ken Farnaso said there was a 'mistype' in the tweet, and it should have said 'more days of voting rights.' So we checked the claim on that basis, too, and found that he left out important context in comparing voting in Colorado with Georgia. Number of early voting days Georgia's new law expanded early voting by one day. The rules already required early voting for three weeks before election day, but only required that local officials include a single Saturday in that period. The new law requires two Saturdays, so Scott's figure of 17 days fits. And the law allows for as many as 19 days. Colorado says that early voting centers must open 15 days before an election. 'The point of the tweet was to show that Georgia has more days to vote in person than Colorado, contrary to the left's narrative that it restricts early voting,' Farnaso said. Colorado uses an all-mail system But Scott's comparison overlooks that the two states run their elections in very different ways. Colorado relies almost entirely on mail-in ballots. The state sends every registered voter a ballot, and all they have to do is fill it out and put it in the mail in time. 'Colorado has less of a need to rely on in-person voting than Georgia does because fewer of Colorado's voters cast in-person votes,' said University of Florida political science professor Michael McDonald. Data from the last general elections in both states show 94% of Colorado voters cast their ballots by mail, while in Georgia, 26% did. As for early voting, 3% of Colorado voters used that option, compared with over half in Georgia. 'There are no reports of long voting lines in Colorado at the state's vote centers, and the state has the second highest turnout rate in the country,' McDonald said. 'Compared to Georgia, there is less evidence of a need for Colorado to provide more voting options.'
|
Our ruling Scott cited the rules for early voting to say that Georgia has more days for in-person voting than Colorado. But the comparison doesn't account for Colorado's universal vote-by-mail option. When 94% of voters mail their ballots, early voting days play a nominal role in elections. And in Colorado, voters have more options to register and use dropboxes on election day. Scott's claim has a thread of accuracy, but what it leaves out creates a misleading impression about how voting access compares in the two states. We rate this Mostly False.
|
[
"110692-proof-15-19c157282f9c4db8930fca4bc853ddc3.jpg"
] |
Says Georgia 'has more day-of voting rights than Colorado.
|
Contradiction
|
Republicans are heaping scorn on Major League Baseball for moving the All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver in protest of Georgia's new voting laws. MLB joined Georgia-based businesses like Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines in voicing its opposition to the legislation. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., took a swing at the league and the new game venue, tweeting that Georgia actually offers more days for early voting - 17, compared with Colorado's 15 days. 'The MLB is moving the All Star Game out of Atlanta which has more day-of voting rights than Colorado?' Scott tweeted April 6, 2021. Georgia: Voter ID, 17 days of early voting. Colorado: Voter ID, 15 days of early voting. Atlanta is 51% Black. Denver is 9.2% Black. The @MLB is moving the #MLBAllStarGame out of ATL which has more day-of voting rights than CO? The Wokes are at it again, folks.- Tim Scott (@SenatorTimScott) April 6, 2021 Day-of voting rights refers to access to voting on Election Day, either in person or through dropboxes. On this issue, Scott is off the mark. Colorado allows election day registration, while in Georgia, registration closes about a month earlier. Colorado also makes greater use of dropboxes, keeping them open until the evening on election day for voters to submit their ballots. Under Georgia's new law, drop boxes are pulled the Friday before the election. Scott's spokesperson Ken Farnaso said there was a 'mistype' in the tweet, and it should have said 'more days of voting rights.' So we checked the claim on that basis, too, and found that he left out important context in comparing voting in Colorado with Georgia. Number of early voting days Georgia's new law expanded early voting by one day. The rules already required early voting for three weeks before election day, but only required that local officials include a single Saturday in that period. The new law requires two Saturdays, so Scott's figure of 17 days fits. And the law allows for as many as 19 days. Colorado says that early voting centers must open 15 days before an election. 'The point of the tweet was to show that Georgia has more days to vote in person than Colorado, contrary to the left's narrative that it restricts early voting,' Farnaso said. Colorado uses an all-mail system But Scott's comparison overlooks that the two states run their elections in very different ways. Colorado relies almost entirely on mail-in ballots. The state sends every registered voter a ballot, and all they have to do is fill it out and put it in the mail in time. 'Colorado has less of a need to rely on in-person voting than Georgia does because fewer of Colorado's voters cast in-person votes,' said University of Florida political science professor Michael McDonald. Data from the last general elections in both states show 94% of Colorado voters cast their ballots by mail, while in Georgia, 26% did. As for early voting, 3% of Colorado voters used that option, compared with over half in Georgia. 'There are no reports of long voting lines in Colorado at the state's vote centers, and the state has the second highest turnout rate in the country,' McDonald said. 'Compared to Georgia, there is less evidence of a need for Colorado to provide more voting options.'
