claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Says Oprah Winfrey for years 'pimped young Hollywood girls to Harvey Weinstein to be raped.
|
Contradiction
|
After news broke of Harvey Weinstein's years of sexual abuse and harassment, Oprah Winfrey spoke out. 'I've been processing the accounts of Harvey Weinstein's hideous behavior and haven't been able to find the words to articulate the magnitude of the situation,' she wrote on Facebook in 2017. Now, following Winfrey's high-profile March 7 interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, baseless allegations about her helping the disgraced entertainment mogul abuse women have emerged on social media. 'I think now is an excellent time to remind everyone that Oprah Winfrey for years and years pimped young Hollywood girls to Harvey Weinstein to be raped,' a Facebook post says. It features a photo of Winfrey sitting with a young woman while Weinstein stands off to the side. 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 appears to rely solely on the fact that Winfrey was friends with Weinstein before his history of sexual abuse and harassment came to light. There is no evidence that she had ever solicited or arranged for any 'young Hollywood girls' to be abused by Weinstein. Winfrey is not implicated in a single incident involving Weinstein, which date back to the 1980s and include over a dozen allegations of rape. A reverse-image search revealed that the photo in the post was taken in 2014 at a Weinstein Company event and shows British pop singer Rita Ora, who was 23 years old at the time. At the 2018 Golden Globes ceremony, Winfrey's speech about female empowerment and the Time's Up movement that developed in the midst of Weinstein's fallout was met with widespread acclaim, including from Ora. The singer shared photos of her and Winfrey from the same night on her Twitter account, praising the speech. 'What an incredibly moving speech and human being @oprah #Timesup #proud so happy to be alive to witness this beautiful change @timesupnow.' What an incredibly moving speech and human being @oprah #Timesup #proud so happy to be alive to witness this beautiful change ❤️@timesupnow pic.twitter.com/Ax9chX51X5- Rita Ora 💥 (@RitaOra) January 8, 2018 Winfrey has been targeted with unfounded claims before. In March 2020, fabricated posts by conspiracy theorists claimed that she was under house arrest and wearing an ankle monitor. 'Just got a phone call that my name is trending,' she wrote nearly a year ago. 'And being trolled for some awful FAKE thing. It's NOT TRUE. Haven't been raided, or arrested. Just sanitizing and self distancing with the rest of the world.'
|
Our ruling Facebook posts claim that Oprah Winfrey arranged for young Hollywood girls to be raped by Harvey Weinstein. Winfrey was once friends with the disgraced entertainment mogul, as many others were, but there is no evidence to corroborate the claim that she arranged or helped Weinstein sexually abuse women. We rate this Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Video shows trashed ballots for Donald Trump.
|
Contradiction
|
A video that's being shared widely on social media seems to support the unfounded claim that President Donald Trump's re-election hopes were dashed by election fraud, but the facts don't bear that out. The video shows two men, one of whom describes himself as 'a huge Trump supporter,' who say they discovered ballots for Trump while taking the trash out at a wedding held at what was formerly a polling place for the 2020 election. Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza is among the people who have shared the clip, which was posted on Rumble. 'A wedding was hosted in the same building where voting had taken place the week prior,' D'Souza tweeted. 'The wedding party just found a very interesting discovery in the garbage.' Facebook posts sharing the video were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Oklahoma State Election Board responded to someone sharing the video on Twitter. The clip was taken from a precinct in Tuals County, but it doesn't show valid ballots that were trashed. 'FACT CHECK,' the board wrote from its verified account. 'This video is from pct 469 / subpct 457 in Tulsa County. These are clearly 'spoiled ballots' where the voter mistakenly marked more than one option in a race. Spoiled ballots are returned to the precinct clerk and destroyed, then the voter is issued a new ballot.' The board tweeted screenshots from the video that 'clearly show the ballots have been spoiled.' The board also shared a Spoiled Ballot Affidavit voters signed acknowledging that their ballot was spoiled. Oklahoma law says that if a voter spoils a ballot, they must fold it and return it to the clerk. The clerk then must destroy the ballot in the presence of the voter and issue them a new ballot. The ballots in the video are ripped up. Oklahoma 'has checks and balances in place to detect & prevent voter fraud,' the board later tweeted. 'Election officials take allegations of fraud seriously & report credible allegations of fraud to the appropriate authorities for investigation. That video is NOT fraud.' We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
We rate this claim False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[] |
Say Nancy Pelosi's net worth is $196,299,990.
|
Contradiction
|
How rich is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.? A post making the rounds on social media offers a number that's way off. The post, which features a picture of Pelosi gesturing, says: 'Annual salary: $193,400. Time in office: 28 years = $5,415,200. Net worth: $196,299,990. 'Something is wrong with this picture' -- Nancy Pelosi.' The meme's point is that Pelosi is a modestly paid public servant who has nonetheless collected almost a fifth of a billion dollars in net worth, presumably by corrupt means. That interpretation, and the facts underlying it, are badly flawed. 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.) Breaking down the numbers First, we'll note that Pelosi's current salary is higher than the meme says. As House speaker, Pelosi earns $223,500 a year, which is more than a rank-and-file member. But Pelosi hasn't been earning that the whole time. When she first entered Congress in 1987, the full-year salary for a rank-and-file member was $89,500. It has risen in fits and starts since then. The meme's bigger mistake, however, concerns her net worth. Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi, has been a prominent businessman in real estate and venture capital for decades. So Pelosi hasn't built a fortune from her government salary; most of it stems from her husband's investments. Pelosi's 2018 financial disclosure form shows the value of the assets she and her husband held at the time of the filing. Much of it appears to be from her husband's business investments - a mix of real estate, partnerships, and blue-chip stock holdings, including Apple, Facebook, Visa, and Walt Disney Co. The disclosure forms that all members of Congress must file lists their assets and liabilities, such as mortgages. Both categories are listed in broad ranges - a minimum and a maximum for each asset and liability in their portfolio - and they include the holdings of both the members of Congress as well as their spouses, if any. The maximum amount of the range for Pelosi was about $257 million in assets and $97 million in liabilities, which produces a maximum net worth of nearly $160 million. If you use the minimum in the reported range instead, the numbers are $54 million in assets and $20 million in liabilities, for a net worth of about $34 million. Either of those figure falls short of the $196 million in the meme. Averaging the maximum and minimum values as a back-of-the-envelope estimatse of the couple's net worth produces a figure of $97 million, almost exactly half of the amount claimed in the meme. Another way of calculating Pelosi's net worth would exceed $196 million. Taking the lowest figure for liabilities and the highest figure for assets would subtract $20 million in liabilities from $257 million in assets, yielding a net worth of $237 million, which is higher than what the post says. The $196,299,990 figure in the meme dates back in conservative media to at least 2011, and it may have been an accurate reflection of Pelosi's assets back then, without liabilities subtracted. In February 2018, the congressional newspaper Roll Call published its most recent comparison of wealth disclosures by all members of Congress. Pelosi ranked as the 30th highest in wealth among both House members and senators, and 24th among House members alone.
|
Our ruling The post said Pelosi's net worth is $196,299,990. That's not accurate. Net worth is defined as assets minus liabilities. Congressional disclosure forms don't provide a precise number, but the midpoint of produces a net worth for Pelosi of $97 million, which is a fraction of the number claimed in the meme. And the bulk of that has come from decades of investment activity by her husband - not because of corruption, as the meme implies. We rate the statement False. UPDATE: This article has been updated to reflect an additional scenario a reader suggested for estimating Pelosi's net worth. The rating remains the same.
|
[
"110725-proof-15-22037f08b6ddfb6ca9e44fc627f8e2fb.jpg"
] |
Say Nancy Pelosi's net worth is $196,299,990.
|
Contradiction
|
How rich is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.? A post making the rounds on social media offers a number that's way off. The post, which features a picture of Pelosi gesturing, says: 'Annual salary: $193,400. Time in office: 28 years = $5,415,200. Net worth: $196,299,990. 'Something is wrong with this picture' -- Nancy Pelosi.' The meme's point is that Pelosi is a modestly paid public servant who has nonetheless collected almost a fifth of a billion dollars in net worth, presumably by corrupt means. That interpretation, and the facts underlying it, are badly flawed. 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.) Breaking down the numbers First, we'll note that Pelosi's current salary is higher than the meme says. As House speaker, Pelosi earns $223,500 a year, which is more than a rank-and-file member. But Pelosi hasn't been earning that the whole time. When she first entered Congress in 1987, the full-year salary for a rank-and-file member was $89,500. It has risen in fits and starts since then. The meme's bigger mistake, however, concerns her net worth. Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi, has been a prominent businessman in real estate and venture capital for decades. So Pelosi hasn't built a fortune from her government salary; most of it stems from her husband's investments. Pelosi's 2018 financial disclosure form shows the value of the assets she and her husband held at the time of the filing. Much of it appears to be from her husband's business investments - a mix of real estate, partnerships, and blue-chip stock holdings, including Apple, Facebook, Visa, and Walt Disney Co. The disclosure forms that all members of Congress must file lists their assets and liabilities, such as mortgages. Both categories are listed in broad ranges - a minimum and a maximum for each asset and liability in their portfolio - and they include the holdings of both the members of Congress as well as their spouses, if any. The maximum amount of the range for Pelosi was about $257 million in assets and $97 million in liabilities, which produces a maximum net worth of nearly $160 million. If you use the minimum in the reported range instead, the numbers are $54 million in assets and $20 million in liabilities, for a net worth of about $34 million. Either of those figure falls short of the $196 million in the meme. Averaging the maximum and minimum values as a back-of-the-envelope estimatse of the couple's net worth produces a figure of $97 million, almost exactly half of the amount claimed in the meme. Another way of calculating Pelosi's net worth would exceed $196 million. Taking the lowest figure for liabilities and the highest figure for assets would subtract $20 million in liabilities from $257 million in assets, yielding a net worth of $237 million, which is higher than what the post says. The $196,299,990 figure in the meme dates back in conservative media to at least 2011, and it may have been an accurate reflection of Pelosi's assets back then, without liabilities subtracted. In February 2018, the congressional newspaper Roll Call published its most recent comparison of wealth disclosures by all members of Congress. Pelosi ranked as the 30th highest in wealth among both House members and senators, and 24th among House members alone.
|
Our ruling The post said Pelosi's net worth is $196,299,990. That's not accurate. Net worth is defined as assets minus liabilities. Congressional disclosure forms don't provide a precise number, but the midpoint of produces a net worth for Pelosi of $97 million, which is a fraction of the number claimed in the meme. And the bulk of that has come from decades of investment activity by her husband - not because of corruption, as the meme implies. We rate the statement False. UPDATE: This article has been updated to reflect an additional scenario a reader suggested for estimating Pelosi's net worth. The rating remains the same.
|
[
"110725-proof-15-22037f08b6ddfb6ca9e44fc627f8e2fb.jpg"
] |
Say Nancy Pelosi's net worth is $196,299,990.
|
Contradiction
|
How rich is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.? A post making the rounds on social media offers a number that's way off. The post, which features a picture of Pelosi gesturing, says: 'Annual salary: $193,400. Time in office: 28 years = $5,415,200. Net worth: $196,299,990. 'Something is wrong with this picture' -- Nancy Pelosi.' The meme's point is that Pelosi is a modestly paid public servant who has nonetheless collected almost a fifth of a billion dollars in net worth, presumably by corrupt means. That interpretation, and the facts underlying it, are badly flawed. 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.) Breaking down the numbers First, we'll note that Pelosi's current salary is higher than the meme says. As House speaker, Pelosi earns $223,500 a year, which is more than a rank-and-file member. But Pelosi hasn't been earning that the whole time. When she first entered Congress in 1987, the full-year salary for a rank-and-file member was $89,500. It has risen in fits and starts since then. The meme's bigger mistake, however, concerns her net worth. Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi, has been a prominent businessman in real estate and venture capital for decades. So Pelosi hasn't built a fortune from her government salary; most of it stems from her husband's investments. Pelosi's 2018 financial disclosure form shows the value of the assets she and her husband held at the time of the filing. Much of it appears to be from her husband's business investments - a mix of real estate, partnerships, and blue-chip stock holdings, including Apple, Facebook, Visa, and Walt Disney Co. The disclosure forms that all members of Congress must file lists their assets and liabilities, such as mortgages. Both categories are listed in broad ranges - a minimum and a maximum for each asset and liability in their portfolio - and they include the holdings of both the members of Congress as well as their spouses, if any. The maximum amount of the range for Pelosi was about $257 million in assets and $97 million in liabilities, which produces a maximum net worth of nearly $160 million. If you use the minimum in the reported range instead, the numbers are $54 million in assets and $20 million in liabilities, for a net worth of about $34 million. Either of those figure falls short of the $196 million in the meme. Averaging the maximum and minimum values as a back-of-the-envelope estimatse of the couple's net worth produces a figure of $97 million, almost exactly half of the amount claimed in the meme. Another way of calculating Pelosi's net worth would exceed $196 million. Taking the lowest figure for liabilities and the highest figure for assets would subtract $20 million in liabilities from $257 million in assets, yielding a net worth of $237 million, which is higher than what the post says. The $196,299,990 figure in the meme dates back in conservative media to at least 2011, and it may have been an accurate reflection of Pelosi's assets back then, without liabilities subtracted. In February 2018, the congressional newspaper Roll Call published its most recent comparison of wealth disclosures by all members of Congress. Pelosi ranked as the 30th highest in wealth among both House members and senators, and 24th among House members alone.
|
Our ruling The post said Pelosi's net worth is $196,299,990. That's not accurate. Net worth is defined as assets minus liabilities. Congressional disclosure forms don't provide a precise number, but the midpoint of produces a net worth for Pelosi of $97 million, which is a fraction of the number claimed in the meme. And the bulk of that has come from decades of investment activity by her husband - not because of corruption, as the meme implies. We rate the statement False. UPDATE: This article has been updated to reflect an additional scenario a reader suggested for estimating Pelosi's net worth. The rating remains the same.
|
[
"110725-proof-15-22037f08b6ddfb6ca9e44fc627f8e2fb.jpg"
] |
COVID-19 vaccines contain luciferase.
|
Contradiction
|
In early November, Newsmax reporter Emerald Robinson tweeted a false claim: that 'the vaccines contain a bioluminescent marker called LUCIFERASE so that you can be tracked.' Her account was subsequently suspended and Newsmax itself called the claim false. 'We have seen no evidence to suggest luciferase or luciferin are present in any vaccines or that they are used as any sort of bioluminescent marker,' said Elliot Jacobson, executive vice president and chief content officer for the network. But misinformation about luciferase has continued to spread online, including in a blog post by Robinson that some people are sharing. 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.) Luciferase is an enzyme that interacts with a protein called luciferin to release light, according to the Food and Drug Administration. This bioluminescence is what fireflies use to attract potential mates. COVID-19 vaccine ingredients vary by manufacturer but none of the vaccines approved for use in the United States - from Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson - contain luciferase. The ingredients for each vaccine are published on the website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The ingredient list for Pfizer's vaccine, for example, shows mRNA, lipids, salts and sugar. RELATED VIDEO In a Nov. 4 blog post, Robinson pointed to a page on Moderna's website that shows patents 'relevant to our mRNA-1273 vaccine against COVID-19.' One of the patents mentions 'luciferase' four times. Moderna did not respond to PolitiFact's emails about this patent but, as Health Feedback notes in its detailed analysis of Robinson's blog post, the patent doesn't mention COVID-19, the coronavirus, or SARS-CoV-2 and is not evidence that Moderna or other COVID-19 vaccines contain luciferase. Luciferase was used in some COVID-19 research. In 2020, for example, scientists at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston used it to 'develop faster and more accurate diagnostic tests for COVID-19 as well as to analyze potential therapies and gain a clearer understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself.' But it's not in the vaccines. We rate that claim False.
|
We rate that claim False.
|
[] |
'NAVY SEALs raid cargo ship full of smuggled children.
|
Contradiction
|
A screenshot of what looks like the headline of a news article is being shared on social media and raising alarm among some users. 'NAVY SEALs raid cargo ship full of smuggled children,' the headline says. But the byline is a tell - it belongs to someone PolitiFact has investigated before, and his website, Real Raw News, regularly publishes false, unfounded claims like this one. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This story, authored by a 'Michael Baxter,' was posted on Nov. 2 and claims that SEALs raided a cargo ship anchored off Long Beach, Calif., then rescued 200 foreign children and recovered the bodies of 12 more. The story cites an unnamed source, and winks at former President Donald Trump. 'Interestingly,' the source claimed, according to the story, ''someone' at Mar-a-Lago had provided U.S. Special Operations (Command) with credible evidence of 'child trafficking' on the vessel.' A disclaimer on the Real Raw News 'About Us' page says the website contains 'humor, parody and satire,' yet Baxter, which is not the writer's real name, has defended the accuracy of his writings dozens of times in the comments sections on various articles. We found no other credible sources to corroborate the claims in this story. There are no news or government reports, though we found plenty of fact-checks debunking the tale. A spokesperson for the Navy told USA Today that the story is false. We rate this post Pants on Fire.
|
We rate this post Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Says Donald Trump is not at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 'he is on AF1.
|
Contradiction
|
As Donald Trump fights to recover from the coronavirus, some social media users claim the president isn't actually at a military hospital in Maryland. 'He is not there! He is on AF1,' says an Oct. 2 Facebook post. 'AF1 Spotted today!!! But didn't he get Rushed to Walter Reed Medical Center??' wrote another Facebook user. 'How can Trump Be In 2 Places at Once?!!! Is the World About to find out about Cl0nes?' another post asks. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Facebook) All of the posts were published by people who have promoted QAnon, a baseless conspiracy theory that says Trump is secretly fighting a cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles. QAnon supporters have claimed that Trump's hospitalization at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center is actually a cover for mass arrests and executions of his political foes. There is no evidence that's the case - and the Facebook posts are wrong to say that Trump is on Air Force One instead of staying at Walter Reed. The posts rely on a mix of screenshots from QAnon accounts, photos of Trump and posts from Q, the anonymous internet persona behind the conspiracy theory. None of it proves Trump is on Air Force One. We reached out to the original poster for additional evidence, but we didn't hear back. How do we know Trump is at Walter Reed? Here's a rough timeline of the president's status over the past few days. On Oct. 2, Trump posted a video on Twitter shortly before departing the White House on Marine One. There is footage and photo evidence of him both leaving the White House and arriving at Walter Reed. On Oct. 3, Trump's medical team held a press conference on the president's condition outside the hospital. Later in the day, Trump posted another video on Twitter thanking the healthcare workers at Walter Reed. The White House also released two photos that show Trump looking at documents or signing a piece of paper in the presidential suite at Walter Reed. RELATED: Fact-checking misinformation about Trump, COVID-19 On Oct. 4, Trump's medical team gave another update on his condition outside the hospital. Dr. Brian Garibaldi, a pulmonary physician, said the president could be discharged as soon as Monday. A reporter for New York Magazine, Yashar Ali, debunked the claim that Trump wasn't really at Walter Reed. Tweeting a version of the Trump video, he wrote: 'I can't believe some of you conspiracy theorists are forcing me to do this, but a former USSS (Secret Service) agent who was on President Obama's detail has confirmed to me that this is indeed the larger office inside METU (Medical Evaluation & Treatment Unit) at Walter Reed.' There is also no evidence that Trump is faking his illness. That unfounded theory is outweighed by the significant amount of evidence showing that Trump does, in fact, have COVID-19. The Facebook post is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
The Facebook post is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"110767-proof-25-bbc406a1a9a068b3ec3f1a1777eef88c.jpg",
"110767-proof-30-Screen_Shot_2020-10-04_at_14_39_31_real.jpg"
] |
Says Donald Trump is not at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 'he is on AF1.
|
Contradiction
|
As Donald Trump fights to recover from the coronavirus, some social media users claim the president isn't actually at a military hospital in Maryland. 'He is not there! He is on AF1,' says an Oct. 2 Facebook post. 'AF1 Spotted today!!! But didn't he get Rushed to Walter Reed Medical Center??' wrote another Facebook user. 'How can Trump Be In 2 Places at Once?!!! Is the World About to find out about Cl0nes?' another post asks. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Facebook) All of the posts were published by people who have promoted QAnon, a baseless conspiracy theory that says Trump is secretly fighting a cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles. QAnon supporters have claimed that Trump's hospitalization at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center is actually a cover for mass arrests and executions of his political foes. There is no evidence that's the case - and the Facebook posts are wrong to say that Trump is on Air Force One instead of staying at Walter Reed. The posts rely on a mix of screenshots from QAnon accounts, photos of Trump and posts from Q, the anonymous internet persona behind the conspiracy theory. None of it proves Trump is on Air Force One. We reached out to the original poster for additional evidence, but we didn't hear back. How do we know Trump is at Walter Reed? Here's a rough timeline of the president's status over the past few days. On Oct. 2, Trump posted a video on Twitter shortly before departing the White House on Marine One. There is footage and photo evidence of him both leaving the White House and arriving at Walter Reed. On Oct. 3, Trump's medical team held a press conference on the president's condition outside the hospital. Later in the day, Trump posted another video on Twitter thanking the healthcare workers at Walter Reed. The White House also released two photos that show Trump looking at documents or signing a piece of paper in the presidential suite at Walter Reed. RELATED: Fact-checking misinformation about Trump, COVID-19 On Oct. 4, Trump's medical team gave another update on his condition outside the hospital. Dr. Brian Garibaldi, a pulmonary physician, said the president could be discharged as soon as Monday. A reporter for New York Magazine, Yashar Ali, debunked the claim that Trump wasn't really at Walter Reed. Tweeting a version of the Trump video, he wrote: 'I can't believe some of you conspiracy theorists are forcing me to do this, but a former USSS (Secret Service) agent who was on President Obama's detail has confirmed to me that this is indeed the larger office inside METU (Medical Evaluation & Treatment Unit) at Walter Reed.' There is also no evidence that Trump is faking his illness. That unfounded theory is outweighed by the significant amount of evidence showing that Trump does, in fact, have COVID-19. The Facebook post is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
The Facebook post is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"110767-proof-25-bbc406a1a9a068b3ec3f1a1777eef88c.jpg",
"110767-proof-30-Screen_Shot_2020-10-04_at_14_39_31_real.jpg"
] |
Says Donald Trump is not at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 'he is on AF1.
|
Contradiction
|
As Donald Trump fights to recover from the coronavirus, some social media users claim the president isn't actually at a military hospital in Maryland. 'He is not there! He is on AF1,' says an Oct. 2 Facebook post. 'AF1 Spotted today!!! But didn't he get Rushed to Walter Reed Medical Center??' wrote another Facebook user. 'How can Trump Be In 2 Places at Once?!!! Is the World About to find out about Cl0nes?' another post asks. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) (Screenshot from Facebook) All of the posts were published by people who have promoted QAnon, a baseless conspiracy theory that says Trump is secretly fighting a cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles. QAnon supporters have claimed that Trump's hospitalization at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center is actually a cover for mass arrests and executions of his political foes. There is no evidence that's the case - and the Facebook posts are wrong to say that Trump is on Air Force One instead of staying at Walter Reed. The posts rely on a mix of screenshots from QAnon accounts, photos of Trump and posts from Q, the anonymous internet persona behind the conspiracy theory. None of it proves Trump is on Air Force One. We reached out to the original poster for additional evidence, but we didn't hear back. How do we know Trump is at Walter Reed? Here's a rough timeline of the president's status over the past few days. On Oct. 2, Trump posted a video on Twitter shortly before departing the White House on Marine One. There is footage and photo evidence of him both leaving the White House and arriving at Walter Reed. On Oct. 3, Trump's medical team held a press conference on the president's condition outside the hospital. Later in the day, Trump posted another video on Twitter thanking the healthcare workers at Walter Reed. The White House also released two photos that show Trump looking at documents or signing a piece of paper in the presidential suite at Walter Reed. RELATED: Fact-checking misinformation about Trump, COVID-19 On Oct. 4, Trump's medical team gave another update on his condition outside the hospital. Dr. Brian Garibaldi, a pulmonary physician, said the president could be discharged as soon as Monday. A reporter for New York Magazine, Yashar Ali, debunked the claim that Trump wasn't really at Walter Reed. Tweeting a version of the Trump video, he wrote: 'I can't believe some of you conspiracy theorists are forcing me to do this, but a former USSS (Secret Service) agent who was on President Obama's detail has confirmed to me that this is indeed the larger office inside METU (Medical Evaluation & Treatment Unit) at Walter Reed.' There is also no evidence that Trump is faking his illness. That unfounded theory is outweighed by the significant amount of evidence showing that Trump does, in fact, have COVID-19. The Facebook post is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
The Facebook post is inaccurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire! This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"110767-proof-25-bbc406a1a9a068b3ec3f1a1777eef88c.jpg",
"110767-proof-30-Screen_Shot_2020-10-04_at_14_39_31_real.jpg"
] |
Says U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood described riots as 'beautiful protests.
|
Contradiction
|
U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood's Republican challenger is running an ad that paints the first-term Democratic congresswoman as a supporter of acts of violence and property destruction. Illinois state Sen. Jim Oberweis' ad includes footage of Underwood responding to a question about whether she condemns 'rioting and looting' during an endorsement session with the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board. 'With respect to rioting and looting, I think that we have seen many instances of beautiful protests,' Underwood says in a video clip featured in the ad, which abruptly cuts into a digitally-altered echo of her saying those last two words over footage of burning cars and ransacked buildings in Kenosha, Wis., Chicago and suburban Aurora. 'Riots are not beautiful, they're ugly,' the ad's narrator says. 'Vote against rioters, and anyone who enables them. Vote against Lauren Underwood.' The vast majority of demonstrations across the nation against racial injustice since George Floyd was killed by police in Minnesota in May have been peaceful, a report from the Princeton University-affiliated U.S. Crisis Monitor found. Violence has erupted on some occasions, however, causing property damage, injuries and even deaths. And Republicans up and down the ticket have sought to conflate support for the peaceful protests as backing the violence. So we decided to look into what Underwood said to see if it lined up with how Oberweis' ad portrayed her stance. Underwood did not directly address rioting with the Sun-Times We reviewed a video of the Sun-Times endorsement session cited in the ad. While Underwood does not directly condemn 'rioting and looting' during that appearance, taken in the full context of her remarks it is a stretch to suggest her praise of 'beautiful protests' extends to looting and rioting. About 20 minutes into the candidates' joint appearance, the paper's editorial page editor Tom McNamee asks Underwood twice to address several arguments Oberweis had raised, including the senator's charge that she has not condemned 'rioting and looting.' 'He says you once called him a racist, and he says you have failed to condemn rioting,' McNamee says in the video, to which Underwood responds by explaining she believes ads Oberweis has run during his political career 'walk that line that I would call racist.' Then Underwood turns to the second part of McNamee's question, saying, 'I also, with respect to rioting and looting, I think that we have seen many instances of beautiful protests this summer as people have stood up for this cause of justice and equality.' After that, Underwood makes a reference to Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from her congressional district charged with killing two people and injuring a third in an attack on demonstrators in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. 'I don't think that that kind of violence has any place in our community and certainly in a way to intimidate or disrupt peaceful protest,' Underwood of Naperville says in the Sun-Times video. A spokeswoman for Underwood's campaign said she was describing the peaceful protests she witnessed this summer in her district when she used the word 'beautiful.' Underwood condemned violence, property damage in another appearance In a phone interview, Oberweis pointed to Underwood's remarks during the Sun-Times interview to back up his ad. He told us he believes Underwood was describing 'rioting and looting' as part of the 'beautiful protests' she referenced when she spoke. During another joint appearance the following week, however, Underwood made clear she opposes the violence that has marred some protests. Oberweis had raised the issue during that appearance as well. 'I think it's really important that we continue to lift up the peaceful protesters, those who are exercising their First Amendment rights, but it is a tragedy when people are injured, when there's violence, when there's damage and the like as a result of these types of demonstrations,' Underwood told editors and reporters from the Daily Herald and Shaw Media. 'That's not appropriate.'
|
Our ruling Oberweis' ad says Underwood described riots as 'beautiful protests.' During the editorial board appearance the ad is based on, Underwood pivoted away from a question about 'rioting and looting' by steering the conversation back to the kind of protests she supports. The ad left out that she went on to say the 'beautiful protests' were in reference to people who 'stood up for this cause of justice and equality.' She also has since made clear she opposes the outbreaks of violence that have occurred at some demonstrations. We rate the ad's claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
|
[
"110798-proof-36-050a01281e99c9815dfb940a9807797f.jpg"
] |
Says U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood described riots as 'beautiful protests.
|
Contradiction
|
U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood's Republican challenger is running an ad that paints the first-term Democratic congresswoman as a supporter of acts of violence and property destruction. Illinois state Sen. Jim Oberweis' ad includes footage of Underwood responding to a question about whether she condemns 'rioting and looting' during an endorsement session with the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board. 'With respect to rioting and looting, I think that we have seen many instances of beautiful protests,' Underwood says in a video clip featured in the ad, which abruptly cuts into a digitally-altered echo of her saying those last two words over footage of burning cars and ransacked buildings in Kenosha, Wis., Chicago and suburban Aurora. 'Riots are not beautiful, they're ugly,' the ad's narrator says. 'Vote against rioters, and anyone who enables them. Vote against Lauren Underwood.' The vast majority of demonstrations across the nation against racial injustice since George Floyd was killed by police in Minnesota in May have been peaceful, a report from the Princeton University-affiliated U.S. Crisis Monitor found. Violence has erupted on some occasions, however, causing property damage, injuries and even deaths. And Republicans up and down the ticket have sought to conflate support for the peaceful protests as backing the violence. So we decided to look into what Underwood said to see if it lined up with how Oberweis' ad portrayed her stance. Underwood did not directly address rioting with the Sun-Times We reviewed a video of the Sun-Times endorsement session cited in the ad. While Underwood does not directly condemn 'rioting and looting' during that appearance, taken in the full context of her remarks it is a stretch to suggest her praise of 'beautiful protests' extends to looting and rioting. About 20 minutes into the candidates' joint appearance, the paper's editorial page editor Tom McNamee asks Underwood twice to address several arguments Oberweis had raised, including the senator's charge that she has not condemned 'rioting and looting.' 'He says you once called him a racist, and he says you have failed to condemn rioting,' McNamee says in the video, to which Underwood responds by explaining she believes ads Oberweis has run during his political career 'walk that line that I would call racist.' Then Underwood turns to the second part of McNamee's question, saying, 'I also, with respect to rioting and looting, I think that we have seen many instances of beautiful protests this summer as people have stood up for this cause of justice and equality.' After that, Underwood makes a reference to Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from her congressional district charged with killing two people and injuring a third in an attack on demonstrators in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. 'I don't think that that kind of violence has any place in our community and certainly in a way to intimidate or disrupt peaceful protest,' Underwood of Naperville says in the Sun-Times video. A spokeswoman for Underwood's campaign said she was describing the peaceful protests she witnessed this summer in her district when she used the word 'beautiful.' Underwood condemned violence, property damage in another appearance In a phone interview, Oberweis pointed to Underwood's remarks during the Sun-Times interview to back up his ad. He told us he believes Underwood was describing 'rioting and looting' as part of the 'beautiful protests' she referenced when she spoke. During another joint appearance the following week, however, Underwood made clear she opposes the violence that has marred some protests. Oberweis had raised the issue during that appearance as well. 'I think it's really important that we continue to lift up the peaceful protesters, those who are exercising their First Amendment rights, but it is a tragedy when people are injured, when there's violence, when there's damage and the like as a result of these types of demonstrations,' Underwood told editors and reporters from the Daily Herald and Shaw Media. 'That's not appropriate.'