|
Our ruling Scott cited the rules for early voting to say that Georgia has more days for in-person voting than Colorado. But the comparison doesn't account for Colorado's universal vote-by-mail option. When 94% of voters mail their ballots, early voting days play a nominal role in elections. And in Colorado, voters have more options to register and use dropboxes on election day. Scott's claim has a thread of accuracy, but what it leaves out creates a misleading impression about how voting access compares in the two states. We rate this Mostly False.
|
[
"110692-proof-15-19c157282f9c4db8930fca4bc853ddc3.jpg"
] |
'Manipulated Video used in House Impeachment Looks to Have VIOLATED House Rules'
|
Contradiction
|
To kick off the second trial of former President Donald Trump, Democratic House impeachment managers played a 13-minute compilation of videos taken during the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol building. Shortly after, Star Political News, a conservative website, alleged that the video was heavily edited and that it therefore violated House rules against the dissemination of manipulated media. 'Manipulated Video used in House Impeachment Looks to Have VIOLATED House Rules,' reads the headline of the article. The House Rules govern the chamber's congressional proceedings. Under Article I of the Constitution, a two-thirds majority can vote to censure or expel a member who violates those rules. As evidence of its claim, Star Political News cites a tweet by former GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who asked whether the video violated House Rules. 'Go to page 34 of House Rules. Did the manipulated video violate the House Rules?' it reads. We asked three experts on congressional procedure whether there was any violation. Their answer was a clear no. 'I cannot possibly see how (the video) violates the House rule Chaffetz is pointing to,' said Josh Ryan, a professor of political science at Utah State University. House Rule hasn't been enacted yet Here's the section of the House Rules that Chaffetz highlighted in his tweet: 'DISSEMINATION OF MANIPULATED MEDIA.-The Committee on Ethics is directed to report to the House not later than December 31, 2021, any recommended amendments to the Code of Official Conduct, as well as any accompanying regulations, intended to address the circumstances and instances, if any, for which a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may be subject to discipline for the dissemination by electronic means, including by social media, of any image, video, or audio file that has been distorted or manipulated with the intent to mislead the public.' In other words, this text dictates that the House Ethics Committee issue a report to the House by the end of 2021 recommending whether members and employees should be subject to discipline for knowingly distributing deceptively edited media, like deep fakes. So the House 'rule' that Chaffetz cited is not actually in force. 'The rule is a direction to Ethics, not a standard for ethical behavior,' said Steven Smith, a professor of political science at Washington University, St. Louis. Besides that, Donald R. Wolfensberger, a former Republican staff director of the House Rules Committee, cited three reasons why the House manager's presentation wouldn't run afoul of any House rule: House Rules do not extend to the Senate chamber, which is governed by Senate rules, Wolfensberger said. In the case of the Senate impeachment trial, that would include the Senate impeachment rule and the special impeachment procedures adopted Feb. 9 by the Senate and enforced by its presiding officer. Even if the rule were already in effect and applied to the House impeachment managers on the Senate floor, the burden of proving a violation would be steep. In particular, the Ethics Committee would have to determine that there was 'intent to mislead' in the compilation, a tall order when all of the footage was undoctored video relevant to the proceeding. In the case of this impeachment, House managers are charged with presenting evidence at the Senate trial in support of the article of impeachment adopted by the House. 'Nothing could be more germane or relevant as evidence than video proof of the insurrection at the Capitol,' Wolfensberger said. Was the video deceptively edited? Congressional representatives have been warned about spreading manipulated media before. On Jan. 28, 2020, House Ethics Committee Chairman Ted Deutch, D-Fla., sent out an advisory memo, reminding representatives that 'posting deep fakes or other audio-visual distortions intended to mislead the public may be in violation of the Code of Official Conduct.' The memo was sent out three weeks after Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., posted an image of former President Barack Obama doctored to show him shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. The issue flared up again in August 2020 when Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., tweeted out a video that used manipulated footage of activist Ady Barkan to falsely accuse former Vice President Joe Biden of wanting to defund the police. There is a difference between Scalise's video, which was digitally altered to distort a person's words, and the House Democrats' impeachment video, which edited together documentary footage into a narrative. Hany Farid, a computer science professor at University of California-Berkeley and a leading expert in digital forensics, told PolitiFact that he would not classify the House Democrats' impeachment video as deceptively edited because it was presented 'as a set of representative vignettes.' Some Republican politicians have objected to the fact that the impeachment video didn't feature Trump telling his supporters to 'peacefully and patriotically protest.' But that omission doesn't meet the same standard of deception as a deepfake. 'A deceptively edited video is one that purports to depict an event in its entirety, but the video has in fact been edited to remove or add content that significantly alters the video's meaning,' he said. 'For example, editing a speech saying 'Let's peacefully take the Capitol,' to say 'Let's take the Capitol,' by cutting or splicing a portion of the video.' One could argue that the edited impeachment video is incomplete, Farid said, but the exclusion of some parts of Trump's speech does not make the video deceptive.
|
Our ruling Star Political News wrote, 'Manipulated Video used in House Impeachment Looks to Have VIOLATED House Rules.' The rule the article points to has not actually been enacted yet. House Rules do not extend to the Senate chamber where the trial is happening. The Senate is governed by Senate rules. Even if such a rule had been enacted, the video does not appear to violate it. The video consists of documentary footage edited into a single narrative. It does not contain audio-visual distortions or splice together words to make someone say something they didn't say. This is False.
|
[
"110695-proof-22-626325273a3e5f694469049965e44e9d.jpg"
] |
'Manipulated Video used in House Impeachment Looks to Have VIOLATED House Rules'
|
Contradiction
|
To kick off the second trial of former President Donald Trump, Democratic House impeachment managers played a 13-minute compilation of videos taken during the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol building. Shortly after, Star Political News, a conservative website, alleged that the video was heavily edited and that it therefore violated House rules against the dissemination of manipulated media. 'Manipulated Video used in House Impeachment Looks to Have VIOLATED House Rules,' reads the headline of the article. The House Rules govern the chamber's congressional proceedings. Under Article I of the Constitution, a two-thirds majority can vote to censure or expel a member who violates those rules. As evidence of its claim, Star Political News cites a tweet by former GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who asked whether the video violated House Rules. 'Go to page 34 of House Rules. Did the manipulated video violate the House Rules?' it reads. We asked three experts on congressional procedure whether there was any violation. Their answer was a clear no. 'I cannot possibly see how (the video) violates the House rule Chaffetz is pointing to,' said Josh Ryan, a professor of political science at Utah State University. House Rule hasn't been enacted yet Here's the section of the House Rules that Chaffetz highlighted in his tweet: 'DISSEMINATION OF MANIPULATED MEDIA.