|
Our ruling Oberweis' ad says Underwood described riots as 'beautiful protests.' During the editorial board appearance the ad is based on, Underwood pivoted away from a question about 'rioting and looting' by steering the conversation back to the kind of protests she supports. The ad left out that she went on to say the 'beautiful protests' were in reference to people who 'stood up for this cause of justice and equality.' She also has since made clear she opposes the outbreaks of violence that have occurred at some demonstrations. We rate the ad's claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
|
[
"110798-proof-36-050a01281e99c9815dfb940a9807797f.jpg"
] |
Says U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood described riots as 'beautiful protests.
|
Contradiction
|
U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood's Republican challenger is running an ad that paints the first-term Democratic congresswoman as a supporter of acts of violence and property destruction. Illinois state Sen. Jim Oberweis' ad includes footage of Underwood responding to a question about whether she condemns 'rioting and looting' during an endorsement session with the Chicago Sun-Times editorial board. 'With respect to rioting and looting, I think that we have seen many instances of beautiful protests,' Underwood says in a video clip featured in the ad, which abruptly cuts into a digitally-altered echo of her saying those last two words over footage of burning cars and ransacked buildings in Kenosha, Wis., Chicago and suburban Aurora. 'Riots are not beautiful, they're ugly,' the ad's narrator says. 'Vote against rioters, and anyone who enables them. Vote against Lauren Underwood.' The vast majority of demonstrations across the nation against racial injustice since George Floyd was killed by police in Minnesota in May have been peaceful, a report from the Princeton University-affiliated U.S. Crisis Monitor found. Violence has erupted on some occasions, however, causing property damage, injuries and even deaths. And Republicans up and down the ticket have sought to conflate support for the peaceful protests as backing the violence. So we decided to look into what Underwood said to see if it lined up with how Oberweis' ad portrayed her stance. Underwood did not directly address rioting with the Sun-Times We reviewed a video of the Sun-Times endorsement session cited in the ad. While Underwood does not directly condemn 'rioting and looting' during that appearance, taken in the full context of her remarks it is a stretch to suggest her praise of 'beautiful protests' extends to looting and rioting. About 20 minutes into the candidates' joint appearance, the paper's editorial page editor Tom McNamee asks Underwood twice to address several arguments Oberweis had raised, including the senator's charge that she has not condemned 'rioting and looting.' 'He says you once called him a racist, and he says you have failed to condemn rioting,' McNamee says in the video, to which Underwood responds by explaining she believes ads Oberweis has run during his political career 'walk that line that I would call racist.' Then Underwood turns to the second part of McNamee's question, saying, 'I also, with respect to rioting and looting, I think that we have seen many instances of beautiful protests this summer as people have stood up for this cause of justice and equality.' After that, Underwood makes a reference to Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from her congressional district charged with killing two people and injuring a third in an attack on demonstrators in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. 'I don't think that that kind of violence has any place in our community and certainly in a way to intimidate or disrupt peaceful protest,' Underwood of Naperville says in the Sun-Times video. A spokeswoman for Underwood's campaign said she was describing the peaceful protests she witnessed this summer in her district when she used the word 'beautiful.' Underwood condemned violence, property damage in another appearance In a phone interview, Oberweis pointed to Underwood's remarks during the Sun-Times interview to back up his ad. He told us he believes Underwood was describing 'rioting and looting' as part of the 'beautiful protests' she referenced when she spoke. During another joint appearance the following week, however, Underwood made clear she opposes the violence that has marred some protests. Oberweis had raised the issue during that appearance as well. 'I think it's really important that we continue to lift up the peaceful protesters, those who are exercising their First Amendment rights, but it is a tragedy when people are injured, when there's violence, when there's damage and the like as a result of these types of demonstrations,' Underwood told editors and reporters from the Daily Herald and Shaw Media. 'That's not appropriate.'
|
Our ruling Oberweis' ad says Underwood described riots as 'beautiful protests.' During the editorial board appearance the ad is based on, Underwood pivoted away from a question about 'rioting and looting' by steering the conversation back to the kind of protests she supports. The ad left out that she went on to say the 'beautiful protests' were in reference to people who 'stood up for this cause of justice and equality.' She also has since made clear she opposes the outbreaks of violence that have occurred at some demonstrations. We rate the ad's claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
|
[
"110798-proof-36-050a01281e99c9815dfb940a9807797f.jpg"
] |
Says video shows Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old charged with killing two protesters in Kenosha, 'was trying to get away from them' ... 'fell, and then they violently attacked him.
|
Contradiction
|
Editor's note: This item was updated to make clear that we are rating whether Trump described what happened accurately, not the separate question of whether what happened amounted to self-defense or, as charged by local prosecutors, homicide and other offenses. President Donald Trump visited Kenosha on Sept. 1, 2020 as the city reels from the shooting of a Black man by police and the shooting deaths of two protesters during a night of chaos. Jacob Blake, 29, was shot in the back seven times at close range by Officer Rusten Sheskey on Aug. 23, 2020 as he walked away from officers and tried to get into an SUV with three of his children inside. The shooting left him paralyzed from the waist down, according to his family. Two nights later, an Illinois teenager used an AR-15-style rifle to kill two protesters and injure a third, according to eyewitness videos and a criminal complaint. The charges against Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, increased tensions in a city that was already on edge, with some condemning his actions and others saying he was protecting the city and only shot in self-defense. In an Aug. 31, 2020 media briefing, on the eve of his visit to Kenosha, Trump defended Rittenhouse's actions when asked about the teenager. 'You saw the same tape as I saw,' Trump said. 'And he was trying to get away from them, I guess; it looks like. And he fell, and then they very violently attacked him. And it was something that we're looking at right now and it's under investigation.' He went on to say of Rittenhouse: 'I guess he was in very big trouble. He would have been - I - he probably would have been killed.' The president correctly describes some minor details about that night. But overall, his comments grossly mischaracterize what happened - leaving out that by the time of the events he described, prosecutors say Rittenhouse had already shot and killed a man. In this fact-check, we are not examining the question of whether Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, as his attorney claims. We are examining whether Trump is providing an accurate description of what happened by focusing on only a portion of the events of that night. He is not. Let's take a look. How the shootings unfolded Details of the Aug. 25, 2020 shootings have emerged through eyewitness videos and a criminal complaint filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court. Here's what we know: Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, approached Rittenhouse and a reporter interviewing him that night and began to chase Rittenhouse after he did a 'juke' move. Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse, but it didn't hit him. The two ended up in a parking lot, and the reporter told authorities that Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse's gun. Rittenhouse fired four shots, and Rosenbaum dropped to the ground in front of him. In a video, Rittenhouse can be heard saying on his cell phone, 'I just killed someone.' Rittenhouse began running slowly down the street as a crowd began to follow him, with some people shouting 'get him!' and shouting he just shot someone. Rittenhouse tripped and fell. While he was on the ground, police say, he appeared to fire two shots at a man who jumped over him but missed. After that, Anthony Huber, 26, ran up to Rittenhouse with a skateboard in one hand and appeared to hit him with it before reaching for Rittenhouse's gun. Rittenhouse fired one round that hit Huber in the chest and killed him. Rittenhouse sat up and pointed his gun at Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, who had started to approach him. Grosskreutz took a step back and put his hands in the air, but then moved toward Rittenhouse, who fired a shot that hit Grosskreutz in the arm. Grosskreutz had a handgun. It is unclear whether Grosskreutz was pointing the gun at Rittenhouse, or if Rittenhouse saw that Grosskreutz had a gun. Missing information paints false picture Trump's comments completely overlook the fact that people started following him after he allegedly shot and killed someone. He also claimed protesters 'violently attacked' Rittenhouse, but that is not fully supported by the videos, either. Witnesses say those who were chasing Rittenhouse were trying to stop him. Rittenhouse later walked past a group of police vehicles, hands in the air, and ultimately returned home to nearby Antioch, Illinois, where he was arrested the next day. What's more, Trump suggested the matter is 'under investigation.' But while Rittenhouse's attorney has indicated he would argue self defense, the teen has already been charged with homicide. It's unclear what, if any, investigation would still be open. Even before the comments, Trump drew headlines when he 'liked' a tweet that said, 'Rittenhouse is a good example of why I decided to vote for Trump.' Rittenhouse, who is in jail awaiting extradition to Kenosha to face charges, is a Trump supporter.
|
Our ruling Trump said a video shows Rittenhouse 'was trying to get away from' protesters' and 'fell, and then they violently attacked him.' Rittenhouse did fall as a crowd followed him, but Trump's comments leave an incendiary and false picture: By the time he fell, according to criminal charges, Rittenhouse had already shot and killed one person that night. We rate the claim False.
|
[
"110828-proof-22-e52221b2ad29f6157533cdfb34610dda.jpg"
] |
Says video shows Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old charged with killing two protesters in Kenosha, 'was trying to get away from them' ... 'fell, and then they violently attacked him.
|
Contradiction
|
Editor's note: This item was updated to make clear that we are rating whether Trump described what happened accurately, not the separate question of whether what happened amounted to self-defense or, as charged by local prosecutors, homicide and other offenses. President Donald Trump visited Kenosha on Sept. 1, 2020 as the city reels from the shooting of a Black man by police and the shooting deaths of two protesters during a night of chaos. Jacob Blake, 29, was shot in the back seven times at close range by Officer Rusten Sheskey on Aug. 23, 2020 as he walked away from officers and tried to get into an SUV with three of his children inside. The shooting left him paralyzed from the waist down, according to his family. Two nights later, an Illinois teenager used an AR-15-style rifle to kill two protesters and injure a third, according to eyewitness videos and a criminal complaint. The charges against Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, increased tensions in a city that was already on edge, with some condemning his actions and others saying he was protecting the city and only shot in self-defense. In an Aug. 31, 2020 media briefing, on the eve of his visit to Kenosha, Trump defended Rittenhouse's actions when asked about the teenager. 'You saw the same tape as I saw,' Trump said. 'And he was trying to get away from them, I guess; it looks like. And he fell, and then they very violently attacked him. And it was something that we're looking at right now and it's under investigation.' He went on to say of Rittenhouse: 'I guess he was in very big trouble. He would have been - I - he probably would have been killed.' The president correctly describes some minor details about that night. But overall, his comments grossly mischaracterize what happened - leaving out that by the time of the events he described, prosecutors say Rittenhouse had already shot and killed a man. In this fact-check, we are not examining the question of whether Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, as his attorney claims. We are examining whether Trump is providing an accurate description of what happened by focusing on only a portion of the events of that night. He is not. Let's take a look. How the shootings unfolded Details of the Aug. 25, 2020 shootings have emerged through eyewitness videos and a criminal complaint filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court. Here's what we know: Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, approached Rittenhouse and a reporter interviewing him that night and began to chase Rittenhouse after he did a 'juke' move. Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse, but it didn't hit him. The two ended up in a parking lot, and the reporter told authorities that Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse's gun. Rittenhouse fired four shots, and Rosenbaum dropped to the ground in front of him. In a video, Rittenhouse can be heard saying on his cell phone, 'I just killed someone.' Rittenhouse began running slowly down the street as a crowd began to follow him, with some people shouting 'get him!' and shouting he just shot someone. Rittenhouse tripped and fell. While he was on the ground, police say, he appeared to fire two shots at a man who jumped over him but missed. After that, Anthony Huber, 26, ran up to Rittenhouse with a skateboard in one hand and appeared to hit him with it before reaching for Rittenhouse's gun. Rittenhouse fired one round that hit Huber in the chest and killed him. Rittenhouse sat up and pointed his gun at Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, who had started to approach him. Grosskreutz took a step back and put his hands in the air, but then moved toward Rittenhouse, who fired a shot that hit Grosskreutz in the arm. Grosskreutz had a handgun. It is unclear whether Grosskreutz was pointing the gun at Rittenhouse, or if Rittenhouse saw that Grosskreutz had a gun. Missing information paints false picture Trump's comments completely overlook the fact that people started following him after he allegedly shot and killed someone. He also claimed protesters 'violently attacked' Rittenhouse, but that is not fully supported by the videos, either. Witnesses say those who were chasing Rittenhouse were trying to stop him. Rittenhouse later walked past a group of police vehicles, hands in the air, and ultimately returned home to nearby Antioch, Illinois, where he was arrested the next day. What's more, Trump suggested the matter is 'under investigation.' But while Rittenhouse's attorney has indicated he would argue self defense, the teen has already been charged with homicide. It's unclear what, if any, investigation would still be open. Even before the comments, Trump drew headlines when he 'liked' a tweet that said, 'Rittenhouse is a good example of why I decided to vote for Trump.' Rittenhouse, who is in jail awaiting extradition to Kenosha to face charges, is a Trump supporter.
|
Our ruling Trump said a video shows Rittenhouse 'was trying to get away from' protesters' and 'fell, and then they violently attacked him.' Rittenhouse did fall as a crowd followed him, but Trump's comments leave an incendiary and false picture: By the time he fell, according to criminal charges, Rittenhouse had already shot and killed one person that night. We rate the claim False.
|
[
"110828-proof-22-e52221b2ad29f6157533cdfb34610dda.jpg"
] |
'My opponent wants to abolish' law enforcement.
|
Contradiction
|
Campaigning has already begun in Iowa's 2nd Congressional District, which freshman Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, won by six votes in 2020. As the 2022 election season is ramping up, Miller-Meeks shared a statement about her challenger, state Rep. Christina Bohannan, D-Iowa City, claiming Bohannan supports abolishing law enforcement. 'I support law enforcement. My opponent wants to abolish them,' Miller-Meeks tweeted on Sept. 8. PolitiFact looked into this statement to see if the Democratic congressional-hopeful favors abolishing the police, based on the information Miller-Meeks provided and Bohannan's record as a state legislator. Miller-Meeks cited a piece by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet, in her tweet. The Free Bacon reports that Bohannan donated to a Facebook fundraiser in 2019 for the Prairielands Freedom Fund to reunite families by freeing imprisoned immigrants held on bond. The Prairielands Freedom Fund provides bond and bail to free immigrants from detention, their website states. Organization leaders support abolishing detention and prison. The group's website focuses on immigration but says it started to pay pretrial bonds in 2020 for protesters in the aftermath of George Floyd's and Breonna Taylor's deaths at the hands of police officers. Groups have increasingly organized these types of payments because of concerns that poor people are routinely held for long detentions before being found guilty of a crime, while people with means quickly pay their way out. In an interview with PolitiFact, Miller-Meeks said she believes where someone gives their money shows an insight to who they are as a person. 'When you contribute to organizations like that you're supporting the underlying philosophies,' she said. Bohannan told PolitiFact, however, that she did not know the mission of the Prairielands Freedom Fund when she donated, and that she donated to support a friend's birthday fundraiser. She commented, though, on the fund's Facebook post, 'Great idea for a fundraiser. I was glad to contribute - thanks for organizing it.' The Bohannan campaign told PolitiFact Bohannan gave $60. 'I do not support abolishing the police. I never have, I never will,' Bohannan said in a PolitiFact Iowa interview. 'As a law professor for over two decades, I have dedicated my career to standing up for the rule of law, and I do not support abolishing law enforcement.' In an Iowa House Debate on Senate File 342 - which ultimately passed into law, increasing penalties for protestors - Bohannan said she would be a no vote because the bill would undermine public trust for law enforcement when it needed to be rebuilt, subject young people and other protesters to harm, and prevent local enforcement from exercising discretion in how to respond. 'I do support law enforcement and I will be a no on this bill, because I also support other things, including the right to protest for racial justice and for other issues,' Bohannan said in debate. 'And I really think this bill unnecessarily pits law enforcement against groups like Black Lives Matter and other protesters just at a time when we need to be bringing all of these groups together.' In her statement she said she supported some elements of the bill that provided benefits and sick leave to law enforcement, but that those measures were combined with other sections she said were problematic. Bohannan also co-authored a Press Citizen opinion column with Iowa City Councilor Janice Weiner criticizing Republicans for limiting local discretion for law enforcement. 'A local government found in violation would be denied state funds for the next fiscal year. In other words, the bill effectively defunds both law enforcement and municipal operations for exercising discretion they have always had,' the piece reads.
|
Our ruling Miller-Meeks said Bohannan wants to abolish law enforcement. She supports her statement with The Washington Free Beacon article and her explanation that where someone puts their money reflects their values. The donation, however, was to a bail and bond project, not a law enforcement abolishment plan. Bohannan has made statements on the Iowa House floor and in an op-ed, saying she supports law enforcement, which PolitiFact finds to be more relevant than the 2019 Facebook donation to the Prairielands Freedom Fund. For these reasons, we rate the claim that Bohannan supports abolishing law enforcement False.
|
[] |
'My opponent wants to abolish' law enforcement.
|
Contradiction
|
Campaigning has already begun in Iowa's 2nd Congressional District, which freshman Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, won by six votes in 2020. As the 2022 election season is ramping up, Miller-Meeks shared a statement about her challenger, state Rep. Christina Bohannan, D-Iowa City, claiming Bohannan supports abolishing law enforcement. 'I support law enforcement. My opponent wants to abolish them,' Miller-Meeks tweeted on Sept. 8. PolitiFact looked into this statement to see if the Democratic congressional-hopeful favors abolishing the police, based on the information Miller-Meeks provided and Bohannan's record as a state legislator. Miller-Meeks cited a piece by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet, in her tweet. The Free Bacon reports that Bohannan donated to a Facebook fundraiser in 2019 for the Prairielands Freedom Fund to reunite families by freeing imprisoned immigrants held on bond. The Prairielands Freedom Fund provides bond and bail to free immigrants from detention, their website states. Organization leaders support abolishing detention and prison. The group's website focuses on immigration but says it started to pay pretrial bonds in 2020 for protesters in the aftermath of George Floyd's and Breonna Taylor's deaths at the hands of police officers. Groups have increasingly organized these types of payments because of concerns that poor people are routinely held for long detentions before being found guilty of a crime, while people with means quickly pay their way out. In an interview with PolitiFact, Miller-Meeks said she believes where someone gives their money shows an insight to who they are as a person. 'When you contribute to organizations like that you're supporting the underlying philosophies,' she said. Bohannan told PolitiFact, however, that she did not know the mission of the Prairielands Freedom Fund when she donated, and that she donated to support a friend's birthday fundraiser. She commented, though, on the fund's Facebook post, 'Great idea for a fundraiser. I was glad to contribute - thanks for organizing it.' The Bohannan campaign told PolitiFact Bohannan gave $60. 'I do not support abolishing the police. I never have, I never will,' Bohannan said in a PolitiFact Iowa interview. 'As a law professor for over two decades, I have dedicated my career to standing up for the rule of law, and I do not support abolishing law enforcement.' In an Iowa House Debate on Senate File 342 - which ultimately passed into law, increasing penalties for protestors - Bohannan said she would be a no vote because the bill would undermine public trust for law enforcement when it needed to be rebuilt, subject young people and other protesters to harm, and prevent local enforcement from exercising discretion in how to respond. 'I do support law enforcement and I will be a no on this bill, because I also support other things, including the right to protest for racial justice and for other issues,' Bohannan said in debate. 'And I really think this bill unnecessarily pits law enforcement against groups like Black Lives Matter and other protesters just at a time when we need to be bringing all of these groups together.' In her statement she said she supported some elements of the bill that provided benefits and sick leave to law enforcement, but that those measures were combined with other sections she said were problematic. Bohannan also co-authored a Press Citizen opinion column with Iowa City Councilor Janice Weiner criticizing Republicans for limiting local discretion for law enforcement. 'A local government found in violation would be denied state funds for the next fiscal year. In other words, the bill effectively defunds both law enforcement and municipal operations for exercising discretion they have always had,' the piece reads.
|
Our ruling Miller-Meeks said Bohannan wants to abolish law enforcement. She supports her statement with The Washington Free Beacon article and her explanation that where someone puts their money reflects their values. The donation, however, was to a bail and bond project, not a law enforcement abolishment plan. Bohannan has made statements on the Iowa House floor and in an op-ed, saying she supports law enforcement, which PolitiFact finds to be more relevant than the 2019 Facebook donation to the Prairielands Freedom Fund. For these reasons, we rate the claim that Bohannan supports abolishing law enforcement False.
|
[] |
'My opponent wants to abolish' law enforcement.
|
Contradiction
|
Campaigning has already begun in Iowa's 2nd Congressional District, which freshman Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, won by six votes in 2020. As the 2022 election season is ramping up, Miller-Meeks shared a statement about her challenger, state Rep. Christina Bohannan, D-Iowa City, claiming Bohannan supports abolishing law enforcement. 'I support law enforcement. My opponent wants to abolish them,' Miller-Meeks tweeted on Sept. 8. PolitiFact looked into this statement to see if the Democratic congressional-hopeful favors abolishing the police, based on the information Miller-Meeks provided and Bohannan's record as a state legislator. Miller-Meeks cited a piece by The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet, in her tweet. The Free Bacon reports that Bohannan donated to a Facebook fundraiser in 2019 for the Prairielands Freedom Fund to reunite families by freeing imprisoned immigrants held on bond. The Prairielands Freedom Fund provides bond and bail to free immigrants from detention, their website states. Organization leaders support abolishing detention and prison. The group's website focuses on immigration but says it started to pay pretrial bonds in 2020 for protesters in the aftermath of George Floyd's and Breonna Taylor's deaths at the hands of police officers. Groups have increasingly organized these types of payments because of concerns that poor people are routinely held for long detentions before being found guilty of a crime, while people with means quickly pay their way out. In an interview with PolitiFact, Miller-Meeks said she believes where someone gives their money shows an insight to who they are as a person. 'When you contribute to organizations like that you're supporting the underlying philosophies,' she said. Bohannan told PolitiFact, however, that she did not know the mission of the Prairielands Freedom Fund when she donated, and that she donated to support a friend's birthday fundraiser. She commented, though, on the fund's Facebook post, 'Great idea for a fundraiser. I was glad to contribute - thanks for organizing it.' The Bohannan campaign told PolitiFact Bohannan gave $60. 'I do not support abolishing the police. I never have, I never will,' Bohannan said in a PolitiFact Iowa interview. 'As a law professor for over two decades, I have dedicated my career to standing up for the rule of law, and I do not support abolishing law enforcement.' In an Iowa House Debate on Senate File 342 - which ultimately passed into law, increasing penalties for protestors - Bohannan said she would be a no vote because the bill would undermine public trust for law enforcement when it needed to be rebuilt, subject young people and other protesters to harm, and prevent local enforcement from exercising discretion in how to respond. 'I do support law enforcement and I will be a no on this bill, because I also support other things, including the right to protest for racial justice and for other issues,' Bohannan said in debate. 'And I really think this bill unnecessarily pits law enforcement against groups like Black Lives Matter and other protesters just at a time when we need to be bringing all of these groups together.' In her statement she said she supported some elements of the bill that provided benefits and sick leave to law enforcement, but that those measures were combined with other sections she said were problematic. Bohannan also co-authored a Press Citizen opinion column with Iowa City Councilor Janice Weiner criticizing Republicans for limiting local discretion for law enforcement. 'A local government found in violation would be denied state funds for the next fiscal year. In other words, the bill effectively defunds both law enforcement and municipal operations for exercising discretion they have always had,' the piece reads.
|
Our ruling Miller-Meeks said Bohannan wants to abolish law enforcement. She supports her statement with The Washington Free Beacon article and her explanation that where someone puts their money reflects their values. The donation, however, was to a bail and bond project, not a law enforcement abolishment plan. Bohannan has made statements on the Iowa House floor and in an op-ed, saying she supports law enforcement, which PolitiFact finds to be more relevant than the 2019 Facebook donation to the Prairielands Freedom Fund. For these reasons, we rate the claim that Bohannan supports abolishing law enforcement False.
|
[] |
'COVID literally stands for Chinese Originated Viral Infectious Disease.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump has been criticized for calling the new coronavirus as the 'Chinese Virus,' a term some fear will encourage xenophobia and abuse against Asian Americans. But a recent Facebook post would have you believe the president's word choice is closer to the truth than news reports say. 'Hate to break this to all of the morons who call themselves journalists,' the March 25 post says. 'COVID literally stands for 'Chinese Originated Viral Infectious Disease and the number 19 is due to this being the 19th virus to come out of China.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because it's literally wrong. The 2019 novel coronavirus was first reported in Wuhan, China, on Dec. 31, 2019. The deadly disease caused by this coronavirus has since infected hundreds of thousands of people around the world. On Feb. 11, the World Health Organization announced that the name for the disease would be COVID-19 and the complete official name for the virus that causes the disease would be 'severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2' or 'SARS-CoV-2.' Until that point, the virus and the infection had been referred to as the '2019 novel coronavirus' or '2019-nCoV.' 'Having a name matters to prevent the use of other names that can be inaccurate or stigmatizing,' tweeted Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the WHO. COVID-19 is an abbreviation of 'coronavirus disease 2019,' the CDC says. 'CO' stands for 'corona,' 'VI' stands for 'virus' and 'D' stands for 'disease.' The number 19 reflects the year it was identified - 2019. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'COVID literally stands for Chinese Originated Viral Infectious Disease.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump has been criticized for calling the new coronavirus as the 'Chinese Virus,' a term some fear will encourage xenophobia and abuse against Asian Americans. But a recent Facebook post would have you believe the president's word choice is closer to the truth than news reports say. 'Hate to break this to all of the morons who call themselves journalists,' the March 25 post says. 'COVID literally stands for 'Chinese Originated Viral Infectious Disease and the number 19 is due to this being the 19th virus to come out of China.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because it's literally wrong. The 2019 novel coronavirus was first reported in Wuhan, China, on Dec. 31, 2019. The deadly disease caused by this coronavirus has since infected hundreds of thousands of people around the world. On Feb. 11, the World Health Organization announced that the name for the disease would be COVID-19 and the complete official name for the virus that causes the disease would be 'severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2' or 'SARS-CoV-2.' Until that point, the virus and the infection had been referred to as the '2019 novel coronavirus' or '2019-nCoV.' 'Having a name matters to prevent the use of other names that can be inaccurate or stigmatizing,' tweeted Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the WHO. COVID-19 is an abbreviation of 'coronavirus disease 2019,' the CDC says. 'CO' stands for 'corona,' 'VI' stands for 'virus' and 'D' stands for 'disease.' The number 19 reflects the year it was identified - 2019. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'COVID literally stands for Chinese Originated Viral Infectious Disease.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump has been criticized for calling the new coronavirus as the 'Chinese Virus,' a term some fear will encourage xenophobia and abuse against Asian Americans. But a recent Facebook post would have you believe the president's word choice is closer to the truth than news reports say. 'Hate to break this to all of the morons who call themselves journalists,' the March 25 post says. 'COVID literally stands for 'Chinese Originated Viral Infectious Disease and the number 19 is due to this being the 19th virus to come out of China.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) That's because it's literally wrong. The 2019 novel coronavirus was first reported in Wuhan, China, on Dec. 31, 2019. The deadly disease caused by this coronavirus has since infected hundreds of thousands of people around the world. On Feb. 11, the World Health Organization announced that the name for the disease would be COVID-19 and the complete official name for the virus that causes the disease would be 'severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2' or 'SARS-CoV-2.' Until that point, the virus and the infection had been referred to as the '2019 novel coronavirus' or '2019-nCoV.' 'Having a name matters to prevent the use of other names that can be inaccurate or stigmatizing,' tweeted Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the WHO. COVID-19 is an abbreviation of 'coronavirus disease 2019,' the CDC says. 'CO' stands for 'corona,' 'VI' stands for 'virus' and 'D' stands for 'disease.' The number 19 reflects the year it was identified - 2019. We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
We rate this Facebook post Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Says Joe Biden's 'capital gains tax means that when you sell your home you'll owe taxes of 40% of your profit!'
|
Contradiction
|
If Joe Biden wins this year's presidential election, you may have a big tax bill coming your way should you decide to sell your home - at least, that's according to some folks on social media. An Oct. 12 text post on Facebook claims the Democratic presidential candidate would dramatically increase capital gains taxes, affecting anyone who sells their home. 'Biden's capital gains tax means that when you sell your home you'll owe taxes of 40% of your profit!' the post says over a background of poop emoji. 'Let that sink in.' 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 source of the post is a Trump-supporting real estate agent based in Eugene, Ore. We reached out to her for evidence to back up the post, but we haven't heard back. So we looked into it. (Screenshot from Facebook) The post is wrong - several fact-checkers have debunked it. Biden would increase capital gains taxes for Americans who make more than $1 million per year. Those taxes apply to home sales if sellers make hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit. First, let's review what capital gains taxes are. A capital gain is the difference between what someone paid for an asset, also known as the 'basis,' and what they sold it for. The capital gains tax is the main federal tax that the Internal Revenue Service imposes on real estate. For example, if you purchased a house for $250,000 and sold it for $300,000, your capital gain would be $50,000. However, the IRS typically lets sellers deduct up to $250,000 in capital gains if they're single and $500,000 if they're married and file joint tax returns, so you probably wouldn't owe anything. Biden has not proposed changing those exemptions. He also hasn't advocated raising taxes on Americans making less than $400,000 per year, as we've reported. On his official campaign website, Biden says he would double the long-term capital gains rate from 20% to 39.6%. His administration would use that money to help pay for Biden's health care plan. However, the 39.6% tax rate would only apply to those making more than $1 million per year. That means Biden's proposal would not affect the vast majority of people - 8.5% of Americans make more than $200,000 annually. According to the Internal Revenue Service, the capital gains tax rate 'is no higher than 15% for most individuals.' 'Some or all net capital gain may be taxed at 0% if your taxable income is less than $78,750,' the agency says. 'A capital gain rate of 15% applies if your taxable income is $78,750 or more but less than $434,550 for single; $488,850 for married filing jointly or qualifying widow(er); $461,700 for head of household, or $244,425 for married filing separately.' What does that look like in practice? Let's break it down. Let's pretend you're married and file taxes jointly. You and your partner's combined annual income is $650,000, putting your household in the IRS' top federal income tax bracket. You decide to sell your house, which you purchased for $400,000. To your surprise, you get your full asking price of $700,000. RELATED: No, Joe Biden doesn't want to impose a federal tax on homes Your capital gain would be $300,000 on the home - several times higher than the nationwide average. Since your household's annual income is less than $1 million, Biden's proposed capital gains tax rate would not apply to you. And since you're married and file taxes jointly, you probably wouldn't owe the IRS capital gains taxes anyway. So in what real estate scenario would Biden's proposed capital gains tax rate kick in? First, your household would have to make more than $1 million per year. Then, if you're single, you'd have to sell your house for at least a $250,000 profit. If you're married and jointly file taxes, you'd have to make $500,000 on a home sale. For the vast majority of Americans, that is unlikely - and far from a blanket tax on home sales, as the Facebook post says. We reached out to the Biden campaign for a comment, but we haven't heard back. The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"110856-proof-01-Screen_Shot_2020-10-16_at_12_07_13.jpg",
"110856-proof-09-34fe2d6eab9d57b9698e56254bf38178.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden's 'capital gains tax means that when you sell your home you'll owe taxes of 40% of your profit!'
|
Contradiction
|
If Joe Biden wins this year's presidential election, you may have a big tax bill coming your way should you decide to sell your home - at least, that's according to some folks on social media. An Oct. 12 text post on Facebook claims the Democratic presidential candidate would dramatically increase capital gains taxes, affecting anyone who sells their home. 'Biden's capital gains tax means that when you sell your home you'll owe taxes of 40% of your profit!' the post says over a background of poop emoji. 'Let that sink in.' 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 source of the post is a Trump-supporting real estate agent based in Eugene, Ore. We reached out to her for evidence to back up the post, but we haven't heard back. So we looked into it. (Screenshot from Facebook) The post is wrong - several fact-checkers have debunked it. Biden would increase capital gains taxes for Americans who make more than $1 million per year. Those taxes apply to home sales if sellers make hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit. First, let's review what capital gains taxes are. A capital gain is the difference between what someone paid for an asset, also known as the 'basis,' and what they sold it for. The capital gains tax is the main federal tax that the Internal Revenue Service imposes on real estate. For example, if you purchased a house for $250,000 and sold it for $300,000, your capital gain would be $50,000. However, the IRS typically lets sellers deduct up to $250,000 in capital gains if they're single and $500,000 if they're married and file joint tax returns, so you probably wouldn't owe anything. Biden has not proposed changing those exemptions. He also hasn't advocated raising taxes on Americans making less than $400,000 per year, as we've reported. On his official campaign website, Biden says he would double the long-term capital gains rate from 20% to 39.6%. His administration would use that money to help pay for Biden's health care plan. However, the 39.6% tax rate would only apply to those making more than $1 million per year. That means Biden's proposal would not affect the vast majority of people - 8.5% of Americans make more than $200,000 annually. According to the Internal Revenue Service, the capital gains tax rate 'is no higher than 15% for most individuals.' 'Some or all net capital gain may be taxed at 0% if your taxable income is less than $78,750,' the agency says. 'A capital gain rate of 15% applies if your taxable income is $78,750 or more but less than $434,550 for single; $488,850 for married filing jointly or qualifying widow(er); $461,700 for head of household, or $244,425 for married filing separately.' What does that look like in practice? Let's break it down. Let's pretend you're married and file taxes jointly. You and your partner's combined annual income is $650,000, putting your household in the IRS' top federal income tax bracket. You decide to sell your house, which you purchased for $400,000. To your surprise, you get your full asking price of $700,000. RELATED: No, Joe Biden doesn't want to impose a federal tax on homes Your capital gain would be $300,000 on the home - several times higher than the nationwide average. Since your household's annual income is less than $1 million, Biden's proposed capital gains tax rate would not apply to you. And since you're married and file taxes jointly, you probably wouldn't owe the IRS capital gains taxes anyway. So in what real estate scenario would Biden's proposed capital gains tax rate kick in? First, your household would have to make more than $1 million per year. Then, if you're single, you'd have to sell your house for at least a $250,000 profit. If you're married and jointly file taxes, you'd have to make $500,000 on a home sale. For the vast majority of Americans, that is unlikely - and far from a blanket tax on home sales, as the Facebook post says. We reached out to the Biden campaign for a comment, but we haven't heard back. The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
The Facebook post contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"110856-proof-01-Screen_Shot_2020-10-16_at_12_07_13.jpg",
"110856-proof-09-34fe2d6eab9d57b9698e56254bf38178.jpg"
] |
Says activists threatened his family and 'screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open our door.
|
Contradiction
|
Before he objected to election results in two states at the Capitol, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley told his followers about an incident occurring at his Vienna, Va., home near Washington while Hawley was in Missouri. 'Tonight while I was in Missouri, Antifa scumbags came to our place in DC and threatened my wife and newborn daughter, who can't travel,' he wrote. 'They screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open our door. Let me be clear: My family & I will not be intimidated by leftwing violence.' He was referring to a demonstration held by activist group ShutDownDC. The group was protesting Hawley's announcement that he would object to electoral votes from some states when the Senate convened Wednesday to certify the results of November's election. President Donald Trump has claimed without evidence that the election was riddled with election fraud. PolitiFact and other independent fact-checkers have found these claims of voter fraud to be false. Hawley's tweet got traction on social media, and Missouri Gov. Mike Parson on Wednesday equated Hawley's claim to the violence by Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol. So what happened at Hawley's house? Around 7:45 p.m. Jan. 4, police showed up to the demonstration, and their account of the event was much different from Hawley's. 'People were peaceful,' officer Juan Vazquez, a spokesman for the Vienna Police Department, told the Associated Press. Vasquez said the protesters violated several laws, such as a Virginia law banning picketing in front of a house, a town ordinance against being loud in front of a home and a littering code as protesters wrote messages with chalk on the sidewalk. But Vasquez said that when officers explained the violations, 'everyone just left.' 'There were no issues, no arrests,' he said. 'We didn't think it was that big of a deal.' ShutDownDC livestreamed the entire demonstration on YouTube. The video shows a protest that, while disruptive, included no threats and no attempts to break inside. There was also no violence. However, protesters wrote messages on the sidewalk with chalk and were warned by police for that. There were about 15 people there, according to the Washington Post. Protesters shouted chants such as 'shame on Hawley' and 'protect democracy from the GOP.' Protesters also lit candles, held signs, gave speeches and walked up to his door to deliver a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Phil Letsou, Hawley's deputy communications director, pointed to a moment in the video where protesters exchange words with Hawley's wife and neighbors who came outside. The wife and the neighbors asked the protesters to leave, which they refused, but the protesters did not threaten, commit violence, vandalize or attempt to break in. The demonstration lasted for about a half hour.
|
Our ruling Hawley said protesters at his Virginia home 'screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open (his) door.' This conflicts with police accounts of the event and a video showing the full demonstration. The demonstration was disruptive, but the full video shows it was not as violent as he made it sound. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"110884-proof-23-e3ed0b846f0d0ee454aa09123a1179eb.jpg"
] |
Says activists threatened his family and 'screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open our door.
|
Contradiction
|
Before he objected to election results in two states at the Capitol, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley told his followers about an incident occurring at his Vienna, Va., home near Washington while Hawley was in Missouri. 'Tonight while I was in Missouri, Antifa scumbags came to our place in DC and threatened my wife and newborn daughter, who can't travel,' he wrote. 'They screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open our door. Let me be clear: My family & I will not be intimidated by leftwing violence.' He was referring to a demonstration held by activist group ShutDownDC. The group was protesting Hawley's announcement that he would object to electoral votes from some states when the Senate convened Wednesday to certify the results of November's election. President Donald Trump has claimed without evidence that the election was riddled with election fraud. PolitiFact and other independent fact-checkers have found these claims of voter fraud to be false. Hawley's tweet got traction on social media, and Missouri Gov. Mike Parson on Wednesday equated Hawley's claim to the violence by Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol. So what happened at Hawley's house? Around 7:45 p.m. Jan. 4, police showed up to the demonstration, and their account of the event was much different from Hawley's. 'People were peaceful,' officer Juan Vazquez, a spokesman for the Vienna Police Department, told the Associated Press. Vasquez said the protesters violated several laws, such as a Virginia law banning picketing in front of a house, a town ordinance against being loud in front of a home and a littering code as protesters wrote messages with chalk on the sidewalk. But Vasquez said that when officers explained the violations, 'everyone just left.' 'There were no issues, no arrests,' he said. 'We didn't think it was that big of a deal.' ShutDownDC livestreamed the entire demonstration on YouTube. The video shows a protest that, while disruptive, included no threats and no attempts to break inside. There was also no violence. However, protesters wrote messages on the sidewalk with chalk and were warned by police for that. There were about 15 people there, according to the Washington Post. Protesters shouted chants such as 'shame on Hawley' and 'protect democracy from the GOP.' Protesters also lit candles, held signs, gave speeches and walked up to his door to deliver a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Phil Letsou, Hawley's deputy communications director, pointed to a moment in the video where protesters exchange words with Hawley's wife and neighbors who came outside. The wife and the neighbors asked the protesters to leave, which they refused, but the protesters did not threaten, commit violence, vandalize or attempt to break in. The demonstration lasted for about a half hour.
|
Our ruling Hawley said protesters at his Virginia home 'screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open (his) door.' This conflicts with police accounts of the event and a video showing the full demonstration. The demonstration was disruptive, but the full video shows it was not as violent as he made it sound. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"110884-proof-23-e3ed0b846f0d0ee454aa09123a1179eb.jpg"
] |
Says activists threatened his family and 'screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open our door.
|
Contradiction
|
Before he objected to election results in two states at the Capitol, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley told his followers about an incident occurring at his Vienna, Va., home near Washington while Hawley was in Missouri. 'Tonight while I was in Missouri, Antifa scumbags came to our place in DC and threatened my wife and newborn daughter, who can't travel,' he wrote. 'They screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open our door. Let me be clear: My family & I will not be intimidated by leftwing violence.' He was referring to a demonstration held by activist group ShutDownDC. The group was protesting Hawley's announcement that he would object to electoral votes from some states when the Senate convened Wednesday to certify the results of November's election. President Donald Trump has claimed without evidence that the election was riddled with election fraud. PolitiFact and other independent fact-checkers have found these claims of voter fraud to be false. Hawley's tweet got traction on social media, and Missouri Gov. Mike Parson on Wednesday equated Hawley's claim to the violence by Trump supporters at the U.S. Capitol. So what happened at Hawley's house? Around 7:45 p.m. Jan. 4, police showed up to the demonstration, and their account of the event was much different from Hawley's. 'People were peaceful,' officer Juan Vazquez, a spokesman for the Vienna Police Department, told the Associated Press. Vasquez said the protesters violated several laws, such as a Virginia law banning picketing in front of a house, a town ordinance against being loud in front of a home and a littering code as protesters wrote messages with chalk on the sidewalk. But Vasquez said that when officers explained the violations, 'everyone just left.' 'There were no issues, no arrests,' he said. 'We didn't think it was that big of a deal.' ShutDownDC livestreamed the entire demonstration on YouTube. The video shows a protest that, while disruptive, included no threats and no attempts to break inside. There was also no violence. However, protesters wrote messages on the sidewalk with chalk and were warned by police for that. There were about 15 people there, according to the Washington Post. Protesters shouted chants such as 'shame on Hawley' and 'protect democracy from the GOP.' Protesters also lit candles, held signs, gave speeches and walked up to his door to deliver a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Phil Letsou, Hawley's deputy communications director, pointed to a moment in the video where protesters exchange words with Hawley's wife and neighbors who came outside. The wife and the neighbors asked the protesters to leave, which they refused, but the protesters did not threaten, commit violence, vandalize or attempt to break in. The demonstration lasted for about a half hour.
|
Our ruling Hawley said protesters at his Virginia home 'screamed threats, vandalized, and tried to pound open (his) door.' This conflicts with police accounts of the event and a video showing the full demonstration. The demonstration was disruptive, but the full video shows it was not as violent as he made it sound. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"110884-proof-23-e3ed0b846f0d0ee454aa09123a1179eb.jpg"
] |
COVID-19 vaccines contain 'RNA-modifying transhumanism nanotechnology.
|
Contradiction
|
A headline on a video widely shared on Facebook used multisyllabic words to make an alarming claim about the COVID-19 vaccines: 'Dr. Carrie Madej: Why Is RNA-Modifying Transhumanism-Nano-Technology Inside the COVID-19 Vaccines?' The short answer to the question: It isn't. The vaccines don't contain any such thing. 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 part of a baseless conspiracy theory about the vaccines being part of an effort to change humans through technology. 'None of the vaccines contain nanotechnology of any sort, let alone 'transhumanism nanotechnology,' which isn't even a thing,' said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and Cornell University. Planning to 'evolve humanity' Madej describes herself as an osteopathic internal medicine doctor who stands for 'freedom, truth, great love,' and who is 'practicing the truth in Jesus through medicine.' She also indicates she is no longer practicing medicine, but rather 'dedicates her time to educating others on vaccines, nanotechnology and human rights.' Madej has made multiple claims about the COVID-19 vaccines that fact-checkers have rated false. In the 50-minute video, Madej described attending business owner meetings in metropolitan Atlanta several years ago in which the participants discussed 'transhumanism,' which she said is 'taking the human body and making it better' through methods such as 'genetic modification, nanotechnology, melding the human body with artificial intelligence.' The COVID-19 vaccines, she suggested, are part of this effort. 'The people that are pushing these agendas' are also 'pushing these injections on everybody around the world. They go hand in hand,' she said. Their plan 'is to change what it is to be human, and their goal is 2030.' Madej said she viewed the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines with a compound microscope and observed indications of 'superconducting materials,' or a 'liquified computing system.' She also said she observed 'tentacle-like, spider-like organisms,' and that people told her they were pond-water parasites. We rated as Pants on Fire claims that the Pfizer vaccine contains 'a deadly parasite' and 'living particles' that could germinate in the body. We can't say what Madej was looking at under a microscope or what she saw. We messaged Madej on Facebook, but did not get a reply. Madej does not list contact information on her website or on her Instagram, Facebook and Twitter accounts. We called two phone numbers listed online for her; neither were working. A jumble of scientific terms The only links between Madej's description of the vaccine and what's actually in it are the term 'RNA' and the prefix 'nano.' RNA - ribonucleic acid - is a molecule similar to DNA that carries coded genetic information to a cell. The Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines use a form called messenger RNA, or mRNA, to carry genetic information about the coronavirus to the body's cells to teach the immune system to identify and prepare to fight off a COVID-19 infection. It does not modify a person's DNA or RNA. The mRNA technology dates to the 1990s, though this is the first time it has been used in widely disseminated vaccines. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine does not use mRNA. Instead, it uses a disabled adenovirus to deliver instructions to help the body recognize the coronavirus' spike proteins and activate the immune system. Lynas at Cornell said mRNA vaccines 'have proven incredibly safe and effective and the technology is also looking promising for many other diseases and cancer.' Nanoparticles are not nanotechnology The term 'nano' is widely used to describe things that are very small, such as iPods and cars, but scientists use the prefix more specifically to refer to things on the scale of individual atoms. Nanotechnology, says the National Nanotechnology Initiative, is the 'application of extremely small things' for uses in fields such as chemistry, biology and physics. These can be structures or even tiny machines. In the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the mRNA is contained in a 'lipid bubble,' or a shell of fat, that's described as a nanoparticle. That just means it's very small. That doesn't make it nanotechnology. 'Even though the term is used here to imply that nanotechnology is being used to modify your RNA, that is completely false,' said Cindy Prins, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Florida. 'The mRNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines doesn't have any effect on one's DNA or RNA. It doesn't become a permanent part of the cell.' Prins said Madej's explanation of what she says she observed 'is ridiculous. She says she is using a compound microscope, which can be used to look at cells or bacteria, but certainly will not show nano-scale structures.' Translating 'transhumanism' Transhumanism is the belief in changing and enhancing the human body through technology. Lynas said 'there are people who believe we should try to transcend human biology and upload human consciousness to computers - but they are a fairly marginal group and don't have anything to do with vaccine developers, in my knowledge.' Prins said: 'I have been vaccinated and can guarantee that the only modification I have is immunity to COVID-19.'
|
Our ruling Madej said the COVID-19 vaccines contain 'RNA-modifying transhumanism nanotechnology.' There is no evidence that the three vaccines used in the U.S. contain any such thing. Two of the vaccines use mRNA technology that does not change the body's DNA or RNA or alter humans permanently. The claim is false and ridiculous - Pants on Fire!
|
[
"110892-proof-28-3cc64b8ed0bbce24a3538d3a5ce270d0.jpg"
] |
Says Michelle Obama said, 'Vote Democrat or the riots and violence will continue.
|
Contradiction
|
During her speech at the Democratic National Convention on Aug. 17, former first lady Michelle Obama alluded to demonstrations that have roiled the country since a police officer killed George Floyd in May. 'When the horrors of systemic racism shook our country and our consciences, millions of Americans of every age, every background rose up to march for each other, crying out for justice and progress,' Obama said. 'This is who we still are: compassionate, resilient, decent people whose fortunes are bound up with one another.' A few days later, a different quote was attributed to Obama. 'Michelle Obama said, 'Vote Democrat or the riots and violence will continue,'' one Facebook post reads. 'Sounds like a threat to me.' 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.) Obama urged people watching the convention to vote - her necklace even said it - and, of course, she made a case for the Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden. But she mentioned neither riots nor violence in her speech. After listing Biden's aims for education, health care and climate change, Obama said, 'Joe Biden wants all our kids, no matter what they look like, to be able to walk out the door without worrying about being harassed or arrested or killed. He wants all our kids to be able to go to a movie or a math class without being afraid of getting shot. He wants all our kids to grow up with leaders who won't just serve themselves and their wealthy peers but will provide a safety net for people facing hard times.' 'If we want a chance to pursue any of these goals, any of these most basic requirements for a functioning society,' Obama said, 'we have to vote for Joe Biden in numbers that cannot be ignored.' That's a far cry from the statement attributed to Obama in the Facebook post. Searching for the quote online, we only found other social media posts - no news reports or original sources corroborating this attribution. Looking in the Nexis news archive, there were no articles or news broadcasts relating that Obama said this. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
'When using a medical mask you're supposed to use... white side out (this is the filter part) for when you're not sick.
|
Contradiction
|
Don't take your medical advice from Facebook. It could leave you with the wrong instructions for wearing a medical mask. A Facebook post claimed that a doctor's office had received the 'proper directions' from a mask manufacturer on how to wear medical masks. The post includes two pictures of how to wear the medical masks and explains that you should wear the colored side of the mask on the outside when you are sick and the white side on the outside when you are healthy. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We checked in with PriMED, one of the leading medical mask producers. On its FAQ page, it says that 'the color always faces out' on a medical mask. The Center for Health Protection, which was established in Hong Kong during the SARS outbreak in 2004, also advises wearers to wear the colored side on the outside. While the Facebook post said that the white side of the mask contains a filter, the center's illustration of the three-layer design medical mask explains that the white layer is for moisture absorption from your mouth and nose. The San Francisco Department of Public Health's website also said that 'the colored side of the mask is usually the front and should face away from you, while the white side touches your face.' So remember: color-side out, whether you are healthy or sick. One more thing: Americans looking to buy a medical mask to protect themselves against the 2019 novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, should know it isn't generally necessary. The New York Times interviewed medical care professionals that explained that hoarding medical masks because of the 2019 novel coronavirus panic can lead to shortages in hospitals, clinics, and doctor's offices. The CDC determined the immediate health risk to Americans as low. Anyways, colored side out. We rate this post False.
|
Anyways, colored side out. We rate this post False.
|
[] |
'Per order from @GovWhitmer, people in Michigan are now banned from purchasing a new baby car seat in stores.
|
Contradiction
|
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's aggressive steps to slow the spread of COVID-19 in her hard-hit state have earned her a lot of national attention. Back home in Michigan, they're stirring up complaints from conservatives who say the Democratic governor is overstepping her power or banning the sale of things they need. On April 15, thousands of people clogged the streets of the state capital, Lansing, in their cars to protest the governor's latest statewide stay-at-home order, which tightened restrictions on residents and businesses and extended them to April 30. The protest was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition. The governor is taking flak on social media, too, with critics claiming falsely that her order bans the sale of American flags and bug spray. Untrue claims that Whitmer banned the sale of car seats for infants began circulating on social media soon after she issued the order, which required large stores to close off their garden centers and sections selling paint, flooring and furniture, but didn't affect baby supplies. An April 10 Twitter post from Tori Sachs, executive director of the conservative group Michigan Rising Action, showed a picture of car seats at a Walmart roped off by yellow caution tape and a sign that said: 'By order of the State of Michigan, items in this 'non-essential' area are not available for purchase. Please use Walmart.com for your needs until further notice.' Sachs said in the tweet accompanying the photo: 'Per order from @GovWhitmer, people in Michigan are now banned from purchasing a new baby car seat in stores. This is dangerous and this order needs clarification immediately.' The photo was originally shared by a Facebook user before it was tweeted by Sachs. Another Facebook user posted about a Walmart in Big Rapids, Mich., refusing to sell her a car seat that was in a restricted area on April 10. Child seats are not in the categories restricted by the order Fortunately for Michiganders in the market for one, the governor's executive order did not ban the sale of car seats. 'To be clear, the EO asks stores over 50K square feet to close down sections of their store to protect against unnecessary traffic, like garden centers, furniture, paint, carpet/flooring,' a Whitmer spokesperson said April 12 in a statement to a local TV channel. 'Child car seats aren't in any of those categories.' The statement suggests the Michigan stores that instituted temporary bans on the sale of car seats misinterpreted a provision in Executive Order 2020-42 that required large stores to close off areas selling some products. The executive order says: 'For stores of more than 50,000 square feet: ... Close areas of the store - by cordoning them off, placing signs in aisles, posting prominent signs, removing goods from shelves, or other appropriate means - that are dedicated to the following classes of goods: carpet or flooring; furniture; garden centers or plant nurseries; paint.' Whitmer tweeted links to a frequently-asked-questions page repeatedly on April 12 in an effort to correct the misunderstandings about the executive order. It says: Q: Does Executive Order 2020-42 ban the purchasing of car seats for children? A: No. Car seats may be available for purchase. Whitmer also addressed the confusion and misinformation surrounding the order in an April 13 press conference and COVID-19 update. 'First and foremost, I want to be clear: Nothing in the stay-at-home order prohibits people from buying car seats for your children,' she said. 'There's no prohibition on that.' Whitmer encouraged people to be cautious about whether what they see on social media is people sharing facts or just 'political posturing.' Her office didn't respond to requests for comment for this article. Walmart clarifies order for store management The average Walmart Supercenter is 187,000 square feet, meaning the Michigan Supercenters would need to adhere to the regulations about closing certain sections. But it is unclear why the two Michigan Walmarts cordoned off their car seats. Could it have been confusion about the term 'nurseries'? Walmart did not respond to PolitiFact's request for comment, but the retail chain has since clarified its policy on the sale of car seats in Michigan. 'Michigan customers are able to purchase baby car seats, baby furniture and other infant products at their local Walmart,' a Walmart representative told Business Insider in a statement. 'We are reiterating this direction with store management to ensure consistent service to our customers across our Michigan stores. Customers are also welcome to purchase these items from the convenience of their home through Walmart.com.' Sachs said on April 12 that she meant for her original tweet to raise awareness about the confusion Whitmer's executive order caused throughout the state. 'My intention was for the order to be clarified so this didn't happen to another mom,' Sachs said in a tweet. She added that after her tweet received media coverage and caught the attention of prominent public figures, Whitmer 'finally clarified.'
|
Our ruling Sachs tweeted: 'Per order from @GovWhitmer, people in Michigan are now banned from purchasing a new baby car seat in stores.' No part of the executive order bans the sale of car seats, but large stores are under orders to keep customers away from areas selling items in categories such as gardening, flooring and furniture. Two Michigan Walmarts cited the order in initially roping off and prohibiting the sale of car seats, but Walmart clarified for store managers that baby products can be sold in stores or online. Whitmer has repeatedly stated that the sale of car seats is not banned in Michigan. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"110963-proof-17-7b7b74115665a3ffc93ab2f4837658e1.jpg"
] |
'Per order from @GovWhitmer, people in Michigan are now banned from purchasing a new baby car seat in stores.
|
Contradiction
|
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's aggressive steps to slow the spread of COVID-19 in her hard-hit state have earned her a lot of national attention. Back home in Michigan, they're stirring up complaints from conservatives who say the Democratic governor is overstepping her power or banning the sale of things they need. On April 15, thousands of people clogged the streets of the state capital, Lansing, in their cars to protest the governor's latest statewide stay-at-home order, which tightened restrictions on residents and businesses and extended them to April 30. The protest was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition. The governor is taking flak on social media, too, with critics claiming falsely that her order bans the sale of American flags and bug spray. Untrue claims that Whitmer banned the sale of car seats for infants began circulating on social media soon after she issued the order, which required large stores to close off their garden centers and sections selling paint, flooring and furniture, but didn't affect baby supplies. An April 10 Twitter post from Tori Sachs, executive director of the conservative group Michigan Rising Action, showed a picture of car seats at a Walmart roped off by yellow caution tape and a sign that said: 'By order of the State of Michigan, items in this 'non-essential' area are not available for purchase. Please use Walmart.com for your needs until further notice.' Sachs said in the tweet accompanying the photo: 'Per order from @GovWhitmer, people in Michigan are now banned from purchasing a new baby car seat in stores. This is dangerous and this order needs clarification immediately.' The photo was originally shared by a Facebook user before it was tweeted by Sachs. Another Facebook user posted about a Walmart in Big Rapids, Mich., refusing to sell her a car seat that was in a restricted area on April 10. Child seats are not in the categories restricted by the order Fortunately for Michiganders in the market for one, the governor's executive order did not ban the sale of car seats. 'To be clear, the EO asks stores over 50K square feet to close down sections of their store to protect against unnecessary traffic, like garden centers, furniture, paint, carpet/flooring,' a Whitmer spokesperson said April 12 in a statement to a local TV channel. 'Child car seats aren't in any of those categories.' The statement suggests the Michigan stores that instituted temporary bans on the sale of car seats misinterpreted a provision in Executive Order 2020-42 that required large stores to close off areas selling some products. The executive order says: 'For stores of more than 50,000 square feet: ... Close areas of the store - by cordoning them off, placing signs in aisles, posting prominent signs, removing goods from shelves, or other appropriate means - that are dedicated to the following classes of goods: carpet or flooring; furniture; garden centers or plant nurseries; paint.' Whitmer tweeted links to a frequently-asked-questions page repeatedly on April 12 in an effort to correct the misunderstandings about the executive order. It says: Q: Does Executive Order 2020-42 ban the purchasing of car seats for children? A: No. Car seats may be available for purchase. Whitmer also addressed the confusion and misinformation surrounding the order in an April 13 press conference and COVID-19 update. 'First and foremost, I want to be clear: Nothing in the stay-at-home order prohibits people from buying car seats for your children,' she said. 'There's no prohibition on that.' Whitmer encouraged people to be cautious about whether what they see on social media is people sharing facts or just 'political posturing.' Her office didn't respond to requests for comment for this article. Walmart clarifies order for store management The average Walmart Supercenter is 187,000 square feet, meaning the Michigan Supercenters would need to adhere to the regulations about closing certain sections. But it is unclear why the two Michigan Walmarts cordoned off their car seats. Could it have been confusion about the term 'nurseries'? Walmart did not respond to PolitiFact's request for comment, but the retail chain has since clarified its policy on the sale of car seats in Michigan. 'Michigan customers are able to purchase baby car seats, baby furniture and other infant products at their local Walmart,' a Walmart representative told Business Insider in a statement. 'We are reiterating this direction with store management to ensure consistent service to our customers across our Michigan stores. Customers are also welcome to purchase these items from the convenience of their home through Walmart.com.' Sachs said on April 12 that she meant for her original tweet to raise awareness about the confusion Whitmer's executive order caused throughout the state. 'My intention was for the order to be clarified so this didn't happen to another mom,' Sachs said in a tweet. She added that after her tweet received media coverage and caught the attention of prominent public figures, Whitmer 'finally clarified.'
|
Our ruling Sachs tweeted: 'Per order from @GovWhitmer, people in Michigan are now banned from purchasing a new baby car seat in stores.' No part of the executive order bans the sale of car seats, but large stores are under orders to keep customers away from areas selling items in categories such as gardening, flooring and furniture. Two Michigan Walmarts cited the order in initially roping off and prohibiting the sale of car seats, but Walmart clarified for store managers that baby products can be sold in stores or online. Whitmer has repeatedly stated that the sale of car seats is not banned in Michigan. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"110963-proof-17-7b7b74115665a3ffc93ab2f4837658e1.jpg"
] |
'Per order from @GovWhitmer, people in Michigan are now banned from purchasing a new baby car seat in stores.