-The Committee on Ethics is directed to report to the House not later than December 31, 2021, any recommended amendments to the Code of Official Conduct, as well as any accompanying regulations, intended to address the circumstances and instances, if any, for which a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may be subject to discipline for the dissemination by electronic means, including by social media, of any image, video, or audio file that has been distorted or manipulated with the intent to mislead the public.' In other words, this text dictates that the House Ethics Committee issue a report to the House by the end of 2021 recommending whether members and employees should be subject to discipline for knowingly distributing deceptively edited media, like deep fakes. So the House 'rule' that Chaffetz cited is not actually in force. 'The rule is a direction to Ethics, not a standard for ethical behavior,' said Steven Smith, a professor of political science at Washington University, St. Louis. Besides that, Donald R. Wolfensberger, a former Republican staff director of the House Rules Committee, cited three reasons why the House manager's presentation wouldn't run afoul of any House rule: House Rules do not extend to the Senate chamber, which is governed by Senate rules, Wolfensberger said. In the case of the Senate impeachment trial, that would include the Senate impeachment rule and the special impeachment procedures adopted Feb. 9 by the Senate and enforced by its presiding officer. Even if the rule were already in effect and applied to the House impeachment managers on the Senate floor, the burden of proving a violation would be steep. In particular, the Ethics Committee would have to determine that there was 'intent to mislead' in the compilation, a tall order when all of the footage was undoctored video relevant to the proceeding. In the case of this impeachment, House managers are charged with presenting evidence at the Senate trial in support of the article of impeachment adopted by the House. 'Nothing could be more germane or relevant as evidence than video proof of the insurrection at the Capitol,' Wolfensberger said. Was the video deceptively edited? Congressional representatives have been warned about spreading manipulated media before. On Jan. 28, 2020, House Ethics Committee Chairman Ted Deutch, D-Fla., sent out an advisory memo, reminding representatives that 'posting deep fakes or other audio-visual distortions intended to mislead the public may be in violation of the Code of Official Conduct.' The memo was sent out three weeks after Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., posted an image of former President Barack Obama doctored to show him shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. The issue flared up again in August 2020 when Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., tweeted out a video that used manipulated footage of activist Ady Barkan to falsely accuse former Vice President Joe Biden of wanting to defund the police. There is a difference between Scalise's video, which was digitally altered to distort a person's words, and the House Democrats' impeachment video, which edited together documentary footage into a narrative. Hany Farid, a computer science professor at University of California-Berkeley and a leading expert in digital forensics, told PolitiFact that he would not classify the House Democrats' impeachment video as deceptively edited because it was presented 'as a set of representative vignettes.' Some Republican politicians have objected to the fact that the impeachment video didn't feature Trump telling his supporters to 'peacefully and patriotically protest.' But that omission doesn't meet the same standard of deception as a deepfake. 'A deceptively edited video is one that purports to depict an event in its entirety, but the video has in fact been edited to remove or add content that significantly alters the video's meaning,' he said. 'For example, editing a speech saying 'Let's peacefully take the Capitol,' to say 'Let's take the Capitol,' by cutting or splicing a portion of the video.' One could argue that the edited impeachment video is incomplete, Farid said, but the exclusion of some parts of Trump's speech does not make the video deceptive.
|
Our ruling Star Political News wrote, 'Manipulated Video used in House Impeachment Looks to Have VIOLATED House Rules.' The rule the article points to has not actually been enacted yet. House Rules do not extend to the Senate chamber where the trial is happening. The Senate is governed by Senate rules. Even if such a rule had been enacted, the video does not appear to violate it. The video consists of documentary footage edited into a single narrative. It does not contain audio-visual distortions or splice together words to make someone say something they didn't say. This is False.