|
Contradiction
|
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's aggressive steps to slow the spread of COVID-19 in her hard-hit state have earned her a lot of national attention. Back home in Michigan, they're stirring up complaints from conservatives who say the Democratic governor is overstepping her power or banning the sale of things they need. On April 15, thousands of people clogged the streets of the state capital, Lansing, in their cars to protest the governor's latest statewide stay-at-home order, which tightened restrictions on residents and businesses and extended them to April 30. The protest was organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition. The governor is taking flak on social media, too, with critics claiming falsely that her order bans the sale of American flags and bug spray. Untrue claims that Whitmer banned the sale of car seats for infants began circulating on social media soon after she issued the order, which required large stores to close off their garden centers and sections selling paint, flooring and furniture, but didn't affect baby supplies. An April 10 Twitter post from Tori Sachs, executive director of the conservative group Michigan Rising Action, showed a picture of car seats at a Walmart roped off by yellow caution tape and a sign that said: 'By order of the State of Michigan, items in this 'non-essential' area are not available for purchase. Please use Walmart.com for your needs until further notice.' Sachs said in the tweet accompanying the photo: 'Per order from @GovWhitmer, people in Michigan are now banned from purchasing a new baby car seat in stores. This is dangerous and this order needs clarification immediately.' The photo was originally shared by a Facebook user before it was tweeted by Sachs. Another Facebook user posted about a Walmart in Big Rapids, Mich., refusing to sell her a car seat that was in a restricted area on April 10. Child seats are not in the categories restricted by the order Fortunately for Michiganders in the market for one, the governor's executive order did not ban the sale of car seats. 'To be clear, the EO asks stores over 50K square feet to close down sections of their store to protect against unnecessary traffic, like garden centers, furniture, paint, carpet/flooring,' a Whitmer spokesperson said April 12 in a statement to a local TV channel. 'Child car seats aren't in any of those categories.' The statement suggests the Michigan stores that instituted temporary bans on the sale of car seats misinterpreted a provision in Executive Order 2020-42 that required large stores to close off areas selling some products. The executive order says: 'For stores of more than 50,000 square feet: ... Close areas of the store - by cordoning them off, placing signs in aisles, posting prominent signs, removing goods from shelves, or other appropriate means - that are dedicated to the following classes of goods: carpet or flooring; furniture; garden centers or plant nurseries; paint.' Whitmer tweeted links to a frequently-asked-questions page repeatedly on April 12 in an effort to correct the misunderstandings about the executive order. It says: Q: Does Executive Order 2020-42 ban the purchasing of car seats for children? A: No. Car seats may be available for purchase. Whitmer also addressed the confusion and misinformation surrounding the order in an April 13 press conference and COVID-19 update. 'First and foremost, I want to be clear: Nothing in the stay-at-home order prohibits people from buying car seats for your children,' she said. 'There's no prohibition on that.' Whitmer encouraged people to be cautious about whether what they see on social media is people sharing facts or just 'political posturing.' Her office didn't respond to requests for comment for this article. Walmart clarifies order for store management The average Walmart Supercenter is 187,000 square feet, meaning the Michigan Supercenters would need to adhere to the regulations about closing certain sections. But it is unclear why the two Michigan Walmarts cordoned off their car seats. Could it have been confusion about the term 'nurseries'? Walmart did not respond to PolitiFact's request for comment, but the retail chain has since clarified its policy on the sale of car seats in Michigan. 'Michigan customers are able to purchase baby car seats, baby furniture and other infant products at their local Walmart,' a Walmart representative told Business Insider in a statement. 'We are reiterating this direction with store management to ensure consistent service to our customers across our Michigan stores. Customers are also welcome to purchase these items from the convenience of their home through Walmart.com.' Sachs said on April 12 that she meant for her original tweet to raise awareness about the confusion Whitmer's executive order caused throughout the state. 'My intention was for the order to be clarified so this didn't happen to another mom,' Sachs said in a tweet. She added that after her tweet received media coverage and caught the attention of prominent public figures, Whitmer 'finally clarified.'
|
Our ruling Sachs tweeted: 'Per order from @GovWhitmer, people in Michigan are now banned from purchasing a new baby car seat in stores.' No part of the executive order bans the sale of car seats, but large stores are under orders to keep customers away from areas selling items in categories such as gardening, flooring and furniture. Two Michigan Walmarts cited the order in initially roping off and prohibiting the sale of car seats, but Walmart clarified for store managers that baby products can be sold in stores or online. Whitmer has repeatedly stated that the sale of car seats is not banned in Michigan. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"110963-proof-17-7b7b74115665a3ffc93ab2f4837658e1.jpg"
] |
H.R. 1 would 'prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls.
|
Contradiction
|
A common attack on H.R. 1, the Democrats' voting rights bill, is that the legislation would open the door to voter fraud and allow ineligible people to cast ballots. In a tweet, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., made a series of attacks on the legislation, including that it would 'prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls.' H.R.1 WOULD: ✖️Use taxpayer $ to fund campaigns ✖️Ban voter ID ✖️Prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls ✖️Allow felons and minors to vote ✖️Allow 15 days of early voting ✖️Accept absentee ballots 10 days after Election Day ✖️Legalize ballot harvesting- Rep. Elise Stefanik (@RepStefanik) March 3, 2021 During the 2020 presidential election, some social media posts or allies of then-President Donald Trump spread misleading or false information about ineligible voters - dead people and pets among them - being on voter rolls. Election officials are required by law to maintain accurate voter registration lists. H.R. 1 includes steps elections officials must take before removing voters, but it's wrong to say that the legislation would prevent removal of ineligible voters. The House approved the legislation March 3 and it now heads to the Senate. HR 1 prevents corrupt interference in voter registration Known as the For the People Act, H.R. 1 combines proposals for voter registration, absentee voting, in-person voting, campaign finance and ethics related to federal elections. A spokesperson for Stefanik pointed to a section of the bill, Section 1071, that deals with prohibiting or interfering with voter registration. It states that it is unlawful for any person 'to corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from registering to vote.' Violations could lead to a fine as well as up to five years in prison. Stefanik spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told PolitiFact that the legislation 'would criminalize the refusal to accept a voter registration application, even if the application does not meet the requirements,' and that would lead to local officials not removing ineligible voters out of fear of prison time. But that distorts what the bill says. Experts who have analyzed H.R. 1 emphasized that the section highlighted by Stefanik targets corrupt efforts to prevent someone from registering to vote. The provision doesn't ban election officials from their responsibility to remove ineligible voters. That section 'does not have anything to do with list maintenance and voter removal from the registration lists,' said Matthew Weil, an expert on elections at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Ineligible voters can still be removed in HR 1 Federal laws currently require states to remove dead people from voter rolls, prohibit states from removing registrants within 90 days of an election, and require states to set basic requirements for maintaining voter rolls. Many states get help from a national consortium, the Electronic Registration Information Center, that shares information with states about voters who moved, or died or have duplicate registrations. But some ineligible voters have remained on the rolls, and in other cases election officials have wrongly purged otherwise valid voters. Mass removals of voters can result in removing largely African American or Hispanic voters. Sarah Brannon, an expert on H.R. 1 at the American Civil Liberties Union, said Section 2502 of the bill specifically allows election officials to remove ineligible voters. 'The reform in H.R. 1 would be to require evidence that the individual is in fact not eligible before the removal,' Brannon said. 'But this in no way would prevent the removal of ineligible voters from voter rolls.' H.R. 1 attempts to improve the process of removing ineligible voters by requiring states to use what it calls 'objective and reliable evidence' to remove voters. The legislation states that voters can't be removed just because they didn't vote in a past election. Within 48 hours of removal, the state must send a notice to the former registrant, unless the person died, telling them why they were removed and how they can contest the removal. H.R. 1 encourages states to use ERIC, an interstate data crosscheck system, which allows states to share data about voters who moved out of state, as well as other data, said Danielle Lang, a voting rights expert at the Campaign Legal Center. The legislation says that when states are removing voters, they should have the relevant information to confirm the person's ineligibility including the person's name, date of birth and last four digits of their Social Security number. 'Absent those standards, prior cross checks have been riddled with errors,' Lang said. Whether the legislation would result in a change in the number of voters removed from the rolls is anybody's guess. Bradley Smith, a law professor at Capital University Law School, said H.R. 1 changes the evidence required to determine that a registration is likely no longer eligible, and therefore will make it harder to remove names. But, Smith said, 'nothing in H.R. 1 prevents removal of ineligible voters per se.' The organization Smith heads up, The Institute for Free Speech, has criticized H.R. 1. David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, said election officials could still remove people for common, legitimate reasons. 'I see nothing in H.R. 1 that would significantly restrict the ability of a state to accurately remove a voter from the voter lists if they had moved out-of-state or died,' Becker said.
|
Our ruling Stefanik said H.R. 1 will 'prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls.' No section of the bill prevents an election official from removing an ineligible person on the voting rolls. One section of H.R. 1 details rules that states must follow for removing ineligible voters, including that it must notify the registrants. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Trump misleads about HR 1 and voter registration for welfare recipients RELATED: Yes, the ACLU has criticized HR 1. Here's why RELATED: Group makes bogus attack on HR 1 over congressional salaries RELATED: Fact-checking misleading attacks on HR 1, Democrats' voting rights bill
|
[
"110965-proof-37-55243cc826b75d3b46d350b943daf61a.jpg"
] |
H.R. 1 would 'prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls.
|
Contradiction
|
A common attack on H.R. 1, the Democrats' voting rights bill, is that the legislation would open the door to voter fraud and allow ineligible people to cast ballots. In a tweet, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., made a series of attacks on the legislation, including that it would 'prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls.' H.R.1 WOULD: ✖️Use taxpayer $ to fund campaigns ✖️Ban voter ID ✖️Prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls ✖️Allow felons and minors to vote ✖️Allow 15 days of early voting ✖️Accept absentee ballots 10 days after Election Day ✖️Legalize ballot harvesting- Rep. Elise Stefanik (@RepStefanik) March 3, 2021 During the 2020 presidential election, some social media posts or allies of then-President Donald Trump spread misleading or false information about ineligible voters - dead people and pets among them - being on voter rolls. Election officials are required by law to maintain accurate voter registration lists. H.R. 1 includes steps elections officials must take before removing voters, but it's wrong to say that the legislation would prevent removal of ineligible voters. The House approved the legislation March 3 and it now heads to the Senate. HR 1 prevents corrupt interference in voter registration Known as the For the People Act, H.R. 1 combines proposals for voter registration, absentee voting, in-person voting, campaign finance and ethics related to federal elections. A spokesperson for Stefanik pointed to a section of the bill, Section 1071, that deals with prohibiting or interfering with voter registration. It states that it is unlawful for any person 'to corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from registering to vote.' Violations could lead to a fine as well as up to five years in prison. Stefanik spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told PolitiFact that the legislation 'would criminalize the refusal to accept a voter registration application, even if the application does not meet the requirements,' and that would lead to local officials not removing ineligible voters out of fear of prison time. But that distorts what the bill says. Experts who have analyzed H.R. 1 emphasized that the section highlighted by Stefanik targets corrupt efforts to prevent someone from registering to vote. The provision doesn't ban election officials from their responsibility to remove ineligible voters. That section 'does not have anything to do with list maintenance and voter removal from the registration lists,' said Matthew Weil, an expert on elections at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Ineligible voters can still be removed in HR 1 Federal laws currently require states to remove dead people from voter rolls, prohibit states from removing registrants within 90 days of an election, and require states to set basic requirements for maintaining voter rolls. Many states get help from a national consortium, the Electronic Registration Information Center, that shares information with states about voters who moved, or died or have duplicate registrations. But some ineligible voters have remained on the rolls, and in other cases election officials have wrongly purged otherwise valid voters. Mass removals of voters can result in removing largely African American or Hispanic voters. Sarah Brannon, an expert on H.R. 1 at the American Civil Liberties Union, said Section 2502 of the bill specifically allows election officials to remove ineligible voters. 'The reform in H.R. 1 would be to require evidence that the individual is in fact not eligible before the removal,' Brannon said. 'But this in no way would prevent the removal of ineligible voters from voter rolls.' H.R. 1 attempts to improve the process of removing ineligible voters by requiring states to use what it calls 'objective and reliable evidence' to remove voters. The legislation states that voters can't be removed just because they didn't vote in a past election. Within 48 hours of removal, the state must send a notice to the former registrant, unless the person died, telling them why they were removed and how they can contest the removal. H.R. 1 encourages states to use ERIC, an interstate data crosscheck system, which allows states to share data about voters who moved out of state, as well as other data, said Danielle Lang, a voting rights expert at the Campaign Legal Center. The legislation says that when states are removing voters, they should have the relevant information to confirm the person's ineligibility including the person's name, date of birth and last four digits of their Social Security number. 'Absent those standards, prior cross checks have been riddled with errors,' Lang said. Whether the legislation would result in a change in the number of voters removed from the rolls is anybody's guess. Bradley Smith, a law professor at Capital University Law School, said H.R. 1 changes the evidence required to determine that a registration is likely no longer eligible, and therefore will make it harder to remove names. But, Smith said, 'nothing in H.R. 1 prevents removal of ineligible voters per se.' The organization Smith heads up, The Institute for Free Speech, has criticized H.R. 1. David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, said election officials could still remove people for common, legitimate reasons. 'I see nothing in H.R. 1 that would significantly restrict the ability of a state to accurately remove a voter from the voter lists if they had moved out-of-state or died,' Becker said.
|
Our ruling Stefanik said H.R. 1 will 'prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls.' No section of the bill prevents an election official from removing an ineligible person on the voting rolls. One section of H.R. 1 details rules that states must follow for removing ineligible voters, including that it must notify the registrants. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Trump misleads about HR 1 and voter registration for welfare recipients RELATED: Yes, the ACLU has criticized HR 1. Here's why RELATED: Group makes bogus attack on HR 1 over congressional salaries RELATED: Fact-checking misleading attacks on HR 1, Democrats' voting rights bill
|
[
"110965-proof-37-55243cc826b75d3b46d350b943daf61a.jpg"
] |
H.R. 1 would 'prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls.
|
Contradiction
|
A common attack on H.R. 1, the Democrats' voting rights bill, is that the legislation would open the door to voter fraud and allow ineligible people to cast ballots. In a tweet, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., made a series of attacks on the legislation, including that it would 'prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls.' H.R.1 WOULD: ✖️Use taxpayer $ to fund campaigns ✖️Ban voter ID ✖️Prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls ✖️Allow felons and minors to vote ✖️Allow 15 days of early voting ✖️Accept absentee ballots 10 days after Election Day ✖️Legalize ballot harvesting- Rep. Elise Stefanik (@RepStefanik) March 3, 2021 During the 2020 presidential election, some social media posts or allies of then-President Donald Trump spread misleading or false information about ineligible voters - dead people and pets among them - being on voter rolls. Election officials are required by law to maintain accurate voter registration lists. H.R. 1 includes steps elections officials must take before removing voters, but it's wrong to say that the legislation would prevent removal of ineligible voters. The House approved the legislation March 3 and it now heads to the Senate. HR 1 prevents corrupt interference in voter registration Known as the For the People Act, H.R. 1 combines proposals for voter registration, absentee voting, in-person voting, campaign finance and ethics related to federal elections. A spokesperson for Stefanik pointed to a section of the bill, Section 1071, that deals with prohibiting or interfering with voter registration. It states that it is unlawful for any person 'to corruptly hinder, interfere with, or prevent another person from registering to vote.' Violations could lead to a fine as well as up to five years in prison. Stefanik spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told PolitiFact that the legislation 'would criminalize the refusal to accept a voter registration application, even if the application does not meet the requirements,' and that would lead to local officials not removing ineligible voters out of fear of prison time. But that distorts what the bill says. Experts who have analyzed H.R. 1 emphasized that the section highlighted by Stefanik targets corrupt efforts to prevent someone from registering to vote. The provision doesn't ban election officials from their responsibility to remove ineligible voters. That section 'does not have anything to do with list maintenance and voter removal from the registration lists,' said Matthew Weil, an expert on elections at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Ineligible voters can still be removed in HR 1 Federal laws currently require states to remove dead people from voter rolls, prohibit states from removing registrants within 90 days of an election, and require states to set basic requirements for maintaining voter rolls. Many states get help from a national consortium, the Electronic Registration Information Center, that shares information with states about voters who moved, or died or have duplicate registrations. But some ineligible voters have remained on the rolls, and in other cases election officials have wrongly purged otherwise valid voters. Mass removals of voters can result in removing largely African American or Hispanic voters. Sarah Brannon, an expert on H.R. 1 at the American Civil Liberties Union, said Section 2502 of the bill specifically allows election officials to remove ineligible voters. 'The reform in H.R. 1 would be to require evidence that the individual is in fact not eligible before the removal,' Brannon said. 'But this in no way would prevent the removal of ineligible voters from voter rolls.' H.R. 1 attempts to improve the process of removing ineligible voters by requiring states to use what it calls 'objective and reliable evidence' to remove voters. The legislation states that voters can't be removed just because they didn't vote in a past election. Within 48 hours of removal, the state must send a notice to the former registrant, unless the person died, telling them why they were removed and how they can contest the removal. H.R. 1 encourages states to use ERIC, an interstate data crosscheck system, which allows states to share data about voters who moved out of state, as well as other data, said Danielle Lang, a voting rights expert at the Campaign Legal Center. The legislation says that when states are removing voters, they should have the relevant information to confirm the person's ineligibility including the person's name, date of birth and last four digits of their Social Security number. 'Absent those standards, prior cross checks have been riddled with errors,' Lang said. Whether the legislation would result in a change in the number of voters removed from the rolls is anybody's guess. Bradley Smith, a law professor at Capital University Law School, said H.R. 1 changes the evidence required to determine that a registration is likely no longer eligible, and therefore will make it harder to remove names. But, Smith said, 'nothing in H.R. 1 prevents removal of ineligible voters per se.' The organization Smith heads up, The Institute for Free Speech, has criticized H.R. 1. David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, said election officials could still remove people for common, legitimate reasons. 'I see nothing in H.R. 1 that would significantly restrict the ability of a state to accurately remove a voter from the voter lists if they had moved out-of-state or died,' Becker said.
|
Our ruling Stefanik said H.R. 1 will 'prevent removal of ineligible voters from registration rolls.' No section of the bill prevents an election official from removing an ineligible person on the voting rolls. One section of H.R. 1 details rules that states must follow for removing ineligible voters, including that it must notify the registrants. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Trump misleads about HR 1 and voter registration for welfare recipients RELATED: Yes, the ACLU has criticized HR 1. Here's why RELATED: Group makes bogus attack on HR 1 over congressional salaries RELATED: Fact-checking misleading attacks on HR 1, Democrats' voting rights bill
|
[
"110965-proof-37-55243cc826b75d3b46d350b943daf61a.jpg"
] |
The U.S. military seized servers in Germany tied to Dominion Election Systems.
|
Contradiction
|
Voting equipment company Dominion Voting Systems has been at the center of unfounded conspiracy theories - many spread by President Donald Trump - that claim Democrats committed voter fraud and stole the 2020 election for Joe Biden. There's no evidence that Dominion's systems were used nefariously in the election, but false claims about the company keep coming. Posts circulating online claim that the U.S. military raided the Spanish election software company Scytl in Germany and seized its servers for evidence of manipulation in the 2020 U.S. elections. Some posts claim the servers have ties to Dominion. This is false. Scytl said in a statement that the U.S. military hasn't seized anything and that it doesn't have offices in Germany. The U.S. Army, which was identified in some posts as the military branch supposedly involved, denied to the Associated Press that such an event took place. 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 rumor was fueled by an article on a website called 'GreatGameIndia' titled 'INTEL: US Military Raided Scytl Servers in Germany For Evidence After Vote Switching Scandal.' It said, 'votes cast by Americans in 2020 US election were counted by a bankrupt Spanish company Scytl in Spain.' The story pointed to comments made by U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, who appeared on conservative TV channel Newsmax. A clip of the interview shows Gohmert saying that he was told there was 'a tweet in German from Germany that the U.S. Army had gone in and seized the Syctl server.' The clip's description on YouTube reads: 'People on the ground in Germany report that Scytl, which hosting YOUR elections data Improperly through Spain, was raided by a large US ARMY force & their Servers were Seized in Frankfurt.' An Army spokesperson told the AP over the weekend that the claims in the posts are false. Scytl, a software company based in Barcelona, has eight offices around the world but none in Germany, according to its website. It has delivered election modernization projects for U.S. elections since 2008. But none of these projects involve tallying votes, the company said. The services include online initiatives like election worker training, electronic ballot delivery and real-time, visual representation of votes. In a statement rejecting the claims, Scytl said that its technologies for the U.S. are hosted and managed domestically by a Tampa-based subsidiary, SOE Software, and that it does not provide any voting machines in the U.S. or online voting services for U.S. elections. 'We do not have servers or offices in Frankfurt,' the company added. 'The US army has not seized anything from Scytl in Barcelona, Frankfurt or anywhere else.' Scytl and Dominion share no ties, according to statements from both companies. The federal Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council Executive Committee and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council said in a joint statement that the election was the most secure in U.S. history and that there is 'no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.'
|
Our ruling Social media users are sharing articles and videos claiming that the U.S. military seized Scytl servers in Germany and that the company has ties to Dominion Voting Systems. The Army and Scytl said the claim is false, and the company has no offices in Germany or connection to Dominion. We rate this Pants on Fire! This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more.
|
[] |
The U.S. military seized servers in Germany tied to Dominion Election Systems.
|
Contradiction
|
Voting equipment company Dominion Voting Systems has been at the center of unfounded conspiracy theories - many spread by President Donald Trump - that claim Democrats committed voter fraud and stole the 2020 election for Joe Biden. There's no evidence that Dominion's systems were used nefariously in the election, but false claims about the company keep coming. Posts circulating online claim that the U.S. military raided the Spanish election software company Scytl in Germany and seized its servers for evidence of manipulation in the 2020 U.S. elections. Some posts claim the servers have ties to Dominion. This is false. Scytl said in a statement that the U.S. military hasn't seized anything and that it doesn't have offices in Germany. The U.S. Army, which was identified in some posts as the military branch supposedly involved, denied to the Associated Press that such an event took place. 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 rumor was fueled by an article on a website called 'GreatGameIndia' titled 'INTEL: US Military Raided Scytl Servers in Germany For Evidence After Vote Switching Scandal.' It said, 'votes cast by Americans in 2020 US election were counted by a bankrupt Spanish company Scytl in Spain.' The story pointed to comments made by U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, who appeared on conservative TV channel Newsmax. A clip of the interview shows Gohmert saying that he was told there was 'a tweet in German from Germany that the U.S. Army had gone in and seized the Syctl server.' The clip's description on YouTube reads: 'People on the ground in Germany report that Scytl, which hosting YOUR elections data Improperly through Spain, was raided by a large US ARMY force & their Servers were Seized in Frankfurt.' An Army spokesperson told the AP over the weekend that the claims in the posts are false. Scytl, a software company based in Barcelona, has eight offices around the world but none in Germany, according to its website. It has delivered election modernization projects for U.S. elections since 2008. But none of these projects involve tallying votes, the company said. The services include online initiatives like election worker training, electronic ballot delivery and real-time, visual representation of votes. In a statement rejecting the claims, Scytl said that its technologies for the U.S. are hosted and managed domestically by a Tampa-based subsidiary, SOE Software, and that it does not provide any voting machines in the U.S. or online voting services for U.S. elections. 'We do not have servers or offices in Frankfurt,' the company added. 'The US army has not seized anything from Scytl in Barcelona, Frankfurt or anywhere else.' Scytl and Dominion share no ties, according to statements from both companies. The federal Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council Executive Committee and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council said in a joint statement that the election was the most secure in U.S. history and that there is 'no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.'
|
Our ruling Social media users are sharing articles and videos claiming that the U.S. military seized Scytl servers in Germany and that the company has ties to Dominion Voting Systems. The Army and Scytl said the claim is false, and the company has no offices in Germany or connection to Dominion. We rate this Pants on Fire! This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more.
|
[] |
The U.S. military seized servers in Germany tied to Dominion Election Systems.
|
Contradiction
|
Voting equipment company Dominion Voting Systems has been at the center of unfounded conspiracy theories - many spread by President Donald Trump - that claim Democrats committed voter fraud and stole the 2020 election for Joe Biden. There's no evidence that Dominion's systems were used nefariously in the election, but false claims about the company keep coming. Posts circulating online claim that the U.S. military raided the Spanish election software company Scytl in Germany and seized its servers for evidence of manipulation in the 2020 U.S. elections. Some posts claim the servers have ties to Dominion. This is false. Scytl said in a statement that the U.S. military hasn't seized anything and that it doesn't have offices in Germany. The U.S. Army, which was identified in some posts as the military branch supposedly involved, denied to the Associated Press that such an event took place. 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 rumor was fueled by an article on a website called 'GreatGameIndia' titled 'INTEL: US Military Raided Scytl Servers in Germany For Evidence After Vote Switching Scandal.' It said, 'votes cast by Americans in 2020 US election were counted by a bankrupt Spanish company Scytl in Spain.' The story pointed to comments made by U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, who appeared on conservative TV channel Newsmax. A clip of the interview shows Gohmert saying that he was told there was 'a tweet in German from Germany that the U.S. Army had gone in and seized the Syctl server.' The clip's description on YouTube reads: 'People on the ground in Germany report that Scytl, which hosting YOUR elections data Improperly through Spain, was raided by a large US ARMY force & their Servers were Seized in Frankfurt.' An Army spokesperson told the AP over the weekend that the claims in the posts are false. Scytl, a software company based in Barcelona, has eight offices around the world but none in Germany, according to its website. It has delivered election modernization projects for U.S. elections since 2008. But none of these projects involve tallying votes, the company said. The services include online initiatives like election worker training, electronic ballot delivery and real-time, visual representation of votes. In a statement rejecting the claims, Scytl said that its technologies for the U.S. are hosted and managed domestically by a Tampa-based subsidiary, SOE Software, and that it does not provide any voting machines in the U.S. or online voting services for U.S. elections. 'We do not have servers or offices in Frankfurt,' the company added. 'The US army has not seized anything from Scytl in Barcelona, Frankfurt or anywhere else.' Scytl and Dominion share no ties, according to statements from both companies. The federal Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council Executive Committee and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council said in a joint statement that the election was the most secure in U.S. history and that there is 'no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.'
|
Our ruling Social media users are sharing articles and videos claiming that the U.S. military seized Scytl servers in Germany and that the company has ties to Dominion Voting Systems. The Army and Scytl said the claim is false, and the company has no offices in Germany or connection to Dominion. We rate this Pants on Fire! This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here for more.
|
[] |
The Supreme Court 'has decided to take up the Texas case.
|
Contradiction
|
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued four states that went for President-elect Joe Biden on grounds their election procedures violated the law, and he's asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block those states from voting in the electoral college. Legal experts have characterized the lawsuit as a long shot - the court has yet to take up any election disputes. And on Dec. 8, the Supreme Court rejected an effort led by a Republican congressman to reverse Pennsylvania's certification of Biden's victory there. But on Facebook, the high court has agreed to hear the Texas case against states including Pennsylvania. 'JUST IN,' one Facebook post said. 'The Supreme has decided to take up the Texas case. Let's give Texas a YEEHAW!' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) On Dec. 8, the court ordered Pennsylvania and the other states named in the Texas suit - Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia - to respond by Dec. 10. But that's not the same as accepting the case. The court also set a deadline for Pennsylvania to respond in the case it rejected on Dec. 8. 'It's not unusual,' Dale Carpenter, a constitutional law professor at Southern Methodist University, told a CBS News affiliate in Texas. 'I don't think it indicates anything very important.' Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, tweeted on Dec. 8: 'The Court is *never* going to hear this one.' The next day, he tweeted a quick fact-check of misinformation related to recent election lawsuits. 'SCOTUS hasn't voted 6-3 to do *anything* election-related,' he said. 'SCOTUS hasn't 'agreed to hear' the Texas case.' We rate this Facebook post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
We rate this Facebook post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[] |
'Biden lead disappears in NV, AZ, GA, PA.
|
Contradiction
|
Supporters of President Donald Trump in Washington and the media continue to entertain his unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud and his unprecedented refusal to concede the election he lost to President-elect Joe Biden. Some Facebook users are following suit. One Facebook post shared thousands of times, from conservative radio host Ben Ferguson, wrongly claimed that Biden's leads have evaporated in four key battleground states. 'Liberal media get it wrong again as Biden lead disappears in NV, AZ, GA, PA,' reads the text over the Nov. 10 post, which includes an audio clip from Ferguson's podcast. The post is inaccurate. 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.) Ferguson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In reality, Biden has been projected as the winner of the election by major media outlets and decision desks, including the Associated Press, Reuters, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, Fox News and Decision Desk HQ. Such calls were made because the data showed Biden received more votes than Trump and that Trump had run out of ways to win. The Associated Press, for example, says it only calls a race when it is 'fully confident' the race has been won because the 'trailing candidate no longer has a path to victory.' The former vice president has been named the winner in Pennsylvania and Nevada by each of those 11 organizations. The Associated Press and Fox News have also called Arizona in his favor. And he is still leading in Georgia, where officials have announced a recount by hand. Biden's advantages in those four battleground states vary, according to Decision Desk HQ. He is ahead by more than 36,000 votes in Nevada; by more than 12,000 in Arizona; by more than 14,000 in Georgia; and by more than 49,000 votes in Pennsylvania. But those leads have not disappeared, as the Facebook post claimed. Dave Wasserman, the House editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, tweeted Nov. 10 that Biden's leads in Georgia and Arizona - his two smallest margins to date - are 'quite robust.' Biden doesn't need to win all four of those states to capture the presidency, either. States have until Dec. 8 to finalize their results before members of the Electoral College cast their votes on Dec. 14 and Congress officially counts those votes on Jan. 6, 2021. Media organizations agree that Biden remains on track to win, and there is no evidence of any widespread fraud that would tip the election in Trump's favor, as experts, international observers and state officials from both parties have said. The Biden team has begun preparing for the White House, even as the Trump administration works to thwart the transition. Trump accepted the media's calls in 2016. A review of the Internet Archive shows he changed his Twitter biography to read 'President-elect of the United States' on Nov. 9, one day after the 2016 election. He met with President Barack Obama in the White House on Nov. 10. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[
"110994-proof-23-08704665a4b84c8fbbacb07b6d12bf45.jpeg"
] |
'Biden lead disappears in NV, AZ, GA, PA.
|
Contradiction
|
Supporters of President Donald Trump in Washington and the media continue to entertain his unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud and his unprecedented refusal to concede the election he lost to President-elect Joe Biden. Some Facebook users are following suit. One Facebook post shared thousands of times, from conservative radio host Ben Ferguson, wrongly claimed that Biden's leads have evaporated in four key battleground states. 'Liberal media get it wrong again as Biden lead disappears in NV, AZ, GA, PA,' reads the text over the Nov. 10 post, which includes an audio clip from Ferguson's podcast. The post is inaccurate. 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.) Ferguson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In reality, Biden has been projected as the winner of the election by major media outlets and decision desks, including the Associated Press, Reuters, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, Fox News and Decision Desk HQ. Such calls were made because the data showed Biden received more votes than Trump and that Trump had run out of ways to win. The Associated Press, for example, says it only calls a race when it is 'fully confident' the race has been won because the 'trailing candidate no longer has a path to victory.' The former vice president has been named the winner in Pennsylvania and Nevada by each of those 11 organizations. The Associated Press and Fox News have also called Arizona in his favor. And he is still leading in Georgia, where officials have announced a recount by hand. Biden's advantages in those four battleground states vary, according to Decision Desk HQ. He is ahead by more than 36,000 votes in Nevada; by more than 12,000 in Arizona; by more than 14,000 in Georgia; and by more than 49,000 votes in Pennsylvania. But those leads have not disappeared, as the Facebook post claimed. Dave Wasserman, the House editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, tweeted Nov. 10 that Biden's leads in Georgia and Arizona - his two smallest margins to date - are 'quite robust.' Biden doesn't need to win all four of those states to capture the presidency, either. States have until Dec. 8 to finalize their results before members of the Electoral College cast their votes on Dec. 14 and Congress officially counts those votes on Jan. 6, 2021. Media organizations agree that Biden remains on track to win, and there is no evidence of any widespread fraud that would tip the election in Trump's favor, as experts, international observers and state officials from both parties have said. The Biden team has begun preparing for the White House, even as the Trump administration works to thwart the transition. Trump accepted the media's calls in 2016. A review of the Internet Archive shows he changed his Twitter biography to read 'President-elect of the United States' on Nov. 9, one day after the 2016 election. He met with President Barack Obama in the White House on Nov. 10. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[
"110994-proof-23-08704665a4b84c8fbbacb07b6d12bf45.jpeg"
] |
'Joe Biden is no longer the President-elect according to RealClearPolitics.
|
Contradiction
|
Every major television network and the Associated Press have said Joe Biden is the projected winner of the presidential election. But on social media, some say the race is still too close to call. 'Joe Biden is no longer the President-elect according to RealClearPolitics,' says text in a Nov. 9 Instagram post, which is a screenshot of a tweet from Samantha Marika, a conservative internet personality and conspiracy theorist. On Facebook, some users shared electoral maps to support their claims that Biden has not yet clinched the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. Others said President Donald Trump made up ground in battleground states where Biden was leading, such as Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania. (Screenshot from Facebook) 'This just in: Biden loses Pres-Elect Status, as Pennsylvania is now a toss up,' says a Nov. 10 post. 'CNN changes GA and AZ back to too close to call.' The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook, which owns Instagram.) In a Nov. 9 tweet, Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, amplified the claim that Real Clear Politics 'took PA away from Biden and made it a toss up.' So we wanted to take a closer look. The posts are inaccurate - Real Clear Politics never called Pennsylvania for Biden. The political news site still has several battleground states as toss-ups and has not projected a winner. In a Nov. 9 tweet, Tom Bevan, co-founder and president of Real Clear Politics, said Giuliani's claim was false. 'We never called Pennsylvania, and nothing has changed,' he said. Many of the Facebook and Instagram posts we found cite an article from TrendingPolitics.com, a conservative website that has made unsupported claims in the past. The site reported Nov. 9 that Real Clear Politics had 'REMOVED Pennsylvania from Biden's electoral vote total,' but it later updated its story to indicate that's not the case. Every major TV network and the AP have called Pennsylvania for Biden, which puts him past the threshold needed to win the election. The result will be finalized Jan. 6 when Congress counts the electoral votes. As of Nov. 10, only Fox News and the AP had called Arizona for Biden, despite what some social media posts say. The major networks and the AP have not called Georgia, where a recount is likely. CNN did not 'uncall' Arizona or Georgia. Even without those two states, Biden would have enough electoral votes to win the election. He is the president-elect. The Instagram post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
The Instagram post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"111018-proof-18-396708145b3ae60fe83f2bfb73391711.jpg"
] |
'Joe Biden is no longer the President-elect according to RealClearPolitics.
|
Contradiction
|
Every major television network and the Associated Press have said Joe Biden is the projected winner of the presidential election. But on social media, some say the race is still too close to call. 'Joe Biden is no longer the President-elect according to RealClearPolitics,' says text in a Nov. 9 Instagram post, which is a screenshot of a tweet from Samantha Marika, a conservative internet personality and conspiracy theorist. On Facebook, some users shared electoral maps to support their claims that Biden has not yet clinched the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. Others said President Donald Trump made up ground in battleground states where Biden was leading, such as Arizona, Georgia and Pennsylvania. (Screenshot from Facebook) 'This just in: Biden loses Pres-Elect Status, as Pennsylvania is now a toss up,' says a Nov. 10 post. 'CNN changes GA and AZ back to too close to call.' The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook, which owns Instagram.) In a Nov. 9 tweet, Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, amplified the claim that Real Clear Politics 'took PA away from Biden and made it a toss up.' So we wanted to take a closer look. The posts are inaccurate - Real Clear Politics never called Pennsylvania for Biden. The political news site still has several battleground states as toss-ups and has not projected a winner. In a Nov. 9 tweet, Tom Bevan, co-founder and president of Real Clear Politics, said Giuliani's claim was false. 'We never called Pennsylvania, and nothing has changed,' he said. Many of the Facebook and Instagram posts we found cite an article from TrendingPolitics.com, a conservative website that has made unsupported claims in the past. The site reported Nov. 9 that Real Clear Politics had 'REMOVED Pennsylvania from Biden's electoral vote total,' but it later updated its story to indicate that's not the case. Every major TV network and the AP have called Pennsylvania for Biden, which puts him past the threshold needed to win the election. The result will be finalized Jan. 6 when Congress counts the electoral votes. As of Nov. 10, only Fox News and the AP had called Arizona for Biden, despite what some social media posts say. The major networks and the AP have not called Georgia, where a recount is likely. CNN did not 'uncall' Arizona or Georgia. Even without those two states, Biden would have enough electoral votes to win the election. He is the president-elect. The Instagram post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
The Instagram post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"111018-proof-18-396708145b3ae60fe83f2bfb73391711.jpg"
] |
Soybeans dropped 70 cents and corn 50 cents per bushel in two days, causing farmers to lose big money, 'thanks to Biden's executive orders.
|
Contradiction
|
During his first 48 hours in office, President Joe Biden signed a record number of executive orders and has continued issuing more, with many aimed at fighting the coronavirus pandemic or reversing orders issued by President Donald Trump. Did any of Biden's initial orders cost farmers a bushel full of cash by causing the price of corn and soybeans to plummet over 48 hours? That's the claim made in a widely shared Facebook post. The post is an image of a Jan. 23 tweet that was shared more than 30,000 times on Twitter and reads: 'Soybean price is down 70 cents per bushel in the last two days. Corn is down 50 cents per bushel in two days. For those who don't know, a small farmer like me working 1,000 acres just lost $100,000 on a 200 bushel per acre average corn crop thanks to Biden's executive orders.' The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There has been a sudden drop in these commodity prices, though arguably less than what the post claims. But experts PolitiFact spoke to said they saw no evidence that any of Biden's orders, which have the force of law, were the cause of the changes, given that prices have been running high. It's not clear which of Biden's early orders the post might be blaming. A Jan. 22 order asks the Department of Agriculture to consider expanding and extending federal nutrition assistance programs. Market was due for correction; other factors in play Looking at changes between Jan. 20 - the date of Biden's inauguration and his first executive orders - to Jan. 23, the date of the tweet - soybean prices dropped 58 or 59 cents and corn prices 19 or 22 cents per bushel, depending on the contract, said Ben Brown, an agricultural and applied economics professor at the University of Missouri. Brown said the abrupt declines were not surprising, because prices have recently exceeded $13 per bushel for soybeans and $5 per bushel for corn, as crop supplies have been tight. 'Corn and soybean markets built strong gains in the markets over the last couple months with no major correction, leaving them vulnerable to last week's action,' he said. 'I find no evidence to suggest that Biden's executive orders caused the dramatic decrease' in prices, Brown said, noting that most of the orders 'were already known and any impact to commodity markets were built in.' Looking at price changes another way - between Jan. 21 and 22, the two days after the first executive orders - the declines were 79 or 84 cents on soybeans, depending on the contract, and 26 to 28 cents on corn, said Aaron Smith, professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of Tennessee. 'Markets are simultaneously digesting data from multiple sources, so attributing declines or increases to one event over a three-day period should be done cautiously,' Smith said. Because corn and soybean prices have been rising since August, driven by strong export sales, global weather concerns and other factors, 'a short-term correction and price consolidation was overdue,' he said. Many factors led to the price declines during Biden's first days in office, Smith said, including beneficial rainfall and weather forecasts in South America; COVID-19 concerns related to new strains of the virus and a slower than expected pace of vaccinations; selling based on profit taking; and the change in the presidential administration.
|
Our ruling A widely shared Facebook post showing a picture of a tweet claimed that soybeans dropped 70 cents and corn 50 cents per bushel in two days, causing farmers to lose big money, 'thanks to Biden's executive orders.' The prices of both commodities did drop significantly, though arguably less than the post claims, during Biden's first days in office. But two experts said they saw no evidence that any of the orders issued by Biden during those first days caused the price drops. The experts said the drops were not surprising, given that prices for both commodities had been running high, and that multiple factors were at play. We rate the post Mostly False.
|
[] |
Soybeans dropped 70 cents and corn 50 cents per bushel in two days, causing farmers to lose big money, 'thanks to Biden's executive orders.
|
Contradiction
|
During his first 48 hours in office, President Joe Biden signed a record number of executive orders and has continued issuing more, with many aimed at fighting the coronavirus pandemic or reversing orders issued by President Donald Trump. Did any of Biden's initial orders cost farmers a bushel full of cash by causing the price of corn and soybeans to plummet over 48 hours? That's the claim made in a widely shared Facebook post. The post is an image of a Jan. 23 tweet that was shared more than 30,000 times on Twitter and reads: 'Soybean price is down 70 cents per bushel in the last two days. Corn is down 50 cents per bushel in two days. For those who don't know, a small farmer like me working 1,000 acres just lost $100,000 on a 200 bushel per acre average corn crop thanks to Biden's executive orders.' The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There has been a sudden drop in these commodity prices, though arguably less than what the post claims. But experts PolitiFact spoke to said they saw no evidence that any of Biden's orders, which have the force of law, were the cause of the changes, given that prices have been running high. It's not clear which of Biden's early orders the post might be blaming. A Jan. 22 order asks the Department of Agriculture to consider expanding and extending federal nutrition assistance programs. Market was due for correction; other factors in play Looking at changes between Jan. 20 - the date of Biden's inauguration and his first executive orders - to Jan. 23, the date of the tweet - soybean prices dropped 58 or 59 cents and corn prices 19 or 22 cents per bushel, depending on the contract, said Ben Brown, an agricultural and applied economics professor at the University of Missouri. Brown said the abrupt declines were not surprising, because prices have recently exceeded $13 per bushel for soybeans and $5 per bushel for corn, as crop supplies have been tight. 'Corn and soybean markets built strong gains in the markets over the last couple months with no major correction, leaving them vulnerable to last week's action,' he said. 'I find no evidence to suggest that Biden's executive orders caused the dramatic decrease' in prices, Brown said, noting that most of the orders 'were already known and any impact to commodity markets were built in.' Looking at price changes another way - between Jan. 21 and 22, the two days after the first executive orders - the declines were 79 or 84 cents on soybeans, depending on the contract, and 26 to 28 cents on corn, said Aaron Smith, professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of Tennessee. 'Markets are simultaneously digesting data from multiple sources, so attributing declines or increases to one event over a three-day period should be done cautiously,' Smith said. Because corn and soybean prices have been rising since August, driven by strong export sales, global weather concerns and other factors, 'a short-term correction and price consolidation was overdue,' he said. Many factors led to the price declines during Biden's first days in office, Smith said, including beneficial rainfall and weather forecasts in South America; COVID-19 concerns related to new strains of the virus and a slower than expected pace of vaccinations; selling based on profit taking; and the change in the presidential administration.
|
Our ruling A widely shared Facebook post showing a picture of a tweet claimed that soybeans dropped 70 cents and corn 50 cents per bushel in two days, causing farmers to lose big money, 'thanks to Biden's executive orders.' The prices of both commodities did drop significantly, though arguably less than the post claims, during Biden's first days in office. But two experts said they saw no evidence that any of the orders issued by Biden during those first days caused the price drops. The experts said the drops were not surprising, given that prices for both commodities had been running high, and that multiple factors were at play. We rate the post Mostly False.
|
[] |
Soybeans dropped 70 cents and corn 50 cents per bushel in two days, causing farmers to lose big money, 'thanks to Biden's executive orders.
|
Contradiction
|
During his first 48 hours in office, President Joe Biden signed a record number of executive orders and has continued issuing more, with many aimed at fighting the coronavirus pandemic or reversing orders issued by President Donald Trump. Did any of Biden's initial orders cost farmers a bushel full of cash by causing the price of corn and soybeans to plummet over 48 hours? That's the claim made in a widely shared Facebook post. The post is an image of a Jan. 23 tweet that was shared more than 30,000 times on Twitter and reads: 'Soybean price is down 70 cents per bushel in the last two days. Corn is down 50 cents per bushel in two days. For those who don't know, a small farmer like me working 1,000 acres just lost $100,000 on a 200 bushel per acre average corn crop thanks to Biden's executive orders.' The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There has been a sudden drop in these commodity prices, though arguably less than what the post claims. But experts PolitiFact spoke to said they saw no evidence that any of Biden's orders, which have the force of law, were the cause of the changes, given that prices have been running high. It's not clear which of Biden's early orders the post might be blaming. A Jan. 22 order asks the Department of Agriculture to consider expanding and extending federal nutrition assistance programs. Market was due for correction; other factors in play Looking at changes between Jan. 20 - the date of Biden's inauguration and his first executive orders - to Jan. 23, the date of the tweet - soybean prices dropped 58 or 59 cents and corn prices 19 or 22 cents per bushel, depending on the contract, said Ben Brown, an agricultural and applied economics professor at the University of Missouri. Brown said the abrupt declines were not surprising, because prices have recently exceeded $13 per bushel for soybeans and $5 per bushel for corn, as crop supplies have been tight. 'Corn and soybean markets built strong gains in the markets over the last couple months with no major correction, leaving them vulnerable to last week's action,' he said. 'I find no evidence to suggest that Biden's executive orders caused the dramatic decrease' in prices, Brown said, noting that most of the orders 'were already known and any impact to commodity markets were built in.' Looking at price changes another way - between Jan. 21 and 22, the two days after the first executive orders - the declines were 79 or 84 cents on soybeans, depending on the contract, and 26 to 28 cents on corn, said Aaron Smith, professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of Tennessee. 'Markets are simultaneously digesting data from multiple sources, so attributing declines or increases to one event over a three-day period should be done cautiously,' Smith said. Because corn and soybean prices have been rising since August, driven by strong export sales, global weather concerns and other factors, 'a short-term correction and price consolidation was overdue,' he said. Many factors led to the price declines during Biden's first days in office, Smith said, including beneficial rainfall and weather forecasts in South America; COVID-19 concerns related to new strains of the virus and a slower than expected pace of vaccinations; selling based on profit taking; and the change in the presidential administration.
|
Our ruling A widely shared Facebook post showing a picture of a tweet claimed that soybeans dropped 70 cents and corn 50 cents per bushel in two days, causing farmers to lose big money, 'thanks to Biden's executive orders.' The prices of both commodities did drop significantly, though arguably less than the post claims, during Biden's first days in office. But two experts said they saw no evidence that any of the orders issued by Biden during those first days caused the price drops. The experts said the drops were not surprising, given that prices for both commodities had been running high, and that multiple factors were at play. We rate the post Mostly False.
|
[] |
''The Simpsons' predicted Tom Hanks getting coronavirus in 2007.
|
Contradiction
|
When an image circulating on social media claimed 'The Simpsons' had predicted the coronavirus, we almost wanted to believe. After all, the animated TV show has famously predicted the future a number of times, including Donald Trump's election. But other purported connections between the show and real life have proved to be far-fetched. An image from one episode that originally said 'apocalypse meow' was altered to read 'corona virus.' So, we rated a viral image showing that as Pants on Fire. Weeks later, the show featuring doughy Homer Simpson and his family was again linked to coronavirus. This time the link involved Tom Hanks, who announced on March 11, 2020, that he and his wife, actress Rita Wilson, tested positive for coronavirus in Australia. An article the next day carried this headline and referenced 'The Simpsons Movie': ''The Simpsons' predicted Tom Hanks getting coronavirus in 2007.' 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 Simpsons Movie' The headline was on Diply, which describes itself as a 'social news and entertainment community that creates cheeky, useful and informative content.' Its article incorrectly stated that 'The Simpsons' had predicted the coronavirus, then made the claim about Hanks. 'The Simpsons Movie,' an adventure-comedy released in 2007, is about an environmental crisis, not a health crisis. 'After Homer deliberately pollutes the town's water supply, Springfield is encased in a gigantic dome by the EPA and the family are declared fugitives,' is how IMDb puts it, referring to the Environmental Protection Agency. The article says Hanks, who voiced himself in the movie, did a cameo where he said: 'This is Tom Hanks, saying, if you see me in person, please, leave me be.' But the article ends by undermining its own headline, asking: 'Does this seem like a stretch to you? Or is it another case of The Simpsons writers being a couple of fortune-tellers?' It's a loooong stretch. In the movie, Hanks said a few lines for a fictional television commercial to advertise a new Grand Canyon, including: 'The U.S. government has lost its credibility, so it's borrowing some of mine.' It's not until the final credits that he uttered: 'This is Tom Hanks, saying, if you see me in person, leave me be.' There's no context in the movie at all about coronavirus.
|
Our ruling A headline says: ''The Simpsons' predicted Tom Hanks getting coronavirus in 2007.' In the closing credits of 'The Simpsons Movie' from that year, Hanks' character says: 'This is Tom Hanks, saying, if you see me in person, leave me be.' There's no reference to any kind of outbreak. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"111029-proof-31-bee9b39fc00b34d7fa232ace79ed55bd.jpg"
] |
''The Simpsons' predicted Tom Hanks getting coronavirus in 2007.
|
Contradiction
|
When an image circulating on social media claimed 'The Simpsons' had predicted the coronavirus, we almost wanted to believe. After all, the animated TV show has famously predicted the future a number of times, including Donald Trump's election. But other purported connections between the show and real life have proved to be far-fetched. An image from one episode that originally said 'apocalypse meow' was altered to read 'corona virus.' So, we rated a viral image showing that as Pants on Fire. Weeks later, the show featuring doughy Homer Simpson and his family was again linked to coronavirus. This time the link involved Tom Hanks, who announced on March 11, 2020, that he and his wife, actress Rita Wilson, tested positive for coronavirus in Australia. An article the next day carried this headline and referenced 'The Simpsons Movie': ''The Simpsons' predicted Tom Hanks getting coronavirus in 2007.' 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 Simpsons Movie' The headline was on Diply, which describes itself as a 'social news and entertainment community that creates cheeky, useful and informative content.' Its article incorrectly stated that 'The Simpsons' had predicted the coronavirus, then made the claim about Hanks. 'The Simpsons Movie,' an adventure-comedy released in 2007, is about an environmental crisis, not a health crisis. 'After Homer deliberately pollutes the town's water supply, Springfield is encased in a gigantic dome by the EPA and the family are declared fugitives,' is how IMDb puts it, referring to the Environmental Protection Agency. The article says Hanks, who voiced himself in the movie, did a cameo where he said: 'This is Tom Hanks, saying, if you see me in person, please, leave me be.' But the article ends by undermining its own headline, asking: 'Does this seem like a stretch to you? Or is it another case of The Simpsons writers being a couple of fortune-tellers?' It's a loooong stretch. In the movie, Hanks said a few lines for a fictional television commercial to advertise a new Grand Canyon, including: 'The U.S. government has lost its credibility, so it's borrowing some of mine.' It's not until the final credits that he uttered: 'This is Tom Hanks, saying, if you see me in person, leave me be.' There's no context in the movie at all about coronavirus.
|
Our ruling A headline says: ''The Simpsons' predicted Tom Hanks getting coronavirus in 2007.' In the closing credits of 'The Simpsons Movie' from that year, Hanks' character says: 'This is Tom Hanks, saying, if you see me in person, leave me be.' There's no reference to any kind of outbreak. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"111029-proof-31-bee9b39fc00b34d7fa232ace79ed55bd.jpg"
] |
'Bill Gates calls for the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines; 'The vaccines are far more dangerous than anyone imagined.
|
Contradiction
|
In 2020, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates emerged as a leading voice in the effort to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Since then, he and the philanthropic foundation he leads have been a frequent target of misinformation about their plans and motives. Fact-checking organizations have repeatedly debunked claims that Gates planned to use microchip implants to combat coronavirus. PolitiFact has also debunked misinformation about Gates and the COVID-19 vaccines, such as the idea that the Gates Foundation advocates for microchips with all medical procedures. Now social media users are circulating a false claim that Gates has changed his mind on the vaccines. 'Shocking! Bill Gates calls for the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines; 'The vaccines are far more dangerous than anyone imagined,'' reads the headline of one blog post. The blog post goes on to say that Gates made a nearly 20-minute televised speech calling for the COVID-19 vaccines 'to be taken off the market immediately.' 'We made a terrible mistake,' the blog post quotes Gates as saying in the purported speech. 'We wanted to protect people against a dangerous virus. But it turns out the virus is much less dangerous than we thought. And the vaccine is far more dangerous than anyone imagined. These vaccines - Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca - they're killing people left and right - and they're injuring some people very badly.' This is false. There is no evidence that Gates said these things or called for COVID-19 vaccines to be withdrawn from the market. The claims can be traced back to a blog post from the site The Daily Expose. Since its initial publication, The Daily Expose's post has been updated to include a prominent editor's note at the top of the page. 'When we first published this article we should have made it clear at the beginning that it was satire rather than at the end,' the note reads. 'We did not do this and we apologise...' The original editor's note included at the end of the blog post also clarifies that the claims were fabricated. 'The above satire is fictional in that Mr. Gates has made no such speech and the Gates Foundation has not established any funds to compensate vaccine victims or to make available effective, inexpensive COVID-19 remedies,' the note says. This is not the first time The Daily Expose has been responsible for spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines. Gates and the Gates Foundation have consistently advocated for COVID-19 vaccines. 'Getting safe vaccines out to the whole world will help bring the pandemic to an end,' the foundation says in an FAQ page on its website, adding: 'Billions of vaccines have been administered globally and there is significant safety data that regulatory bodies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration review to determine that vaccines are safe.'
|
Our ruling A blog post claimed that Gates called for 'the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines' and said 'the vaccines are far more dangerous than anyone imagined.' There is no evidence Gates said these things. The claims can be traced back to an article labeled as satire that contained misinformation and falsehoods. The Gates Foundation advocates for the COVID-19 vaccines. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
'Bill Gates calls for the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines; 'The vaccines are far more dangerous than anyone imagined.
|
Contradiction
|
In 2020, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates emerged as a leading voice in the effort to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Since then, he and the philanthropic foundation he leads have been a frequent target of misinformation about their plans and motives. Fact-checking organizations have repeatedly debunked claims that Gates planned to use microchip implants to combat coronavirus. PolitiFact has also debunked misinformation about Gates and the COVID-19 vaccines, such as the idea that the Gates Foundation advocates for microchips with all medical procedures. Now social media users are circulating a false claim that Gates has changed his mind on the vaccines. 'Shocking! Bill Gates calls for the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines; 'The vaccines are far more dangerous than anyone imagined,'' reads the headline of one blog post. The blog post goes on to say that Gates made a nearly 20-minute televised speech calling for the COVID-19 vaccines 'to be taken off the market immediately.' 'We made a terrible mistake,' the blog post quotes Gates as saying in the purported speech. 'We wanted to protect people against a dangerous virus. But it turns out the virus is much less dangerous than we thought. And the vaccine is far more dangerous than anyone imagined. These vaccines - Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca - they're killing people left and right - and they're injuring some people very badly.' This is false. There is no evidence that Gates said these things or called for COVID-19 vaccines to be withdrawn from the market. The claims can be traced back to a blog post from the site The Daily Expose. Since its initial publication, The Daily Expose's post has been updated to include a prominent editor's note at the top of the page. 'When we first published this article we should have made it clear at the beginning that it was satire rather than at the end,' the note reads. 'We did not do this and we apologise...' The original editor's note included at the end of the blog post also clarifies that the claims were fabricated. 'The above satire is fictional in that Mr. Gates has made no such speech and the Gates Foundation has not established any funds to compensate vaccine victims or to make available effective, inexpensive COVID-19 remedies,' the note says. This is not the first time The Daily Expose has been responsible for spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines. Gates and the Gates Foundation have consistently advocated for COVID-19 vaccines. 'Getting safe vaccines out to the whole world will help bring the pandemic to an end,' the foundation says in an FAQ page on its website, adding: 'Billions of vaccines have been administered globally and there is significant safety data that regulatory bodies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration review to determine that vaccines are safe.'
|
Our ruling A blog post claimed that Gates called for 'the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines' and said 'the vaccines are far more dangerous than anyone imagined.' There is no evidence Gates said these things. The claims can be traced back to an article labeled as satire that contained misinformation and falsehoods. The Gates Foundation advocates for the COVID-19 vaccines. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
'Bill Gates calls for the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines; 'The vaccines are far more dangerous than anyone imagined.
|
Contradiction
|
In 2020, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates emerged as a leading voice in the effort to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Since then, he and the philanthropic foundation he leads have been a frequent target of misinformation about their plans and motives. Fact-checking organizations have repeatedly debunked claims that Gates planned to use microchip implants to combat coronavirus. PolitiFact has also debunked misinformation about Gates and the COVID-19 vaccines, such as the idea that the Gates Foundation advocates for microchips with all medical procedures. Now social media users are circulating a false claim that Gates has changed his mind on the vaccines. 'Shocking! Bill Gates calls for the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines; 'The vaccines are far more dangerous than anyone imagined,'' reads the headline of one blog post. The blog post goes on to say that Gates made a nearly 20-minute televised speech calling for the COVID-19 vaccines 'to be taken off the market immediately.' 'We made a terrible mistake,' the blog post quotes Gates as saying in the purported speech. 'We wanted to protect people against a dangerous virus. But it turns out the virus is much less dangerous than we thought. And the vaccine is far more dangerous than anyone imagined. These vaccines - Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca - they're killing people left and right - and they're injuring some people very badly.' This is false. There is no evidence that Gates said these things or called for COVID-19 vaccines to be withdrawn from the market. The claims can be traced back to a blog post from the site The Daily Expose. Since its initial publication, The Daily Expose's post has been updated to include a prominent editor's note at the top of the page. 'When we first published this article we should have made it clear at the beginning that it was satire rather than at the end,' the note reads. 'We did not do this and we apologise...' The original editor's note included at the end of the blog post also clarifies that the claims were fabricated. 'The above satire is fictional in that Mr. Gates has made no such speech and the Gates Foundation has not established any funds to compensate vaccine victims or to make available effective, inexpensive COVID-19 remedies,' the note says. This is not the first time The Daily Expose has been responsible for spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines. Gates and the Gates Foundation have consistently advocated for COVID-19 vaccines. 'Getting safe vaccines out to the whole world will help bring the pandemic to an end,' the foundation says in an FAQ page on its website, adding: 'Billions of vaccines have been administered globally and there is significant safety data that regulatory bodies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration review to determine that vaccines are safe.'
|
Our ruling A blog post claimed that Gates called for 'the withdrawal of all Covid-19 Vaccines' and said 'the vaccines are far more dangerous than anyone imagined.' There is no evidence Gates said these things. The claims can be traced back to an article labeled as satire that contained misinformation and falsehoods. The Gates Foundation advocates for the COVID-19 vaccines. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spent $30,000 to attend the Met Gala and 'God knows how much on that dress.
|
Contradiction
|
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez drew both praise and heat for wearing a dress that said 'Tax the Rich' to the Met Gala, an event that can cost $35,000 to attend. But some of the criticism aimed at the congresswoman is inaccurate. 'AOC paid $30,000 to go to an event filled with the world's richest celebrities just to wear a dress that says 'Tax the Rich,' one Facebook post said. 'YOU THE RICH.' 'A little further back she was complaining about not affording NYC rent,' another post said. 'But she can drop $30,000 on a #MetGala and God knows how much on that dress.' These posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) According to the New York Times, designers and corporate sponsors generally pay Met Gala admission - $35,000 a ticket or $200,000 to $300,000 a table - for the gala's guests. 'Many New York City elected officials are invited as well, as 'guests of the museum' who do not pay,' the Times said. In a Sept. 13 Instagram post showing her posing in her dress, Ocasio-Cortez, said in part: 'BEFORE anybody starts wilding out - NYC elected officials are regularly invited to and attend the Met due to our responsibilities in overseeing our city's cultural institutions that serve the public. I was one of several in attendance. Dress is borrowed via @brothervellies.' The Met Gala benefits the Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Lauren Hitt, a spokesperson for Ocasio-Cortez, told PolitiFact that the congresswoman didn't buy her ticket to the gala. 'She was invited as a guest of the Met,' Hitt said. 'She also did not get to keep the dress.' A spokesperson for the Met confirmed that Ocasio-Cortez was a guest of the museum. We rate claims that she paid for her ticket and dress False.
|
We rate claims that she paid for her ticket and dress False.
|
[] |
Says Jill Schupp has shown a 'disturbing pattern of putting sex offenders over our safety.