|
[
"110695-proof-22-626325273a3e5f694469049965e44e9d.jpg"
] |
'Manipulated Video used in House Impeachment Looks to Have VIOLATED House Rules'
|
Contradiction
|
To kick off the second trial of former President Donald Trump, Democratic House impeachment managers played a 13-minute compilation of videos taken during the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol building. Shortly after, Star Political News, a conservative website, alleged that the video was heavily edited and that it therefore violated House rules against the dissemination of manipulated media. 'Manipulated Video used in House Impeachment Looks to Have VIOLATED House Rules,' reads the headline of the article. The House Rules govern the chamber's congressional proceedings. Under Article I of the Constitution, a two-thirds majority can vote to censure or expel a member who violates those rules. As evidence of its claim, Star Political News cites a tweet by former GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who asked whether the video violated House Rules. 'Go to page 34 of House Rules. Did the manipulated video violate the House Rules?' it reads. We asked three experts on congressional procedure whether there was any violation. Their answer was a clear no. 'I cannot possibly see how (the video) violates the House rule Chaffetz is pointing to,' said Josh Ryan, a professor of political science at Utah State University. House Rule hasn't been enacted yet Here's the section of the House Rules that Chaffetz highlighted in his tweet: 'DISSEMINATION OF MANIPULATED MEDIA.-The Committee on Ethics is directed to report to the House not later than December 31, 2021, any recommended amendments to the Code of Official Conduct, as well as any accompanying regulations, intended to address the circumstances and instances, if any, for which a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may be subject to discipline for the dissemination by electronic means, including by social media, of any image, video, or audio file that has been distorted or manipulated with the intent to mislead the public.' In other words, this text dictates that the House Ethics Committee issue a report to the House by the end of 2021 recommending whether members and employees should be subject to discipline for knowingly distributing deceptively edited media, like deep fakes. So the House 'rule' that Chaffetz cited is not actually in force. 'The rule is a direction to Ethics, not a standard for ethical behavior,' said Steven Smith, a professor of political science at Washington University, St. Louis. Besides that, Donald R. Wolfensberger, a former Republican staff director of the House Rules Committee, cited three reasons why the House manager's presentation wouldn't run afoul of any House rule: House Rules do not extend to the Senate chamber, which is governed by Senate rules, Wolfensberger said. In the case of the Senate impeachment trial, that would include the Senate impeachment rule and the special impeachment procedures adopted Feb. 9 by the Senate and enforced by its presiding officer. Even if the rule were already in effect and applied to the House impeachment managers on the Senate floor, the burden of proving a violation would be steep. In particular, the Ethics Committee would have to determine that there was 'intent to mislead' in the compilation, a tall order when all of the footage was undoctored video relevant to the proceeding. In the case of this impeachment, House managers are charged with presenting evidence at the Senate trial in support of the article of impeachment adopted by the House. 'Nothing could be more germane or relevant as evidence than video proof of the insurrection at the Capitol,' Wolfensberger said. Was the video deceptively edited? Congressional representatives have been warned about spreading manipulated media before. On Jan. 28, 2020, House Ethics Committee Chairman Ted Deutch, D-Fla., sent out an advisory memo, reminding representatives that 'posting deep fakes or other audio-visual distortions intended to mislead the public may be in violation of the Code of Official Conduct.' The memo was sent out three weeks after Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., posted an image of former President Barack Obama doctored to show him shaking hands with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. The issue flared up again in August 2020 when Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., tweeted out a video that used manipulated footage of activist Ady Barkan to falsely accuse former Vice President Joe Biden of wanting to defund the police. There is a difference between Scalise's video, which was digitally altered to distort a person's words, and the House Democrats' impeachment video, which edited together documentary footage into a narrative. Hany Farid, a computer science professor at University of California-Berkeley and a leading expert in digital forensics, told PolitiFact that he would not classify the House Democrats' impeachment video as deceptively edited because it was presented 'as a set of representative vignettes.' Some Republican politicians have objected to the fact that the impeachment video didn't feature Trump telling his supporters to 'peacefully and patriotically protest.' But that omission doesn't meet the same standard of deception as a deepfake. 'A deceptively edited video is one that purports to depict an event in its entirety, but the video has in fact been edited to remove or add content that significantly alters the video's meaning,' he said. 'For example, editing a speech saying 'Let's peacefully take the Capitol,' to say 'Let's take the Capitol,' by cutting or splicing a portion of the video.' One could argue that the edited impeachment video is incomplete, Farid said, but the exclusion of some parts of Trump's speech does not make the video deceptive.
|
Our ruling Star Political News wrote, 'Manipulated Video used in House Impeachment Looks to Have VIOLATED House Rules.' The rule the article points to has not actually been enacted yet. House Rules do not extend to the Senate chamber where the trial is happening. The Senate is governed by Senate rules. Even if such a rule had been enacted, the video does not appear to violate it. The video consists of documentary footage edited into a single narrative. It does not contain audio-visual distortions or splice together words to make someone say something they didn't say. This is False.
|
[
"110695-proof-22-626325273a3e5f694469049965e44e9d.jpg"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.