|
Contradiction
|
In a U.S. House race that's considered a tossup, Missouri Republican Rep. Ann Wagner pummeled her challenger, Democratic state Sen. Jill Schupp, by alleging Schupp has voted repeatedly to support sex offenders. Wagner makes four specific claims about Schupp in a one-minute attack ad that began airing Aug. 16: That she 'voted no' on a constitutional amendment to strengthen laws against child sex abuse. That she supported legislation that would have let sex offenders 'live near schools and roam freely on our kids' playgrounds.'' That she voted to let sex offenders 'coach youth sports.' That she 'opposed efforts to deport convicted illegal immigrant sex offenders.' The votes, the ad concludes, amount to a 'disturbing pattern of putting sex offenders over our safety.' The Nov. 3 election between the St. Louis-area lawmakers is rated as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report. In a news release responding to the ad, Schupp said that she has 'worked hard to keep sexual predators behind bars' and that Wagner's attacks 'distort my record and attempt to mislead the voters.' In claiming that Schupp has shown a 'disturbing pattern of putting sex offenders over our safety,' the ad focuses on four votes, but ignores other legislative actions Schupp has taken against sex offenders. We'll start with Wagner's four claims from the ad, then look at four other legislative actions taken by Schupp. Wagner's four claims 1. Constitutional amendment Voiceover: 'When a serial sex offender got away with raping a child, a bipartisan constitutional amendment was introduced to bring child sex offenders to justice. Missouri voters overwhelmingly passed the amendment. But Jill Schupp turned her back on victims and voted no.' Amendment 2, approved by voters in 2014 by a margin of 72% to 28%, allows 'relevant evidence of prior criminal acts, whether charged or uncharged, to be admissible,' subject to court approval, in prosecution of sex crimes involving a victim under age 18, 'for the purpose of corroborating the victim's testimony or demonstrating the defendant's propensity to commit' the alleged crime. Schupp, then a state representative, was among 23 Missouri House Democrats and three Republicans who voted no on putting the amendment on the ballot. At the time, opponents argued that allowing evidence from cases where someone was not charged or convicted presumes suspects are guilty, and that the amendment did not limit the admissible testimony to cases of similar acts. 2. Bill affecting sex offender registry Voiceover: 'Schupp supported legislation that would have given hundreds of sex offenders a clean slate, letting them live near schools and roam freely on our kids' playgrounds.' Text on the screen quoted then-Gov. Jay Nixon as saying that if the bill became law, as many as 870 sex offenders 'could be removed from the registry.' The reference is to a 2013 bill, HB 301, which would have provided for anyone who was under 18 when convicted to be removed from the state's sex offender registry. Offenders would have had to wait for five years until petitioning for removal, but courts would have been required to grant the petition. Offenders on the registry face restrictions on where they can live and how far they must be from places such as playgrounds. Schupp voted for the bill, which would have applied to an estimated 870 sex offenders; it passed the GOP-controlled House unanimously and passed the Senate 28-4. Supporters said the bill gave a second chance to offenders unlikely to reoffend, noting that they would still have been listed on the registry for law enforcement access and anyone from the public who requested the information. Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed it, saying it did not distinguish between relatively minor offenders and those who used force or violence in their crimes. 3. Coaching youth sports The voiceover says Schupp voted to allow hundreds of sex offenders 'to coach youth sports.' Text on the screen says: 'Schupp voted in favor of an amendment striking some language restricting sex offenders.' Schupp voted for an amendment to a 2009 bill. Wagner's campaign said the amendment would have exempted sex offenders who were prosecuted and convicted in a foreign country from restrictions on coaching youth sports teams. The amendment struck some language restricting sex offenders from a bill that made several changes to the state criminal code, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Schupp argued that the amendment went beyond the legal scope of the underlying bill, the Missouri Times reported at the time. The bill went through several changes as lawmakers debated the legal scope of the provisions, and Schupp was among 124 House members who eventually voted for the final version, the newspaper reported. 4. 'Illegal immigrant' offenders The ad claims Schupp 'opposed efforts to deport convicted illegal immigrant sex offenders.' HB 731, a 2011 bill, would have required Missouri to add citizenship status to the sex offender registry and report names of those in the country illegally to federal officials for possible deportation. It passed the House, 130-23. The campaign claimed Schupp's no vote would have made it more difficult to deport sex offenders who were in the country illegally after they finished serving their prison sentences. Opponents argued the bill was redundant, citing local law enforcement policies already in place, the Missouri Digital News reported at the time. Schupp's other legislative actions Schupp's campaign cited numerous other legislative actions she took regarding sex offenders, including these four: Schupp sponsored a bill, enacted in July, that requires Missouri hospitals to provide rape kits to sexual assault victims beginning in 2023. The kits allow health workers to collect evidence that can be used to find and prosecute the rapist. In 2012, Schupp co-sponsored HB 1470, which would have expanded the list of mandatory reporters - people in positions who are required by law to report suspected cases of child abuse or neglect. The bill did not come up for a vote in the GOP-controlled state House. In 2011, Schupp co-sponsored HB 433, which would have made it a more serious felony to engage in human trafficking, including for purposes of sexual exploitation. The bill did not come up for a vote. In 2009, Schupp co-sponsored HB 936, which would have removed the statute of limitations for sexual offenses for which DNA evidence of the perpetrator had been collected; and would have strengthened other measures regarding rape, including cases of statutory rape when the offender was at least three years older than a victim under age 17. The bill did not come up for a vote.
|
Our ruling Citing four votes taken by Schupp, a Wagner ad claims Schupp has shown a 'disturbing pattern of putting sex offenders over our safety.' The text of Wagner's ad focuses on four votes, including Schupp's opposition to putting on the ballot a constitutional amendment that allows prior conduct to be used as evidence in cases against some sex offenders. But in claiming a pattern, the ad cherry picks votes, ignoring a number of other legislative actions Schupp took to try to to strengthen laws against sex offenders. In all, Wagner's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That's our definition of Mostly False.
|
[] |
Says Jill Schupp has shown a 'disturbing pattern of putting sex offenders over our safety.
|
Contradiction
|
In a U.S. House race that's considered a tossup, Missouri Republican Rep. Ann Wagner pummeled her challenger, Democratic state Sen. Jill Schupp, by alleging Schupp has voted repeatedly to support sex offenders. Wagner makes four specific claims about Schupp in a one-minute attack ad that began airing Aug. 16: That she 'voted no' on a constitutional amendment to strengthen laws against child sex abuse. That she supported legislation that would have let sex offenders 'live near schools and roam freely on our kids' playgrounds.'' That she voted to let sex offenders 'coach youth sports.' That she 'opposed efforts to deport convicted illegal immigrant sex offenders.' The votes, the ad concludes, amount to a 'disturbing pattern of putting sex offenders over our safety.' The Nov. 3 election between the St. Louis-area lawmakers is rated as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report. In a news release responding to the ad, Schupp said that she has 'worked hard to keep sexual predators behind bars' and that Wagner's attacks 'distort my record and attempt to mislead the voters.' In claiming that Schupp has shown a 'disturbing pattern of putting sex offenders over our safety,' the ad focuses on four votes, but ignores other legislative actions Schupp has taken against sex offenders. We'll start with Wagner's four claims from the ad, then look at four other legislative actions taken by Schupp. Wagner's four claims 1. Constitutional amendment Voiceover: 'When a serial sex offender got away with raping a child, a bipartisan constitutional amendment was introduced to bring child sex offenders to justice. Missouri voters overwhelmingly passed the amendment. But Jill Schupp turned her back on victims and voted no.' Amendment 2, approved by voters in 2014 by a margin of 72% to 28%, allows 'relevant evidence of prior criminal acts, whether charged or uncharged, to be admissible,' subject to court approval, in prosecution of sex crimes involving a victim under age 18, 'for the purpose of corroborating the victim's testimony or demonstrating the defendant's propensity to commit' the alleged crime. Schupp, then a state representative, was among 23 Missouri House Democrats and three Republicans who voted no on putting the amendment on the ballot. At the time, opponents argued that allowing evidence from cases where someone was not charged or convicted presumes suspects are guilty, and that the amendment did not limit the admissible testimony to cases of similar acts. 2. Bill affecting sex offender registry Voiceover: 'Schupp supported legislation that would have given hundreds of sex offenders a clean slate, letting them live near schools and roam freely on our kids' playgrounds.' Text on the screen quoted then-Gov. Jay Nixon as saying that if the bill became law, as many as 870 sex offenders 'could be removed from the registry.' The reference is to a 2013 bill, HB 301, which would have provided for anyone who was under 18 when convicted to be removed from the state's sex offender registry. Offenders would have had to wait for five years until petitioning for removal, but courts would have been required to grant the petition. Offenders on the registry face restrictions on where they can live and how far they must be from places such as playgrounds. Schupp voted for the bill, which would have applied to an estimated 870 sex offenders; it passed the GOP-controlled House unanimously and passed the Senate 28-4. Supporters said the bill gave a second chance to offenders unlikely to reoffend, noting that they would still have been listed on the registry for law enforcement access and anyone from the public who requested the information. Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed it, saying it did not distinguish between relatively minor offenders and those who used force or violence in their crimes. 3. Coaching youth sports The voiceover says Schupp voted to allow hundreds of sex offenders 'to coach youth sports.' Text on the screen says: 'Schupp voted in favor of an amendment striking some language restricting sex offenders.' Schupp voted for an amendment to a 2009 bill. Wagner's campaign said the amendment would have exempted sex offenders who were prosecuted and convicted in a foreign country from restrictions on coaching youth sports teams. The amendment struck some language restricting sex offenders from a bill that made several changes to the state criminal code, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Schupp argued that the amendment went beyond the legal scope of the underlying bill, the Missouri Times reported at the time. The bill went through several changes as lawmakers debated the legal scope of the provisions, and Schupp was among 124 House members who eventually voted for the final version, the newspaper reported. 4. 'Illegal immigrant' offenders The ad claims Schupp 'opposed efforts to deport convicted illegal immigrant sex offenders.' HB 731, a 2011 bill, would have required Missouri to add citizenship status to the sex offender registry and report names of those in the country illegally to federal officials for possible deportation. It passed the House, 130-23. The campaign claimed Schupp's no vote would have made it more difficult to deport sex offenders who were in the country illegally after they finished serving their prison sentences. Opponents argued the bill was redundant, citing local law enforcement policies already in place, the Missouri Digital News reported at the time. Schupp's other legislative actions Schupp's campaign cited numerous other legislative actions she took regarding sex offenders, including these four: Schupp sponsored a bill, enacted in July, that requires Missouri hospitals to provide rape kits to sexual assault victims beginning in 2023. The kits allow health workers to collect evidence that can be used to find and prosecute the rapist. In 2012, Schupp co-sponsored HB 1470, which would have expanded the list of mandatory reporters - people in positions who are required by law to report suspected cases of child abuse or neglect. The bill did not come up for a vote in the GOP-controlled state House. In 2011, Schupp co-sponsored HB 433, which would have made it a more serious felony to engage in human trafficking, including for purposes of sexual exploitation. The bill did not come up for a vote. In 2009, Schupp co-sponsored HB 936, which would have removed the statute of limitations for sexual offenses for which DNA evidence of the perpetrator had been collected; and would have strengthened other measures regarding rape, including cases of statutory rape when the offender was at least three years older than a victim under age 17. The bill did not come up for a vote.
|
Our ruling Citing four votes taken by Schupp, a Wagner ad claims Schupp has shown a 'disturbing pattern of putting sex offenders over our safety.' The text of Wagner's ad focuses on four votes, including Schupp's opposition to putting on the ballot a constitutional amendment that allows prior conduct to be used as evidence in cases against some sex offenders. But in claiming a pattern, the ad cherry picks votes, ignoring a number of other legislative actions Schupp took to try to to strengthen laws against sex offenders. In all, Wagner's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That's our definition of Mostly False.
|
[] |
Says Jill Schupp has shown a 'disturbing pattern of putting sex offenders over our safety.
|
Contradiction
|
In a U.S. House race that's considered a tossup, Missouri Republican Rep. Ann Wagner pummeled her challenger, Democratic state Sen. Jill Schupp, by alleging Schupp has voted repeatedly to support sex offenders. Wagner makes four specific claims about Schupp in a one-minute attack ad that began airing Aug. 16: That she 'voted no' on a constitutional amendment to strengthen laws against child sex abuse. That she supported legislation that would have let sex offenders 'live near schools and roam freely on our kids' playgrounds.'' That she voted to let sex offenders 'coach youth sports.' That she 'opposed efforts to deport convicted illegal immigrant sex offenders.' The votes, the ad concludes, amount to a 'disturbing pattern of putting sex offenders over our safety.' The Nov. 3 election between the St. Louis-area lawmakers is rated as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report. In a news release responding to the ad, Schupp said that she has 'worked hard to keep sexual predators behind bars' and that Wagner's attacks 'distort my record and attempt to mislead the voters.' In claiming that Schupp has shown a 'disturbing pattern of putting sex offenders over our safety,' the ad focuses on four votes, but ignores other legislative actions Schupp has taken against sex offenders. We'll start with Wagner's four claims from the ad, then look at four other legislative actions taken by Schupp. Wagner's four claims 1. Constitutional amendment Voiceover: 'When a serial sex offender got away with raping a child, a bipartisan constitutional amendment was introduced to bring child sex offenders to justice. Missouri voters overwhelmingly passed the amendment. But Jill Schupp turned her back on victims and voted no.' Amendment 2, approved by voters in 2014 by a margin of 72% to 28%, allows 'relevant evidence of prior criminal acts, whether charged or uncharged, to be admissible,' subject to court approval, in prosecution of sex crimes involving a victim under age 18, 'for the purpose of corroborating the victim's testimony or demonstrating the defendant's propensity to commit' the alleged crime. Schupp, then a state representative, was among 23 Missouri House Democrats and three Republicans who voted no on putting the amendment on the ballot. At the time, opponents argued that allowing evidence from cases where someone was not charged or convicted presumes suspects are guilty, and that the amendment did not limit the admissible testimony to cases of similar acts. 2. Bill affecting sex offender registry Voiceover: 'Schupp supported legislation that would have given hundreds of sex offenders a clean slate, letting them live near schools and roam freely on our kids' playgrounds.' Text on the screen quoted then-Gov. Jay Nixon as saying that if the bill became law, as many as 870 sex offenders 'could be removed from the registry.' The reference is to a 2013 bill, HB 301, which would have provided for anyone who was under 18 when convicted to be removed from the state's sex offender registry. Offenders would have had to wait for five years until petitioning for removal, but courts would have been required to grant the petition. Offenders on the registry face restrictions on where they can live and how far they must be from places such as playgrounds. Schupp voted for the bill, which would have applied to an estimated 870 sex offenders; it passed the GOP-controlled House unanimously and passed the Senate 28-4. Supporters said the bill gave a second chance to offenders unlikely to reoffend, noting that they would still have been listed on the registry for law enforcement access and anyone from the public who requested the information. Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed it, saying it did not distinguish between relatively minor offenders and those who used force or violence in their crimes. 3. Coaching youth sports The voiceover says Schupp voted to allow hundreds of sex offenders 'to coach youth sports.' Text on the screen says: 'Schupp voted in favor of an amendment striking some language restricting sex offenders.' Schupp voted for an amendment to a 2009 bill. Wagner's campaign said the amendment would have exempted sex offenders who were prosecuted and convicted in a foreign country from restrictions on coaching youth sports teams. The amendment struck some language restricting sex offenders from a bill that made several changes to the state criminal code, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Schupp argued that the amendment went beyond the legal scope of the underlying bill, the Missouri Times reported at the time. The bill went through several changes as lawmakers debated the legal scope of the provisions, and Schupp was among 124 House members who eventually voted for the final version, the newspaper reported. 4. 'Illegal immigrant' offenders The ad claims Schupp 'opposed efforts to deport convicted illegal immigrant sex offenders.' HB 731, a 2011 bill, would have required Missouri to add citizenship status to the sex offender registry and report names of those in the country illegally to federal officials for possible deportation. It passed the House, 130-23. The campaign claimed Schupp's no vote would have made it more difficult to deport sex offenders who were in the country illegally after they finished serving their prison sentences. Opponents argued the bill was redundant, citing local law enforcement policies already in place, the Missouri Digital News reported at the time. Schupp's other legislative actions Schupp's campaign cited numerous other legislative actions she took regarding sex offenders, including these four: Schupp sponsored a bill, enacted in July, that requires Missouri hospitals to provide rape kits to sexual assault victims beginning in 2023. The kits allow health workers to collect evidence that can be used to find and prosecute the rapist. In 2012, Schupp co-sponsored HB 1470, which would have expanded the list of mandatory reporters - people in positions who are required by law to report suspected cases of child abuse or neglect. The bill did not come up for a vote in the GOP-controlled state House. In 2011, Schupp co-sponsored HB 433, which would have made it a more serious felony to engage in human trafficking, including for purposes of sexual exploitation. The bill did not come up for a vote. In 2009, Schupp co-sponsored HB 936, which would have removed the statute of limitations for sexual offenses for which DNA evidence of the perpetrator had been collected; and would have strengthened other measures regarding rape, including cases of statutory rape when the offender was at least three years older than a victim under age 17. The bill did not come up for a vote.
|
Our ruling Citing four votes taken by Schupp, a Wagner ad claims Schupp has shown a 'disturbing pattern of putting sex offenders over our safety.' The text of Wagner's ad focuses on four votes, including Schupp's opposition to putting on the ballot a constitutional amendment that allows prior conduct to be used as evidence in cases against some sex offenders. But in claiming a pattern, the ad cherry picks votes, ignoring a number of other legislative actions Schupp took to try to to strengthen laws against sex offenders. In all, Wagner's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That's our definition of Mostly False.
|
[] |
President Joe Biden threatened to 'swoop down with Special Forces folks and gather up every gun in America.
|
Contradiction
|
Less than six months after the December 2012 elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., left 28 people dead, then-Vice President Joe Biden stood before reporters to talk about proposed gun control legislation. Though Biden was describing what he called a campaign of disinformation by the National Rifle Association, social media users have since stripped his comments of context to make it seem like he is threatening to have the government seize people's guns. A viral Facebook post shows a 26-second clip of Biden saying, 'No way that Uncle Sam can go find out whether you own a gun because we're about to really take away all your rights and you're not going to be able to defend yourself and we're going to swoop down with Special Forces folks and gather up every gun in America.' The video has a text overlay that suggests the statement was spoken as a threat: 'This is how I see this going if u try,' it reads before cutting to a drill sergeant yelling in a clip from the movie 'Full Metal Jacket.' 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.) Biden did make that remark in April 2013, but the post does not include his comments before or after that statement, which make it clear he was describing what he believed to be misinformation about the gun control legislation, not proposed actions by the government. About five minutes before the comment featured in the Facebook post, at the 27:15 mark in Biden's full speech, Biden began explaining that the National Rifle Association was engaging in a campaign of disinformation, and he talked extensively about the false ideas the organization was spreading about proposed background checks for purchasing guns. At the time of his speech, the Manchin-Toomey gun proposal was under consideration by Congress and would have mandated criminal background checks on all sales between private parties with limited exceptions. The proposal was later defeated. Biden said the NRA was falsely claiming that the federal government wanted to create a federal registry of people who've purchased guns. Mocking the detractors, he says, 'Black helicopter crowd really is upset.' His comment about Special Forces came at the 32:04 mark in his full speech. Until then, he had been describing and debunking claims about the proposed gun control legislation. Then he said: 'No central registry for anything. No way that Uncle Sam can go find out whether you own a gun because we're about to really take away all your rights and you're not going to be able to defend yourself and we're going to swoop down with Special Forces folks and gather up every gun in America. It's bizarre. But that's what's being sold out there.' A conservative news outlet noted at the time that Biden was speaking mockingly.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims that President Joe Biden threatened to 'swoop down with Special Forces folks and gather up every gun in America.' The claim shows a seconds-long clip from a much longer speech that Biden delivered, when he described and debunked claims about proposed gun control legislation. His remark about the government gathering guns was intended to show what kind of misinformation was being spread. The entirety of his speech includes the context that makes that clear. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111089-proof-20-c34b523dd8d85ef7bcdd78aa00671a11.jpeg"
] |
President Joe Biden threatened to 'swoop down with Special Forces folks and gather up every gun in America.
|
Contradiction
|
Less than six months after the December 2012 elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., left 28 people dead, then-Vice President Joe Biden stood before reporters to talk about proposed gun control legislation. Though Biden was describing what he called a campaign of disinformation by the National Rifle Association, social media users have since stripped his comments of context to make it seem like he is threatening to have the government seize people's guns. A viral Facebook post shows a 26-second clip of Biden saying, 'No way that Uncle Sam can go find out whether you own a gun because we're about to really take away all your rights and you're not going to be able to defend yourself and we're going to swoop down with Special Forces folks and gather up every gun in America.' The video has a text overlay that suggests the statement was spoken as a threat: 'This is how I see this going if u try,' it reads before cutting to a drill sergeant yelling in a clip from the movie 'Full Metal Jacket.' 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.) Biden did make that remark in April 2013, but the post does not include his comments before or after that statement, which make it clear he was describing what he believed to be misinformation about the gun control legislation, not proposed actions by the government. About five minutes before the comment featured in the Facebook post, at the 27:15 mark in Biden's full speech, Biden began explaining that the National Rifle Association was engaging in a campaign of disinformation, and he talked extensively about the false ideas the organization was spreading about proposed background checks for purchasing guns. At the time of his speech, the Manchin-Toomey gun proposal was under consideration by Congress and would have mandated criminal background checks on all sales between private parties with limited exceptions. The proposal was later defeated. Biden said the NRA was falsely claiming that the federal government wanted to create a federal registry of people who've purchased guns. Mocking the detractors, he says, 'Black helicopter crowd really is upset.' His comment about Special Forces came at the 32:04 mark in his full speech. Until then, he had been describing and debunking claims about the proposed gun control legislation. Then he said: 'No central registry for anything. No way that Uncle Sam can go find out whether you own a gun because we're about to really take away all your rights and you're not going to be able to defend yourself and we're going to swoop down with Special Forces folks and gather up every gun in America. It's bizarre. But that's what's being sold out there.' A conservative news outlet noted at the time that Biden was speaking mockingly.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims that President Joe Biden threatened to 'swoop down with Special Forces folks and gather up every gun in America.' The claim shows a seconds-long clip from a much longer speech that Biden delivered, when he described and debunked claims about proposed gun control legislation. His remark about the government gathering guns was intended to show what kind of misinformation was being spread. The entirety of his speech includes the context that makes that clear. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111089-proof-20-c34b523dd8d85ef7bcdd78aa00671a11.jpeg"
] |
Dr. Anthony Fauci and U.S. health officials plotted 'for a new avian flu virus to enforce universal flu vaccination.
|
Contradiction
|
Social media users are sharing a claim that - in a C-SPAN video of a public presentation - Dr. Anthony Fauci and other federal Health and Human Services Department officials plotted for a new flu virus. The conservative Gateway Pundit website made the claim with this headline: 'EXPLOSIVE VIDEO Emerges of Fauci and HHS Officials Plotting for 'A New Avian Flu Virus' to Enforce Universal Flu Vaccination.' 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.) The claim is a gross misrepresentation of what the officials were talking about. Similar claims were made by the conservative One America News network in reporting on the video, and by social media users who shared clips of the video on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Gateway Pundit's article cited an Oct. 4 'emergency broadcast' by Alex Jones' InfoWars, a website known to air false news and conspiracy theories, which in turn cited the video. The hourlong C-SPAN video, entitled 'Universal Flu Vaccine,' is from an Oct. 29, 2019, panel discussion that included Fauci, a top HHS official who is also President Joe Biden's chief medical adviser; and Dr. Rick Bright, an immunologist and vaccine researcher who was then a top HHS official. Among the topics they discussed was the quest for a 'universal flu vaccine.' The phrase 'enforcing universal flu vaccination' in the Gateway Pundit headline gives the false impression that the goal of pursuing a universal flu vaccine is forced vaccination of all Americans. But that's not what 'universal' means in this case. As the panelists explained, ongoing research toward a universal flu vaccine is aimed at creating a vaccine with long-lasting protection against multiple flu strains that would eliminate the need for annual flu shots. As the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the federal agency Fauci heads, puts it: 'A key focus of NIAID's influenza research program is developing a universal flu vaccine, or a vaccine that provides robust, long-lasting protection against multiple subtypes of flu, rather than a select few. Such a vaccine would eliminate the need to update and administer the seasonal flu vaccine each year and could provide protection against newly emerging flu strains, potentially including those that could cause a flu pandemic.' Fauci said during the session that viruses are 'a continual moving target, from season to season,' unlike polio, smallpox and measles viruses. He described a prospective universal flu vaccine as 'a vaccine that induces a response in the body to that part of the influenza that doesn't change from season to season, from decade to decade or even that much when you get a pandemic.' RELATED VIDEO The panel discussion was not a plot for a new flu virus that could pave the way for forced vaccinations. The headline also misrepresents the officials' references to avian flu, a disease that infects birds but can pose a risk to humans. Avian flu was mentioned once, in the context of possible future advances in how vaccines are developed and delivered. 'It is not too crazy to think that an outbreak of a novel avian virus could occur in China somewhere, we could get the RNA sequence from that, beam it to a number of regional centers,' Bright said, adding: 'The technology is there to be adapted and assembled to put into that futuristic view of a rapid response to an emerging novel threat.'
|
Our ruling A headline widely shared on social media claimed that Fauci and U.S. health officials plotted 'for a new avian flu virus to enforce universal flu vaccination.' The claim broadly misrepresents what they were talking about. The video shows they didn't discuss any such plot. Fauci's reference to a universal vaccine meant one that could provide long-lasting protection from multiple flu strains and eliminate the need for annual flu shots. The claim is false and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
[
"111095-proof-23-b5c211111fcc0e514fb909ec7ad3611d.jpg"
] |
Dr. Anthony Fauci and U.S. health officials plotted 'for a new avian flu virus to enforce universal flu vaccination.
|
Contradiction
|
Social media users are sharing a claim that - in a C-SPAN video of a public presentation - Dr. Anthony Fauci and other federal Health and Human Services Department officials plotted for a new flu virus. The conservative Gateway Pundit website made the claim with this headline: 'EXPLOSIVE VIDEO Emerges of Fauci and HHS Officials Plotting for 'A New Avian Flu Virus' to Enforce Universal Flu Vaccination.' 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.) The claim is a gross misrepresentation of what the officials were talking about. Similar claims were made by the conservative One America News network in reporting on the video, and by social media users who shared clips of the video on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Gateway Pundit's article cited an Oct. 4 'emergency broadcast' by Alex Jones' InfoWars, a website known to air false news and conspiracy theories, which in turn cited the video. The hourlong C-SPAN video, entitled 'Universal Flu Vaccine,' is from an Oct. 29, 2019, panel discussion that included Fauci, a top HHS official who is also President Joe Biden's chief medical adviser; and Dr. Rick Bright, an immunologist and vaccine researcher who was then a top HHS official. Among the topics they discussed was the quest for a 'universal flu vaccine.' The phrase 'enforcing universal flu vaccination' in the Gateway Pundit headline gives the false impression that the goal of pursuing a universal flu vaccine is forced vaccination of all Americans. But that's not what 'universal' means in this case. As the panelists explained, ongoing research toward a universal flu vaccine is aimed at creating a vaccine with long-lasting protection against multiple flu strains that would eliminate the need for annual flu shots. As the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the federal agency Fauci heads, puts it: 'A key focus of NIAID's influenza research program is developing a universal flu vaccine, or a vaccine that provides robust, long-lasting protection against multiple subtypes of flu, rather than a select few. Such a vaccine would eliminate the need to update and administer the seasonal flu vaccine each year and could provide protection against newly emerging flu strains, potentially including those that could cause a flu pandemic.' Fauci said during the session that viruses are 'a continual moving target, from season to season,' unlike polio, smallpox and measles viruses. He described a prospective universal flu vaccine as 'a vaccine that induces a response in the body to that part of the influenza that doesn't change from season to season, from decade to decade or even that much when you get a pandemic.' RELATED VIDEO The panel discussion was not a plot for a new flu virus that could pave the way for forced vaccinations. The headline also misrepresents the officials' references to avian flu, a disease that infects birds but can pose a risk to humans. Avian flu was mentioned once, in the context of possible future advances in how vaccines are developed and delivered. 'It is not too crazy to think that an outbreak of a novel avian virus could occur in China somewhere, we could get the RNA sequence from that, beam it to a number of regional centers,' Bright said, adding: 'The technology is there to be adapted and assembled to put into that futuristic view of a rapid response to an emerging novel threat.'
|
Our ruling A headline widely shared on social media claimed that Fauci and U.S. health officials plotted 'for a new avian flu virus to enforce universal flu vaccination.' The claim broadly misrepresents what they were talking about. The video shows they didn't discuss any such plot. Fauci's reference to a universal vaccine meant one that could provide long-lasting protection from multiple flu strains and eliminate the need for annual flu shots. The claim is false and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
[
"111095-proof-23-b5c211111fcc0e514fb909ec7ad3611d.jpg"
] |
Says as a state lawmaker a bill he sponsored would have made 'it easier to get rid of bad cops'
|
Contradiction
|
Calls for police reform have taken center stage in the global protests against police brutality and systemic racism following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police. A number of cities across the country, including Milwaukee, are talking about reducing funding for police departments and putting the money toward social service programs. Others have talked about dismantling police departments and essentially starting over. On June 25, 2020, the House of Representatives passed a sweeping police reform bill that would, among other things, eliminate legal protections shielding police officers from lawsuits and make it easier to prosecute them for illegal actions. U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Glenbeulah, decried the bill in an impassioned speech on the House floor before the vote, saying changes to qualified immunity would result in a 'timid' police force. He also referenced a bill he tried to pass in the Wisconsin state Senate that he said would have made it 'easier to get rid of an underperforming police officer.' It wasn't the first time he mentioned that bill. In a June 16, 2020 tweet, the third-term congressman indicated he was ahead of the push to reform policing practices. 'As a state legislator, I sponsored legislation to make it easier to get rid of bad cops,' Grothman tweeted. 'But Democrats' proposed police reforms are a disaster. Instead of focusing on punishing bad actors, they want to penalize the good cops.' Is Grothman right about the legislation he sponsored? Would it have made it 'easier to get rid of bad cops'? The claim When asked for back up, Grothman pointed to a bill he introduced in the state Senate on February 15, 2008. Under the bill, which did not pass, a police officer or firefighter charged with a misdemeanor or felony could have been suspended without pay 'pending the disposition of charges.' Since then, the landscape has changed and similar reforms have been implemented. But we need to focus on where things stood at the time, and how Grothman's bill would have changed things. The landscape at the time When Grothman introduced his bill, Wisconsin police officers fired or suspended because they were charged with crimes continued to be paid until their cases were concluded. The bill would have eliminated that provision and discouraged what Grothman described as officers being paid 'to hang out and drag out the process.' In an interview with PolitiFact Wisconsin, Curt Witynski of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, who worked with Grothman on the bill, noted that the process for removing a police officer 'takes a long time.' He echoed Grothman's view that stopping officers from getting paid while they faced charges would have motivated them to get through the process. 'There would be a desire for there to be a quick ending to the process,' Witynski said of the bill, adding: 'It is legitimate to say that this would have made it easier for municipalities to get rid of bad cops faster.' But faster does not necessarily mean easier, which was how Grothman framed his claim. The proposed bill would not have made any changes to the process of removing an officer, such as reducing the number of steps or setting a specific timetable for appeals to be heard. Nor would it have reduced the legal standard for determining what is necessary to get rid of a problematic officer. Additionally, it focused on officers facing legal charges - the misdemeanors and felonies. It did not cover officers who may have broken department rules, or did something questionable but were not charged. And it wouldn't have prevented officers facing inquiries from quitting and moving on to a different policing job with a seemingly-clean record. A provision in the bill said police chiefs in cities smaller than Milwaukee could suspend a subordinate if the local police and fire commission failed to act after 181 days of the chief's written move for the dismissal of an officer. But an analysis from the Legislative Reference Bureau at the time found a chief had always had the ability to suspend a subordinate officer. This provision would have just sped up the suspension process. It would not give police chiefs any additional authority. The changes since As noted before, similar provisions have been passed in Wisconsin since Grothman's bill failed to get enacted. Wisconsin law was changed later that year to immediately stop paying officers who were fired if they were charged with crimes. Lawmakers went further in 2009, ending pay for all Milwaukee officers as soon as they were fired, regardless of the reason for their dismissal, according to a June 24, 2011 article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. An effort in 2011 by Republican state lawmakers to revert the rules back to the 2008 standard was vetoed by then-Gov. Scott Walker. The current process for removing a Milwaukee police officer has a number of steps. When an officer is accused of misconduct, the department places the officer on paid administrative suspension or limited duty during the investigation. If the police chief hands down a disciplinary suspension, the officer is not paid. A suspended Milwaukee officer can appeal a disciplinary suspension to the city Fire and Police Commission. A panel of commissioners then hears the appeal and determines if a rule was violated. If the panel determines a rule was broken, the commission then decides whether the discipline imposed was appropriate. After the commission makes its decision, an officer can appeal that decision to Milwaukee County Circuit Court, where a judge will make a ruling. An officer can then further appeal to the state Court of Appeals. Milwaukee police can only appeal suspensions of more than five days, and officers don't get paid during appeals.
|
Our ruling Grothman said he sponsored legislation to make it easier to get rid of bad cops when he was a state legislator. His 2008 bill would have - at the time - removed the financial incentive for a charged officer to delay investigations and trial. But the bill did not change the multi-step process of removing an officer, which can be slow and cumbersome. Nor would it have limited appeals or reduced the threshold for what behavior warrants firing. Our definition of Mostly False is 'the statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.' That fits here.
|
[
"111096-proof-04-d2865fe074c68e1374c89d2cdf19ab88.jpg"
] |
Says as a state lawmaker a bill he sponsored would have made 'it easier to get rid of bad cops'
|
Contradiction
|
Calls for police reform have taken center stage in the global protests against police brutality and systemic racism following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police. A number of cities across the country, including Milwaukee, are talking about reducing funding for police departments and putting the money toward social service programs. Others have talked about dismantling police departments and essentially starting over. On June 25, 2020, the House of Representatives passed a sweeping police reform bill that would, among other things, eliminate legal protections shielding police officers from lawsuits and make it easier to prosecute them for illegal actions. U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Glenbeulah, decried the bill in an impassioned speech on the House floor before the vote, saying changes to qualified immunity would result in a 'timid' police force. He also referenced a bill he tried to pass in the Wisconsin state Senate that he said would have made it 'easier to get rid of an underperforming police officer.' It wasn't the first time he mentioned that bill. In a June 16, 2020 tweet, the third-term congressman indicated he was ahead of the push to reform policing practices. 'As a state legislator, I sponsored legislation to make it easier to get rid of bad cops,' Grothman tweeted. 'But Democrats' proposed police reforms are a disaster. Instead of focusing on punishing bad actors, they want to penalize the good cops.' Is Grothman right about the legislation he sponsored? Would it have made it 'easier to get rid of bad cops'? The claim When asked for back up, Grothman pointed to a bill he introduced in the state Senate on February 15, 2008. Under the bill, which did not pass, a police officer or firefighter charged with a misdemeanor or felony could have been suspended without pay 'pending the disposition of charges.' Since then, the landscape has changed and similar reforms have been implemented. But we need to focus on where things stood at the time, and how Grothman's bill would have changed things. The landscape at the time When Grothman introduced his bill, Wisconsin police officers fired or suspended because they were charged with crimes continued to be paid until their cases were concluded. The bill would have eliminated that provision and discouraged what Grothman described as officers being paid 'to hang out and drag out the process.' In an interview with PolitiFact Wisconsin, Curt Witynski of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, who worked with Grothman on the bill, noted that the process for removing a police officer 'takes a long time.' He echoed Grothman's view that stopping officers from getting paid while they faced charges would have motivated them to get through the process. 'There would be a desire for there to be a quick ending to the process,' Witynski said of the bill, adding: 'It is legitimate to say that this would have made it easier for municipalities to get rid of bad cops faster.' But faster does not necessarily mean easier, which was how Grothman framed his claim. The proposed bill would not have made any changes to the process of removing an officer, such as reducing the number of steps or setting a specific timetable for appeals to be heard. Nor would it have reduced the legal standard for determining what is necessary to get rid of a problematic officer. Additionally, it focused on officers facing legal charges - the misdemeanors and felonies. It did not cover officers who may have broken department rules, or did something questionable but were not charged. And it wouldn't have prevented officers facing inquiries from quitting and moving on to a different policing job with a seemingly-clean record. A provision in the bill said police chiefs in cities smaller than Milwaukee could suspend a subordinate if the local police and fire commission failed to act after 181 days of the chief's written move for the dismissal of an officer. But an analysis from the Legislative Reference Bureau at the time found a chief had always had the ability to suspend a subordinate officer. This provision would have just sped up the suspension process. It would not give police chiefs any additional authority. The changes since As noted before, similar provisions have been passed in Wisconsin since Grothman's bill failed to get enacted. Wisconsin law was changed later that year to immediately stop paying officers who were fired if they were charged with crimes. Lawmakers went further in 2009, ending pay for all Milwaukee officers as soon as they were fired, regardless of the reason for their dismissal, according to a June 24, 2011 article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. An effort in 2011 by Republican state lawmakers to revert the rules back to the 2008 standard was vetoed by then-Gov. Scott Walker. The current process for removing a Milwaukee police officer has a number of steps. When an officer is accused of misconduct, the department places the officer on paid administrative suspension or limited duty during the investigation. If the police chief hands down a disciplinary suspension, the officer is not paid. A suspended Milwaukee officer can appeal a disciplinary suspension to the city Fire and Police Commission. A panel of commissioners then hears the appeal and determines if a rule was violated. If the panel determines a rule was broken, the commission then decides whether the discipline imposed was appropriate. After the commission makes its decision, an officer can appeal that decision to Milwaukee County Circuit Court, where a judge will make a ruling. An officer can then further appeal to the state Court of Appeals. Milwaukee police can only appeal suspensions of more than five days, and officers don't get paid during appeals.
|
Our ruling Grothman said he sponsored legislation to make it easier to get rid of bad cops when he was a state legislator. His 2008 bill would have - at the time - removed the financial incentive for a charged officer to delay investigations and trial. But the bill did not change the multi-step process of removing an officer, which can be slow and cumbersome. Nor would it have limited appeals or reduced the threshold for what behavior warrants firing. Our definition of Mostly False is 'the statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.' That fits here.
|
[
"111096-proof-04-d2865fe074c68e1374c89d2cdf19ab88.jpg"
] |
Says as a state lawmaker a bill he sponsored would have made 'it easier to get rid of bad cops'
|
Contradiction
|
Calls for police reform have taken center stage in the global protests against police brutality and systemic racism following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police. A number of cities across the country, including Milwaukee, are talking about reducing funding for police departments and putting the money toward social service programs. Others have talked about dismantling police departments and essentially starting over. On June 25, 2020, the House of Representatives passed a sweeping police reform bill that would, among other things, eliminate legal protections shielding police officers from lawsuits and make it easier to prosecute them for illegal actions. U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Glenbeulah, decried the bill in an impassioned speech on the House floor before the vote, saying changes to qualified immunity would result in a 'timid' police force. He also referenced a bill he tried to pass in the Wisconsin state Senate that he said would have made it 'easier to get rid of an underperforming police officer.' It wasn't the first time he mentioned that bill. In a June 16, 2020 tweet, the third-term congressman indicated he was ahead of the push to reform policing practices. 'As a state legislator, I sponsored legislation to make it easier to get rid of bad cops,' Grothman tweeted. 'But Democrats' proposed police reforms are a disaster. Instead of focusing on punishing bad actors, they want to penalize the good cops.' Is Grothman right about the legislation he sponsored? Would it have made it 'easier to get rid of bad cops'? The claim When asked for back up, Grothman pointed to a bill he introduced in the state Senate on February 15, 2008. Under the bill, which did not pass, a police officer or firefighter charged with a misdemeanor or felony could have been suspended without pay 'pending the disposition of charges.' Since then, the landscape has changed and similar reforms have been implemented. But we need to focus on where things stood at the time, and how Grothman's bill would have changed things. The landscape at the time When Grothman introduced his bill, Wisconsin police officers fired or suspended because they were charged with crimes continued to be paid until their cases were concluded. The bill would have eliminated that provision and discouraged what Grothman described as officers being paid 'to hang out and drag out the process.' In an interview with PolitiFact Wisconsin, Curt Witynski of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, who worked with Grothman on the bill, noted that the process for removing a police officer 'takes a long time.' He echoed Grothman's view that stopping officers from getting paid while they faced charges would have motivated them to get through the process. 'There would be a desire for there to be a quick ending to the process,' Witynski said of the bill, adding: 'It is legitimate to say that this would have made it easier for municipalities to get rid of bad cops faster.' But faster does not necessarily mean easier, which was how Grothman framed his claim. The proposed bill would not have made any changes to the process of removing an officer, such as reducing the number of steps or setting a specific timetable for appeals to be heard. Nor would it have reduced the legal standard for determining what is necessary to get rid of a problematic officer. Additionally, it focused on officers facing legal charges - the misdemeanors and felonies. It did not cover officers who may have broken department rules, or did something questionable but were not charged. And it wouldn't have prevented officers facing inquiries from quitting and moving on to a different policing job with a seemingly-clean record. A provision in the bill said police chiefs in cities smaller than Milwaukee could suspend a subordinate if the local police and fire commission failed to act after 181 days of the chief's written move for the dismissal of an officer. But an analysis from the Legislative Reference Bureau at the time found a chief had always had the ability to suspend a subordinate officer. This provision would have just sped up the suspension process. It would not give police chiefs any additional authority. The changes since As noted before, similar provisions have been passed in Wisconsin since Grothman's bill failed to get enacted. Wisconsin law was changed later that year to immediately stop paying officers who were fired if they were charged with crimes. Lawmakers went further in 2009, ending pay for all Milwaukee officers as soon as they were fired, regardless of the reason for their dismissal, according to a June 24, 2011 article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. An effort in 2011 by Republican state lawmakers to revert the rules back to the 2008 standard was vetoed by then-Gov. Scott Walker. The current process for removing a Milwaukee police officer has a number of steps. When an officer is accused of misconduct, the department places the officer on paid administrative suspension or limited duty during the investigation. If the police chief hands down a disciplinary suspension, the officer is not paid. A suspended Milwaukee officer can appeal a disciplinary suspension to the city Fire and Police Commission. A panel of commissioners then hears the appeal and determines if a rule was violated. If the panel determines a rule was broken, the commission then decides whether the discipline imposed was appropriate. After the commission makes its decision, an officer can appeal that decision to Milwaukee County Circuit Court, where a judge will make a ruling. An officer can then further appeal to the state Court of Appeals. Milwaukee police can only appeal suspensions of more than five days, and officers don't get paid during appeals.
|
Our ruling Grothman said he sponsored legislation to make it easier to get rid of bad cops when he was a state legislator. His 2008 bill would have - at the time - removed the financial incentive for a charged officer to delay investigations and trial. But the bill did not change the multi-step process of removing an officer, which can be slow and cumbersome. Nor would it have limited appeals or reduced the threshold for what behavior warrants firing. Our definition of Mostly False is 'the statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.' That fits here.
|
[
"111096-proof-04-d2865fe074c68e1374c89d2cdf19ab88.jpg"
] |
'75% of Republicans have been vaccinated' against COVID-19 in Illinois.
|
Contradiction
|
Over the past few months, national surveys have found Republicans are one of the demographic groups least likely to report being vaccinated against COVID-19. A state senator from southern Illinois says Republicans throughout the state are bucking that trend. In response to a Democratic Governors Association ad calling the current Illinois GOP gubernatorial candidates 'anti-science,' state Sen. Terri Bryant, a Republican from Murphysboro, claimed the vast majority of Illinois Republicans are vaccinated. 'I'm still trying to get some of the folks that travel down that line who want to basically say that Republicans are anti-vaccine and anti-science to explain that to me, because I believe right now that 75% of Republicans have been vaccinated in this state,' Bryant said in radio interview with WJPF. She added that she and her husband have both received the COVID-19 vaccine. Bryant contrasted her figure with the fact that fewer than half of Black residents in predominantly Democratic Chicago are vaccinated. The low vaccination rate among Black Chicagoans has been well-documented in news reports and is a focus of the city's in-home vaccination program. For this fact-check, we decided to focus on the claim that three-quarters of Illinois Republicans are vaccinated, because we hadn't heard that before. We contacted polling experts, surveyed news coverage and reviewed state data, but found no evidence to back up Bryant's claim. We also left multiple messages with the senator's district office seeking comment, which she did not return. On the day Bryant made her claim, 62% of Illinois residents age 12 and older had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to Illinois Department of Public Health data. If Bryant were correct, that would mean Republicans are outperforming the state's average. National polls, however, show Republicans trailing other demographic groups - including both Democrats and Black Americans - when it comes to getting vaccinated. An NBC News poll released Aug. 22 found 55% of Republicans nationwide said they've already been vaccinated, compared with 88% of Democrats and 76% of Black adults - a higher rate than white respondents overall. Trump voters came in even lower, at 50%. Similarly, a Pew Research survey conducted in late August found 60% of Republican or Republican-leaning adults reported receiving at least one dose of the vaccine compared with 86% of Democrats. Unlike earlier in the pandemic, Black and white adults were about equally likely to say they'd been vaccinated, according to Pew. And most recently, the Kaiser Family Foundation released the September findings of its COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor project. 'The largest remaining gap in vaccination rates is by partisanship, with 90% of Democrats saying they have gotten at least one dose compared to 68% of independents and 58% of Republicans,' that report noted. Republicans were also the demographic group most likely to say they would definitely not get the vaccine, KFF found. Another way to approximate vaccine uptake by political party is to compare vaccination rates between counties that voted Democratic in the last election versus those that went Republican. As of Sept. 13, according to KFF, nearly 53% of people in counties that voted for President Joe Biden were fully vaccinated, compared with roughly 40% of those in counties that voted for former President Donald Trump nationwide. We analyzed IDPH county-level data for Sept. 24 and Sept. 28 and found a similar gap of around 12 percentage points for Illinois.
|
Our ruling Bryant said '75% of Republicans have been vaccinated' against COVID-19 in Illinois. The state senator did not respond to our inquiries asking for evidence to back up her claim, and we could find no surveys or studies that show she is correct. None of the state polling experts we contacted told us they had seen data showing how many Illinois Republicans have been vaccinated either. State and national trends suggest that the claim is not accurate. The figure Bryant cited is higher than Illinois' overall vaccination rate and is out of line with multiple national surveys conducted over the past two months that find Republicans are one of the demographic groups least likely to have taken the vaccine. Illinois counties that voted for Trump in 2020 also have a lower average vaccination rate than counties that Biden won, state data show. We rate Bryant's claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
|
[
"111105-proof-10-6203735e18abcceaa82fed9a768dbf5a.jpeg"
] |
'75% of Republicans have been vaccinated' against COVID-19 in Illinois.
|
Contradiction
|
Over the past few months, national surveys have found Republicans are one of the demographic groups least likely to report being vaccinated against COVID-19. A state senator from southern Illinois says Republicans throughout the state are bucking that trend. In response to a Democratic Governors Association ad calling the current Illinois GOP gubernatorial candidates 'anti-science,' state Sen. Terri Bryant, a Republican from Murphysboro, claimed the vast majority of Illinois Republicans are vaccinated. 'I'm still trying to get some of the folks that travel down that line who want to basically say that Republicans are anti-vaccine and anti-science to explain that to me, because I believe right now that 75% of Republicans have been vaccinated in this state,' Bryant said in radio interview with WJPF. She added that she and her husband have both received the COVID-19 vaccine. Bryant contrasted her figure with the fact that fewer than half of Black residents in predominantly Democratic Chicago are vaccinated. The low vaccination rate among Black Chicagoans has been well-documented in news reports and is a focus of the city's in-home vaccination program. For this fact-check, we decided to focus on the claim that three-quarters of Illinois Republicans are vaccinated, because we hadn't heard that before. We contacted polling experts, surveyed news coverage and reviewed state data, but found no evidence to back up Bryant's claim. We also left multiple messages with the senator's district office seeking comment, which she did not return. On the day Bryant made her claim, 62% of Illinois residents age 12 and older had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to Illinois Department of Public Health data. If Bryant were correct, that would mean Republicans are outperforming the state's average. National polls, however, show Republicans trailing other demographic groups - including both Democrats and Black Americans - when it comes to getting vaccinated. An NBC News poll released Aug. 22 found 55% of Republicans nationwide said they've already been vaccinated, compared with 88% of Democrats and 76% of Black adults - a higher rate than white respondents overall. Trump voters came in even lower, at 50%. Similarly, a Pew Research survey conducted in late August found 60% of Republican or Republican-leaning adults reported receiving at least one dose of the vaccine compared with 86% of Democrats. Unlike earlier in the pandemic, Black and white adults were about equally likely to say they'd been vaccinated, according to Pew. And most recently, the Kaiser Family Foundation released the September findings of its COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor project. 'The largest remaining gap in vaccination rates is by partisanship, with 90% of Democrats saying they have gotten at least one dose compared to 68% of independents and 58% of Republicans,' that report noted. Republicans were also the demographic group most likely to say they would definitely not get the vaccine, KFF found. Another way to approximate vaccine uptake by political party is to compare vaccination rates between counties that voted Democratic in the last election versus those that went Republican. As of Sept. 13, according to KFF, nearly 53% of people in counties that voted for President Joe Biden were fully vaccinated, compared with roughly 40% of those in counties that voted for former President Donald Trump nationwide. We analyzed IDPH county-level data for Sept. 24 and Sept. 28 and found a similar gap of around 12 percentage points for Illinois.
|
Our ruling Bryant said '75% of Republicans have been vaccinated' against COVID-19 in Illinois. The state senator did not respond to our inquiries asking for evidence to back up her claim, and we could find no surveys or studies that show she is correct. None of the state polling experts we contacted told us they had seen data showing how many Illinois Republicans have been vaccinated either. State and national trends suggest that the claim is not accurate. The figure Bryant cited is higher than Illinois' overall vaccination rate and is out of line with multiple national surveys conducted over the past two months that find Republicans are one of the demographic groups least likely to have taken the vaccine. Illinois counties that voted for Trump in 2020 also have a lower average vaccination rate than counties that Biden won, state data show. We rate Bryant's claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
|
[
"111105-proof-10-6203735e18abcceaa82fed9a768dbf5a.jpeg"
] |
'75% of Republicans have been vaccinated' against COVID-19 in Illinois.
|
Contradiction
|
Over the past few months, national surveys have found Republicans are one of the demographic groups least likely to report being vaccinated against COVID-19. A state senator from southern Illinois says Republicans throughout the state are bucking that trend. In response to a Democratic Governors Association ad calling the current Illinois GOP gubernatorial candidates 'anti-science,' state Sen. Terri Bryant, a Republican from Murphysboro, claimed the vast majority of Illinois Republicans are vaccinated. 'I'm still trying to get some of the folks that travel down that line who want to basically say that Republicans are anti-vaccine and anti-science to explain that to me, because I believe right now that 75% of Republicans have been vaccinated in this state,' Bryant said in radio interview with WJPF. She added that she and her husband have both received the COVID-19 vaccine. Bryant contrasted her figure with the fact that fewer than half of Black residents in predominantly Democratic Chicago are vaccinated. The low vaccination rate among Black Chicagoans has been well-documented in news reports and is a focus of the city's in-home vaccination program. For this fact-check, we decided to focus on the claim that three-quarters of Illinois Republicans are vaccinated, because we hadn't heard that before. We contacted polling experts, surveyed news coverage and reviewed state data, but found no evidence to back up Bryant's claim. We also left multiple messages with the senator's district office seeking comment, which she did not return. On the day Bryant made her claim, 62% of Illinois residents age 12 and older had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to Illinois Department of Public Health data. If Bryant were correct, that would mean Republicans are outperforming the state's average. National polls, however, show Republicans trailing other demographic groups - including both Democrats and Black Americans - when it comes to getting vaccinated. An NBC News poll released Aug. 22 found 55% of Republicans nationwide said they've already been vaccinated, compared with 88% of Democrats and 76% of Black adults - a higher rate than white respondents overall. Trump voters came in even lower, at 50%. Similarly, a Pew Research survey conducted in late August found 60% of Republican or Republican-leaning adults reported receiving at least one dose of the vaccine compared with 86% of Democrats. Unlike earlier in the pandemic, Black and white adults were about equally likely to say they'd been vaccinated, according to Pew. And most recently, the Kaiser Family Foundation released the September findings of its COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor project. 'The largest remaining gap in vaccination rates is by partisanship, with 90% of Democrats saying they have gotten at least one dose compared to 68% of independents and 58% of Republicans,' that report noted. Republicans were also the demographic group most likely to say they would definitely not get the vaccine, KFF found. Another way to approximate vaccine uptake by political party is to compare vaccination rates between counties that voted Democratic in the last election versus those that went Republican. As of Sept. 13, according to KFF, nearly 53% of people in counties that voted for President Joe Biden were fully vaccinated, compared with roughly 40% of those in counties that voted for former President Donald Trump nationwide. We analyzed IDPH county-level data for Sept. 24 and Sept. 28 and found a similar gap of around 12 percentage points for Illinois.
|
Our ruling Bryant said '75% of Republicans have been vaccinated' against COVID-19 in Illinois. The state senator did not respond to our inquiries asking for evidence to back up her claim, and we could find no surveys or studies that show she is correct. None of the state polling experts we contacted told us they had seen data showing how many Illinois Republicans have been vaccinated either. State and national trends suggest that the claim is not accurate. The figure Bryant cited is higher than Illinois' overall vaccination rate and is out of line with multiple national surveys conducted over the past two months that find Republicans are one of the demographic groups least likely to have taken the vaccine. Illinois counties that voted for Trump in 2020 also have a lower average vaccination rate than counties that Biden won, state data show. We rate Bryant's claim False. FALSE - The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
|
[
"111105-proof-10-6203735e18abcceaa82fed9a768dbf5a.jpeg"
] |
Photo shows a gravestone in Japan with a QR code.
|
Contradiction
|
An image of a woman scanning a QR code of what looks like a headstone is being shared on social media as an illustration of 'technology after death in Japan.' 'There are graves in Japan equipped with QR code, which on scanning shows you pictures, information and a brief biography of the life of the dead,' 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.) That's because, as India Today reported on Sept. 15, the photo doesn't show a Japanese headstone. The image has been online since 2015, when Chinese media reported that it showed a woman in Chongqing, China, scanning a memorial to commemorate victims of the Nanjing Massacre and bombing raids in Chongqing during World War II. But QR codes on Japanese headstones aren't fantasy. After QR codes debuted in the Japanese market in 1994, Pacific Standard reported, they started appearing on tombstones in 2008. 'The codes serve multiple purposes,' the since-shuttered publication said. 'When scanned, they lead to a website with photos and information about the deceased and allow for users to give virtual gifts, like food, incense, or a Buddhist funeral chant.' Other news outlets, like the Guardian, Wired and the Atlantic, have also reported on the technological twist on honoring the dead in Japan. But this photo doesn't show that. We rate claims that it does False.
|
But this photo doesn't show that. We rate claims that it does False.
|
[] |
'Arizona audit' shows 86,391 voters 'don't appear to exist.
|
Contradiction
|
A GOP-led review of ballots cast in Maricopa County in the presidential election confirmed that Joe Biden won, but some supporters of Donald Trump have used the outcome of the ballot review to portray thousands of votes as suspicious. 'AZ audit could not find the identity of 86,391 voters - they don't appear to exist,' said a headline by Unite America First, a website that posts news critical of Democrats and favorable toward Republicans. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Facebook post distorts what the ballot review had to say about those 86,391 voters. Report did not say that 86,391 voters don't exist Arizona state Senate Republicans ordered a review of 2 million ballots in Maricopa County. The review found that Biden beat Trump in Maricopa County by about 45,000 votes. That number was virtually the same as the county's official canvass. The Unite America First article refers to one of the findings in the report related to a database used by the Cyber Ninjas, the contractors hired to review the ballots. The Cyber Ninjas checked the file of voters against a commercial database called Melissa. The Cyber Ninjas found that 86,391 voters were not found in the Melissa database. But the report did not state that the voters don't exist. In fact, it said: 'it is expected that most if not all of these individuals are in fact real people with a limited public record and commercial presence.' In an earlier section of the report, the Cyber Ninjas acknowledged that the database was incomplete, writing 'some error is expected within these results.' Greg Brown, vice president of global marketing at Melissa, told PolitiFact that the website uses many sources, including names from newspaper and magazine subscriptions, credit cards, and mortuary records to compile its Personator data tool. 'Being absent from the Personator data tool is not an indicator that an individual does not exist,' Brown said. Brown estimated that their database covers about 80% of U.S. adults. Some people may have opted out of such services, such as law enforcement officials, or just kept a low profile. Election experts say that official government voter registration databases offer a better set of data for verifying voters than commercial databases. Tammy Patrick, an expert on elections at the Democracy Fund and a former Maricopa County elections official, said some individuals could have many entries in a commercial database while others have none. 'Some individuals may use names or information that does not align with their official (name) - a subscription to Cat Fancy for Princess Kitty Jefferson rather than the cat's owner,' Patrick said. 'Commercial data is not government data.' Arizona election officials take steps to update voter registration information by checking it against government databases. Arizona is a member of ERIC, a partnership of states that allows election officials to access data showing voters who have moved within their state or out of state, have died or have duplicate registrations. Benny White, a Republican and longtime volunteer data analyst for the state Republican Party, previously told us that commercial databases are a flawed source for voter information. 'You have to use the official voter registration records maintained by county officials and the Secretary of State,' White said. 'I have worked with the RNC database for a number of years, and that database, which they spend millions of dollars trying to keep current and complete, is almost unusable because it is not current and not complete.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said the ballot review in Maricopa County found 86,391 voters who 'don't appear to exist.' The GOP-orchestrated review of ballots in Maricopa County cast in the 2020 presidential election found that 86,391 voters were not found in a commercial database known as Melissa. But the ballot review report did not declare that these voters don't exist. The report said, 'It is expected that most if not all of these individuals are in fact real people with a limited public record and commercial presence.' An official for Melissa estimated that their database covers 80% of adults and said that being absent from their data tool doesn't mean someone doesn't exist. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Arizona 'could decertify' the 2020 presidential election RELATED: Trump falsely describes Arizona audit findings RELATED: No evidence Maricopa County audit found 17,000 'duplicate' votes RELATED: No evidence for claim that Maricopa County 'purged machine records before audit'
|
[
"111149-proof-04-f690424a2ef140be61a5d49a1ac87244.jpg"
] |
'Arizona audit' shows 86,391 voters 'don't appear to exist.
|
Contradiction
|
A GOP-led review of ballots cast in Maricopa County in the presidential election confirmed that Joe Biden won, but some supporters of Donald Trump have used the outcome of the ballot review to portray thousands of votes as suspicious. 'AZ audit could not find the identity of 86,391 voters - they don't appear to exist,' said a headline by Unite America First, a website that posts news critical of Democrats and favorable toward Republicans. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Facebook post distorts what the ballot review had to say about those 86,391 voters. Report did not say that 86,391 voters don't exist Arizona state Senate Republicans ordered a review of 2 million ballots in Maricopa County. The review found that Biden beat Trump in Maricopa County by about 45,000 votes. That number was virtually the same as the county's official canvass. The Unite America First article refers to one of the findings in the report related to a database used by the Cyber Ninjas, the contractors hired to review the ballots. The Cyber Ninjas checked the file of voters against a commercial database called Melissa. The Cyber Ninjas found that 86,391 voters were not found in the Melissa database. But the report did not state that the voters don't exist. In fact, it said: 'it is expected that most if not all of these individuals are in fact real people with a limited public record and commercial presence.' In an earlier section of the report, the Cyber Ninjas acknowledged that the database was incomplete, writing 'some error is expected within these results.' Greg Brown, vice president of global marketing at Melissa, told PolitiFact that the website uses many sources, including names from newspaper and magazine subscriptions, credit cards, and mortuary records to compile its Personator data tool. 'Being absent from the Personator data tool is not an indicator that an individual does not exist,' Brown said. Brown estimated that their database covers about 80% of U.S. adults. Some people may have opted out of such services, such as law enforcement officials, or just kept a low profile. Election experts say that official government voter registration databases offer a better set of data for verifying voters than commercial databases. Tammy Patrick, an expert on elections at the Democracy Fund and a former Maricopa County elections official, said some individuals could have many entries in a commercial database while others have none. 'Some individuals may use names or information that does not align with their official (name) - a subscription to Cat Fancy for Princess Kitty Jefferson rather than the cat's owner,' Patrick said. 'Commercial data is not government data.' Arizona election officials take steps to update voter registration information by checking it against government databases. Arizona is a member of ERIC, a partnership of states that allows election officials to access data showing voters who have moved within their state or out of state, have died or have duplicate registrations. Benny White, a Republican and longtime volunteer data analyst for the state Republican Party, previously told us that commercial databases are a flawed source for voter information. 'You have to use the official voter registration records maintained by county officials and the Secretary of State,' White said. 'I have worked with the RNC database for a number of years, and that database, which they spend millions of dollars trying to keep current and complete, is almost unusable because it is not current and not complete.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said the ballot review in Maricopa County found 86,391 voters who 'don't appear to exist.' The GOP-orchestrated review of ballots in Maricopa County cast in the 2020 presidential election found that 86,391 voters were not found in a commercial database known as Melissa. But the ballot review report did not declare that these voters don't exist. The report said, 'It is expected that most if not all of these individuals are in fact real people with a limited public record and commercial presence.' An official for Melissa estimated that their database covers 80% of adults and said that being absent from their data tool doesn't mean someone doesn't exist. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Arizona 'could decertify' the 2020 presidential election RELATED: Trump falsely describes Arizona audit findings RELATED: No evidence Maricopa County audit found 17,000 'duplicate' votes RELATED: No evidence for claim that Maricopa County 'purged machine records before audit'
|
[
"111149-proof-04-f690424a2ef140be61a5d49a1ac87244.jpg"
] |
Says Gov. Tony Evers has declared Wisconsin 'permanently closed' for business.
|
Contradiction
|
Thanks to the COVID-19 vaccines, we've been gifted a much more normal Wisconsin summer. Festivals and farmer's markets are back in full swing. Restaurants are busy again, even if more of us want to dine on the patio. And in July, 100,000-plus fans were able to gather downtown to celebrate the Milwaukee Bucks' historic clinch of the NBA finals. Middling vaccine rates, coupled with the rise of the delta variant, mean the pandemic isn't behind us just yet. But at the least, we're in a better place than this time last year. State Republicans, however, are still sparring with Democratic Gov. Tony Evers over whether Wisconsin businesses are being allowed to flourish. Rebecca Kleefisch - who served as lieutenant governor under former Gov. Scott Walker and is all but certain to run against Evers in 2022 - used an image of a Google listing to take a shot at Evers on Twitter. 'Republicans: Wisconsin is open for business!' she quipped on July 20, 2021. 'Tony Evers: 'Permanently closed.'' The tweet included a screenshot of the Google search results for Evers' office in Madison, with a red bar stating that the entity is 'permanently closed.' But Evers' office is clearly not 'permanently closed,' nor did he ever say that the state was closed permanently. Let's break down what happened. The pandemic was tough on Wisconsin businesses, but Kleefisch's gibe misses the factual mark When asked about the tweet and the screenshot, Alec Zimmerman, director of communications for Kleefisch's conservative advocacy group 1848 Project, sent a screen-recorded video that he said was taken on his phone around July 20, 2021. In the video, a person types 'governor tony evers office madison phone number' into the search box. That brings up the results with the 'permanently closed' label. (It's worth noting that a Google search of the same words at the time this fact-check was written did not bring up that designation.) Zimmerman also said it was not surprising that Google had listed Evers' office as permanently closed because he had removed the 'Open for Business' tagline on Wisconsin welcome signs that had been put up under Walker's tenure, and because he 'forced closures of small businesses.' It's unlikely that Google flagged Evers' office as permanently closed because of these reasons - the removal of the signs, for example, happened years ago. The Capitol, which was indeed closed to the public from the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 through April of this year, has reopened. So Evers' physical office isn't closed, either. What's more, Evers never said the state was permanently closed, as Kleefisch's tweet claims. Outside of partisan arguments, Wisconsin's economy appears to be stabilizing. A July 2021 report from the University of Wisconsin's Center for Research on the Wisconsin Economy found that initial unemployment claims have fallen to their lowest levels since the pandemic began, and that Wisconsin had the 10th-lowest unemployment rate in the nation. The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh's Center for Customized Research, which had been surveying the state's businesses since the pandemic began, found in its June 2021 report that 78% of businesses surveyed thought they could remain viable for at least seven months. More than half thought they could be viable for more than 10 months. That is up substantially from May 2020, when just under 38% thought they could remain open for at least seven months. Hundreds of millions in American Rescue Plan Act funds are also headed to Wisconsin small businesses, Evers announced in April. The Wisconsin Tomorrow Small Business Recovery Grant program distributed $5,000 grants to some 84,000 small businesses throughout the state.
|
Our ruling In a tweet, Kleefisch declared Evers had said Wisconsin is 'permanently closed' to business. Setting aside the partisan debate over whether the governor is doing enough to boost business in the Badger State, the image is being mischaracterized as best. Evers' physical office is not permanently closed, nor is the Capitol itself. And even if it was closed, that label would be attributed to Google, not Evers. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111153-proof-33-08482ddc3f18ade8b103e37c787f2e04.JPG.jpg"
] |
Says Gov. Tony Evers has declared Wisconsin 'permanently closed' for business.
|
Contradiction
|
Thanks to the COVID-19 vaccines, we've been gifted a much more normal Wisconsin summer. Festivals and farmer's markets are back in full swing. Restaurants are busy again, even if more of us want to dine on the patio. And in July, 100,000-plus fans were able to gather downtown to celebrate the Milwaukee Bucks' historic clinch of the NBA finals. Middling vaccine rates, coupled with the rise of the delta variant, mean the pandemic isn't behind us just yet. But at the least, we're in a better place than this time last year. State Republicans, however, are still sparring with Democratic Gov. Tony Evers over whether Wisconsin businesses are being allowed to flourish. Rebecca Kleefisch - who served as lieutenant governor under former Gov. Scott Walker and is all but certain to run against Evers in 2022 - used an image of a Google listing to take a shot at Evers on Twitter. 'Republicans: Wisconsin is open for business!' she quipped on July 20, 2021. 'Tony Evers: 'Permanently closed.'' The tweet included a screenshot of the Google search results for Evers' office in Madison, with a red bar stating that the entity is 'permanently closed.' But Evers' office is clearly not 'permanently closed,' nor did he ever say that the state was closed permanently. Let's break down what happened. The pandemic was tough on Wisconsin businesses, but Kleefisch's gibe misses the factual mark When asked about the tweet and the screenshot, Alec Zimmerman, director of communications for Kleefisch's conservative advocacy group 1848 Project, sent a screen-recorded video that he said was taken on his phone around July 20, 2021. In the video, a person types 'governor tony evers office madison phone number' into the search box. That brings up the results with the 'permanently closed' label. (It's worth noting that a Google search of the same words at the time this fact-check was written did not bring up that designation.) Zimmerman also said it was not surprising that Google had listed Evers' office as permanently closed because he had removed the 'Open for Business' tagline on Wisconsin welcome signs that had been put up under Walker's tenure, and because he 'forced closures of small businesses.' It's unlikely that Google flagged Evers' office as permanently closed because of these reasons - the removal of the signs, for example, happened years ago. The Capitol, which was indeed closed to the public from the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 through April of this year, has reopened. So Evers' physical office isn't closed, either. What's more, Evers never said the state was permanently closed, as Kleefisch's tweet claims. Outside of partisan arguments, Wisconsin's economy appears to be stabilizing. A July 2021 report from the University of Wisconsin's Center for Research on the Wisconsin Economy found that initial unemployment claims have fallen to their lowest levels since the pandemic began, and that Wisconsin had the 10th-lowest unemployment rate in the nation. The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh's Center for Customized Research, which had been surveying the state's businesses since the pandemic began, found in its June 2021 report that 78% of businesses surveyed thought they could remain viable for at least seven months. More than half thought they could be viable for more than 10 months. That is up substantially from May 2020, when just under 38% thought they could remain open for at least seven months. Hundreds of millions in American Rescue Plan Act funds are also headed to Wisconsin small businesses, Evers announced in April. The Wisconsin Tomorrow Small Business Recovery Grant program distributed $5,000 grants to some 84,000 small businesses throughout the state.
|
Our ruling In a tweet, Kleefisch declared Evers had said Wisconsin is 'permanently closed' to business. Setting aside the partisan debate over whether the governor is doing enough to boost business in the Badger State, the image is being mischaracterized as best. Evers' physical office is not permanently closed, nor is the Capitol itself. And even if it was closed, that label would be attributed to Google, not Evers. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111153-proof-33-08482ddc3f18ade8b103e37c787f2e04.JPG.jpg"
] |
Says Gov. Tony Evers has declared Wisconsin 'permanently closed' for business.
|
Contradiction
|
Thanks to the COVID-19 vaccines, we've been gifted a much more normal Wisconsin summer. Festivals and farmer's markets are back in full swing. Restaurants are busy again, even if more of us want to dine on the patio. And in July, 100,000-plus fans were able to gather downtown to celebrate the Milwaukee Bucks' historic clinch of the NBA finals. Middling vaccine rates, coupled with the rise of the delta variant, mean the pandemic isn't behind us just yet. But at the least, we're in a better place than this time last year. State Republicans, however, are still sparring with Democratic Gov. Tony Evers over whether Wisconsin businesses are being allowed to flourish. Rebecca Kleefisch - who served as lieutenant governor under former Gov. Scott Walker and is all but certain to run against Evers in 2022 - used an image of a Google listing to take a shot at Evers on Twitter. 'Republicans: Wisconsin is open for business!' she quipped on July 20, 2021. 'Tony Evers: 'Permanently closed.'' The tweet included a screenshot of the Google search results for Evers' office in Madison, with a red bar stating that the entity is 'permanently closed.' But Evers' office is clearly not 'permanently closed,' nor did he ever say that the state was closed permanently. Let's break down what happened. The pandemic was tough on Wisconsin businesses, but Kleefisch's gibe misses the factual mark When asked about the tweet and the screenshot, Alec Zimmerman, director of communications for Kleefisch's conservative advocacy group 1848 Project, sent a screen-recorded video that he said was taken on his phone around July 20, 2021. In the video, a person types 'governor tony evers office madison phone number' into the search box. That brings up the results with the 'permanently closed' label. (It's worth noting that a Google search of the same words at the time this fact-check was written did not bring up that designation.) Zimmerman also said it was not surprising that Google had listed Evers' office as permanently closed because he had removed the 'Open for Business' tagline on Wisconsin welcome signs that had been put up under Walker's tenure, and because he 'forced closures of small businesses.' It's unlikely that Google flagged Evers' office as permanently closed because of these reasons - the removal of the signs, for example, happened years ago. The Capitol, which was indeed closed to the public from the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 through April of this year, has reopened. So Evers' physical office isn't closed, either. What's more, Evers never said the state was permanently closed, as Kleefisch's tweet claims. Outside of partisan arguments, Wisconsin's economy appears to be stabilizing. A July 2021 report from the University of Wisconsin's Center for Research on the Wisconsin Economy found that initial unemployment claims have fallen to their lowest levels since the pandemic began, and that Wisconsin had the 10th-lowest unemployment rate in the nation. The University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh's Center for Customized Research, which had been surveying the state's businesses since the pandemic began, found in its June 2021 report that 78% of businesses surveyed thought they could remain viable for at least seven months. More than half thought they could be viable for more than 10 months. That is up substantially from May 2020, when just under 38% thought they could remain open for at least seven months. Hundreds of millions in American Rescue Plan Act funds are also headed to Wisconsin small businesses, Evers announced in April. The Wisconsin Tomorrow Small Business Recovery Grant program distributed $5,000 grants to some 84,000 small businesses throughout the state.
|
Our ruling In a tweet, Kleefisch declared Evers had said Wisconsin is 'permanently closed' to business. Setting aside the partisan debate over whether the governor is doing enough to boost business in the Badger State, the image is being mischaracterized as best. Evers' physical office is not permanently closed, nor is the Capitol itself. And even if it was closed, that label would be attributed to Google, not Evers. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111153-proof-33-08482ddc3f18ade8b103e37c787f2e04.JPG.jpg"
] |
'You had (4,925) out-of-state voters... in Georgia.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump has claimed that thousands of out-of-state voters improperly cast ballots in Georgia during the 2020 election. 'You had out-of-state voters - they voted in Georgia but they were from out of state - of 4,925,' Trump said in a Jan. 2 phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Ryan Germany, the general counsel for Raffensperger's office, pushed back on Trump's assertion during the call. Germany said that Trump was working from inaccurate information and that the secretary of state's office had already investigated these claims. 'We've been going through each of those. ... Everyone we've been through are people that lived in Georgia, moved to a different state, but then moved back to Georgia legitimately,' Germany told Trump. Trump appears to have gotten his number from an analysis conducted by Matt Braynard, a former Trump campaign staffer and election analyst. Braynard claimed that he had located 4,926 people who cast absentee or early ballots in Georgia but were registered to vote in another state. Braynard arrived at the number by comparing Georgia registration and voting lists with the the U.S. Postal Service change-of-address data. Braynard's methods have been strongly criticized by election experts and statisticians. In an analysis of Braynard's findings, Harvard professor and voting statistics expert Stephen Ansolabehere wrote that 'the report offers no conclusions based on scientifically accepted standards of evidence' and that parts of the report were 'riddled with errors and biases that render it invalid for purposes of drawing inferences about the quantities at issue.' In a Dec. 18 article, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution interviewed election experts who criticized Braynard's methods, pointing out that matching voter lists to other databases is likely to produce false matches because of people with identical names or birth dates. In addition, Braynard's analysis did not account for college students, people with vacation homes, military personnel or people on temporary work assignments, all of whom are eligible to vote in Georgia despite having temporarily left the state. Braynard himself seemed to backpedal when Georgia State Rep. Bee Nguyen questioned him about his conclusions during a Dec. 10 legislative hearing. During the hearing, Nguyen said that she had confirmed that many of the purported out-of-state voters on Braynard's list actually lived in Georgia. Of the first 10 voters on the list, Nguyen was able to establish that eight lived in the state through phone calls and property tax records. In addition, Nguyen found that Braynard had cited a condominium complex near her home as a postal box 'disguised as a residential address.' She also found that certain names on the list occurred more than once. In response to Nguyen's questions, Braynard claimed that he had only listed 'potentially illegal' voters and that he was not accusing any of the people on his list of breaking the law.
|
Our ruling Trump said that 'you had (4,925) out-of-state voters... in Georgia.' He appears to have gotten his number from a list of purported 'out-of-state voters' created by a former Trump campaign staffer. Braynard's analysis has been widely criticized by statisticians and election experts. Braynard himself acknowledged that he only listed 'potentially' illegal voters rather than people proven to have voted illegally. The Georgia Secretary of State's office has investigated the claim and found it to be baseless. This claim is False.
|
[] |
'You had (4,925) out-of-state voters... in Georgia.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump has claimed that thousands of out-of-state voters improperly cast ballots in Georgia during the 2020 election. 'You had out-of-state voters - they voted in Georgia but they were from out of state - of 4,925,' Trump said in a Jan. 2 phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Ryan Germany, the general counsel for Raffensperger's office, pushed back on Trump's assertion during the call. Germany said that Trump was working from inaccurate information and that the secretary of state's office had already investigated these claims. 'We've been going through each of those. ... Everyone we've been through are people that lived in Georgia, moved to a different state, but then moved back to Georgia legitimately,' Germany told Trump. Trump appears to have gotten his number from an analysis conducted by Matt Braynard, a former Trump campaign staffer and election analyst. Braynard claimed that he had located 4,926 people who cast absentee or early ballots in Georgia but were registered to vote in another state. Braynard arrived at the number by comparing Georgia registration and voting lists with the the U.S. Postal Service change-of-address data. Braynard's methods have been strongly criticized by election experts and statisticians. In an analysis of Braynard's findings, Harvard professor and voting statistics expert Stephen Ansolabehere wrote that 'the report offers no conclusions based on scientifically accepted standards of evidence' and that parts of the report were 'riddled with errors and biases that render it invalid for purposes of drawing inferences about the quantities at issue.' In a Dec. 18 article, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution interviewed election experts who criticized Braynard's methods, pointing out that matching voter lists to other databases is likely to produce false matches because of people with identical names or birth dates. In addition, Braynard's analysis did not account for college students, people with vacation homes, military personnel or people on temporary work assignments, all of whom are eligible to vote in Georgia despite having temporarily left the state. Braynard himself seemed to backpedal when Georgia State Rep. Bee Nguyen questioned him about his conclusions during a Dec. 10 legislative hearing. During the hearing, Nguyen said that she had confirmed that many of the purported out-of-state voters on Braynard's list actually lived in Georgia. Of the first 10 voters on the list, Nguyen was able to establish that eight lived in the state through phone calls and property tax records. In addition, Nguyen found that Braynard had cited a condominium complex near her home as a postal box 'disguised as a residential address.' She also found that certain names on the list occurred more than once. In response to Nguyen's questions, Braynard claimed that he had only listed 'potentially illegal' voters and that he was not accusing any of the people on his list of breaking the law.
|
Our ruling Trump said that 'you had (4,925) out-of-state voters... in Georgia.' He appears to have gotten his number from a list of purported 'out-of-state voters' created by a former Trump campaign staffer. Braynard's analysis has been widely criticized by statisticians and election experts. Braynard himself acknowledged that he only listed 'potentially' illegal voters rather than people proven to have voted illegally. The Georgia Secretary of State's office has investigated the claim and found it to be baseless. This claim is False.
|
[] |
'You had (4,925) out-of-state voters... in Georgia.
|
Contradiction
|
President Donald Trump has claimed that thousands of out-of-state voters improperly cast ballots in Georgia during the 2020 election. 'You had out-of-state voters - they voted in Georgia but they were from out of state - of 4,925,' Trump said in a Jan. 2 phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Ryan Germany, the general counsel for Raffensperger's office, pushed back on Trump's assertion during the call. Germany said that Trump was working from inaccurate information and that the secretary of state's office had already investigated these claims. 'We've been going through each of those. ... Everyone we've been through are people that lived in Georgia, moved to a different state, but then moved back to Georgia legitimately,' Germany told Trump. Trump appears to have gotten his number from an analysis conducted by Matt Braynard, a former Trump campaign staffer and election analyst. Braynard claimed that he had located 4,926 people who cast absentee or early ballots in Georgia but were registered to vote in another state. Braynard arrived at the number by comparing Georgia registration and voting lists with the the U.S. Postal Service change-of-address data. Braynard's methods have been strongly criticized by election experts and statisticians. In an analysis of Braynard's findings, Harvard professor and voting statistics expert Stephen Ansolabehere wrote that 'the report offers no conclusions based on scientifically accepted standards of evidence' and that parts of the report were 'riddled with errors and biases that render it invalid for purposes of drawing inferences about the quantities at issue.' In a Dec. 18 article, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution interviewed election experts who criticized Braynard's methods, pointing out that matching voter lists to other databases is likely to produce false matches because of people with identical names or birth dates. In addition, Braynard's analysis did not account for college students, people with vacation homes, military personnel or people on temporary work assignments, all of whom are eligible to vote in Georgia despite having temporarily left the state. Braynard himself seemed to backpedal when Georgia State Rep. Bee Nguyen questioned him about his conclusions during a Dec. 10 legislative hearing. During the hearing, Nguyen said that she had confirmed that many of the purported out-of-state voters on Braynard's list actually lived in Georgia. Of the first 10 voters on the list, Nguyen was able to establish that eight lived in the state through phone calls and property tax records. In addition, Nguyen found that Braynard had cited a condominium complex near her home as a postal box 'disguised as a residential address.' She also found that certain names on the list occurred more than once. In response to Nguyen's questions, Braynard claimed that he had only listed 'potentially illegal' voters and that he was not accusing any of the people on his list of breaking the law.
|
Our ruling Trump said that 'you had (4,925) out-of-state voters... in Georgia.' He appears to have gotten his number from a list of purported 'out-of-state voters' created by a former Trump campaign staffer. Braynard's analysis has been widely criticized by statisticians and election experts. Braynard himself acknowledged that he only listed 'potentially' illegal voters rather than people proven to have voted illegally. The Georgia Secretary of State's office has investigated the claim and found it to be baseless. This claim is False.
|
[] |
'The CDC just confirmed a 0.2% death-rate for COVID19.
|
Contradiction
|
Determining the death rate of COVID-19 is a big challenge, especially at this still-early stage in the pandemic. Health officials and epidemiologists say there are many unknowns: How many people got infected but were never tested? How many died of the disease without being counted as coronavirus deaths? The answer is a moving target and at least one health expert believes it could be many months before a precise mortality rate is known. 'We won't know until a year from now,' said Thomas Novotny, professor emeritus of epidemiology and biostatistics at San Diego State University. 'There's so much we don't know.' That uncertainty, however, hasn't stopped claims from catapulting across social media saying the severity of the virus was overblown. Posts cut and pasted and shared thousands of times on Facebook and Instagram say: 'The CDC just confirmed a 0.2% death-rate for COVID19,' suggesting the rate is far lower than officials previously reported. The posts also claim that government officials misled the public about the number of coronavirus deaths and argue that closing down the economy wasn't necessary. This is a screenshot of one of the many misleading and widely spread Facebook posts that claims the CDC 'confirmed' a 0.2% mortality rate for COVID-19. The federal agency hasn't established a mortality rate for the disease. Several of these posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook). The posts, some of which implore readers to 'make this viral,' include multiple misleading and false statements. But for this fact check, we decided to focus on whether the CDC has really 'confirmed' a 0.2% mortality rate and to offer some context on the lethality of the virus. We will base our rating on that specific claim. Background On Mortality Figures On March 3, the World Health Organization announced that 3.4% of confirmed coronavirus patients around the world had died. That figure is what epidemiologists call a 'case fatality rate.' The ratio is 'crudely calculated by dividing the number of reported deaths over the number of reported confirmed cases,' Carla Drysdale, a WHO spokeswoman, told PolitiFact National in March. She also said the ratio would change over time and vary from place to place. But the mortality rate, or 'death rate' as the Facebook posts terms it, is much more difficult to determine. It is calculated by dividing the number of people who die from COVID-19 in a certain geographic area by the total estimated number of people infected. It doesn't rely solely on confirmed deaths and infections. The biggest problem is the denominator. Many who develop mild cases of COVID-19 or show no signs at all are never tested and thus aren't counted, skewing the ratio. Did The CDC Really 'Confirm' A 0.2% Death Rate? The Facebook post's claim that the CDC 'confirmed' a 0.2% death rate draws on information in a planning document the federal agency published in May. The 0.2% figure is included, but it's the lowest in a range of five estimates. Earlier this month, USA Today analyzed the five scenarios in the document while fact-checking the same claim about a 0.2% death rate that had spread widely on Facebook and Instagram. 'The first four are varying estimates of the disease's severity, from low to high, while the fifth represents the 'current best estimate,'' USA Today reported. 'The range of estimates put the fatality rate for those showing symptoms between 0.2%-1%, with a 'best estimate' of 0.4%. It also places the number of asymptomatic cases between 20%-50%, with a 'best estimate' of 35%. By combining the two estimates, the estimated overall fatality rate of those infected with the virus - with and without symptoms - would be 0.26%.' The USA Today fact check concluded that saying the CDC has 'confirmed' 0.2% as the death rate 'paints a misleading picture because the CDC has clearly stated the number is subject to change. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said the claim in the social media posts is simply 'wrong. The CDC did not confirm that.' He estimated COVID-19's death rate at 'between 0.8% and 1.0%.' 'No serious examination of the data from this pandemic would lead one to conclude that 0.2% is a realistic possibility,' Jha wrote in an email. The Facebook posts also attribute several quotes to 'the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.' An online search shows Jha made similar statements, but on a completely separate topic. 'This is pretty stunning to me - my quote being misused to promote a falsehood,' Jha said, noting he had not been aware of the posts before being contacted by PolitiFact California. Several health experts have described the CDC estimates as low and lacking in transparency. Nicholas Jewell, professor of biostatistics at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, questioned the CDC's 0.26% mortality rate, saying 'it's not transparent where that comes from.' 'That's very much on the low-end of what's been reported by good studies,' he added. The CDC did not respond to a request for comment. Health officials have cited a May study from the University of Washington, which estimated that if all infections were known, the true death rate for Americans who show symptoms would be about 1.3%. From a public health perspective, Jewell said that claims like the one spreading on Facebook can 'do a lot of damage, largely because when it's seized on, it undercuts your message' to continue social distancing and wearing masks. 'The whole idea that this wasn't so bad is just, in my view, nonsense,' Jewell said. Asked about the mortality rate claim in the Facebook posts, Novotny, the professor of epidemiology at San Diego State University, said 'it misrepresents what the risks are.' Comparing COVID 19's Mortality Rate To Influenza In March, Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told PolitiFact National that most experts believe the ultimate death rate for this coronavirus will wind up being higher than the rate for seasonal flu, which hovers around 0.1%. That lines up with what Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told Congress during his March testimony. 'The percent mortality will depend on what the denominator of number of cases is,' Fauci said. 'So if you're not counting every case, the mortality will be high. If you are counting a lot of cases that are sub-clinical, mortality will become low. But no matter how you slice it, it's many, many, many more times lethal than the influenza that we get in the season.'
|
Our ruling Facebook posts claim the CDC 'confirmed a 0.2% death-rate for COVID19.' The claim draws from the low-end of a range of estimates the CDC published in May saying the fatality rate for those showing symptoms was between 0.2% and 1%, with a 'best estimate' of 0.4%. The estimated overall mortality rate of those with and without symptoms would be 0.26%. Health experts, however, said it's difficult to pin down a precise mortality rate early in a pandemic and that the federal agency hasn't yet 'confirmed' any rate but instead offered best guesses. Over time, it is possible that estimates will show a lower than initially expected mortality rate, especially as more testing is conducted in the United States. Currently, however, the true number of deaths and infections are hard to determine, as some deaths caused by the virus aren't counted and many people with mild cases of the coronavirus are never tested. Several experts said they project the mortality rate is on the higher-end of the CDC's estimated range, closer to 1%, which is 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu. In the end, the post wrongly suggests that health officials have established COVID-19's true mortality rate and selectively picks the low-end of a range of estimates. We rate the claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
|
[
"111162-proof-14-screen_shot_FB_mortality_rate.JPG.jpg",
"111162-proof-42-2d812467a9b940c255833c0496d2e2df.jpg"
] |
'The CDC just confirmed a 0.2% death-rate for COVID19.
|
Contradiction
|
Determining the death rate of COVID-19 is a big challenge, especially at this still-early stage in the pandemic. Health officials and epidemiologists say there are many unknowns: How many people got infected but were never tested? How many died of the disease without being counted as coronavirus deaths? The answer is a moving target and at least one health expert believes it could be many months before a precise mortality rate is known. 'We won't know until a year from now,' said Thomas Novotny, professor emeritus of epidemiology and biostatistics at San Diego State University. 'There's so much we don't know.' That uncertainty, however, hasn't stopped claims from catapulting across social media saying the severity of the virus was overblown. Posts cut and pasted and shared thousands of times on Facebook and Instagram say: 'The CDC just confirmed a 0.2% death-rate for COVID19,' suggesting the rate is far lower than officials previously reported. The posts also claim that government officials misled the public about the number of coronavirus deaths and argue that closing down the economy wasn't necessary. This is a screenshot of one of the many misleading and widely spread Facebook posts that claims the CDC 'confirmed' a 0.2% mortality rate for COVID-19. The federal agency hasn't established a mortality rate for the disease. Several of these posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook). The posts, some of which implore readers to 'make this viral,' include multiple misleading and false statements. But for this fact check, we decided to focus on whether the CDC has really 'confirmed' a 0.2% mortality rate and to offer some context on the lethality of the virus. We will base our rating on that specific claim. Background On Mortality Figures On March 3, the World Health Organization announced that 3.4% of confirmed coronavirus patients around the world had died. That figure is what epidemiologists call a 'case fatality rate.' The ratio is 'crudely calculated by dividing the number of reported deaths over the number of reported confirmed cases,' Carla Drysdale, a WHO spokeswoman, told PolitiFact National in March. She also said the ratio would change over time and vary from place to place. But the mortality rate, or 'death rate' as the Facebook posts terms it, is much more difficult to determine. It is calculated by dividing the number of people who die from COVID-19 in a certain geographic area by the total estimated number of people infected. It doesn't rely solely on confirmed deaths and infections. The biggest problem is the denominator. Many who develop mild cases of COVID-19 or show no signs at all are never tested and thus aren't counted, skewing the ratio. Did The CDC Really 'Confirm' A 0.2% Death Rate? The Facebook post's claim that the CDC 'confirmed' a 0.2% death rate draws on information in a planning document the federal agency published in May. The 0.2% figure is included, but it's the lowest in a range of five estimates. Earlier this month, USA Today analyzed the five scenarios in the document while fact-checking the same claim about a 0.2% death rate that had spread widely on Facebook and Instagram. 'The first four are varying estimates of the disease's severity, from low to high, while the fifth represents the 'current best estimate,'' USA Today reported. 'The range of estimates put the fatality rate for those showing symptoms between 0.2%-1%, with a 'best estimate' of 0.4%. It also places the number of asymptomatic cases between 20%-50%, with a 'best estimate' of 35%. By combining the two estimates, the estimated overall fatality rate of those infected with the virus - with and without symptoms - would be 0.26%.' The USA Today fact check concluded that saying the CDC has 'confirmed' 0.2% as the death rate 'paints a misleading picture because the CDC has clearly stated the number is subject to change. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said the claim in the social media posts is simply 'wrong. The CDC did not confirm that.' He estimated COVID-19's death rate at 'between 0.8% and 1.0%.' 'No serious examination of the data from this pandemic would lead one to conclude that 0.2% is a realistic possibility,' Jha wrote in an email. The Facebook posts also attribute several quotes to 'the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.' An online search shows Jha made similar statements, but on a completely separate topic. 'This is pretty stunning to me - my quote being misused to promote a falsehood,' Jha said, noting he had not been aware of the posts before being contacted by PolitiFact California. Several health experts have described the CDC estimates as low and lacking in transparency. Nicholas Jewell, professor of biostatistics at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, questioned the CDC's 0.26% mortality rate, saying 'it's not transparent where that comes from.' 'That's very much on the low-end of what's been reported by good studies,' he added. The CDC did not respond to a request for comment. Health officials have cited a May study from the University of Washington, which estimated that if all infections were known, the true death rate for Americans who show symptoms would be about 1.3%. From a public health perspective, Jewell said that claims like the one spreading on Facebook can 'do a lot of damage, largely because when it's seized on, it undercuts your message' to continue social distancing and wearing masks. 'The whole idea that this wasn't so bad is just, in my view, nonsense,' Jewell said. Asked about the mortality rate claim in the Facebook posts, Novotny, the professor of epidemiology at San Diego State University, said 'it misrepresents what the risks are.' Comparing COVID 19's Mortality Rate To Influenza In March, Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told PolitiFact National that most experts believe the ultimate death rate for this coronavirus will wind up being higher than the rate for seasonal flu, which hovers around 0.1%. That lines up with what Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told Congress during his March testimony. 'The percent mortality will depend on what the denominator of number of cases is,' Fauci said. 'So if you're not counting every case, the mortality will be high. If you are counting a lot of cases that are sub-clinical, mortality will become low. But no matter how you slice it, it's many, many, many more times lethal than the influenza that we get in the season.'
|
Our ruling Facebook posts claim the CDC 'confirmed a 0.2% death-rate for COVID19.' The claim draws from the low-end of a range of estimates the CDC published in May saying the fatality rate for those showing symptoms was between 0.2% and 1%, with a 'best estimate' of 0.4%. The estimated overall mortality rate of those with and without symptoms would be 0.26%. Health experts, however, said it's difficult to pin down a precise mortality rate early in a pandemic and that the federal agency hasn't yet 'confirmed' any rate but instead offered best guesses. Over time, it is possible that estimates will show a lower than initially expected mortality rate, especially as more testing is conducted in the United States. Currently, however, the true number of deaths and infections are hard to determine, as some deaths caused by the virus aren't counted and many people with mild cases of the coronavirus are never tested. Several experts said they project the mortality rate is on the higher-end of the CDC's estimated range, closer to 1%, which is 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu. In the end, the post wrongly suggests that health officials have established COVID-19's true mortality rate and selectively picks the low-end of a range of estimates. We rate the claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
|
[
"111162-proof-14-screen_shot_FB_mortality_rate.JPG.jpg",
"111162-proof-42-2d812467a9b940c255833c0496d2e2df.jpg"
] |
'The CDC just confirmed a 0.2% death-rate for COVID19.
|
Contradiction
|
Determining the death rate of COVID-19 is a big challenge, especially at this still-early stage in the pandemic. Health officials and epidemiologists say there are many unknowns: How many people got infected but were never tested? How many died of the disease without being counted as coronavirus deaths? The answer is a moving target and at least one health expert believes it could be many months before a precise mortality rate is known. 'We won't know until a year from now,' said Thomas Novotny, professor emeritus of epidemiology and biostatistics at San Diego State University. 'There's so much we don't know.' That uncertainty, however, hasn't stopped claims from catapulting across social media saying the severity of the virus was overblown. Posts cut and pasted and shared thousands of times on Facebook and Instagram say: 'The CDC just confirmed a 0.2% death-rate for COVID19,' suggesting the rate is far lower than officials previously reported. The posts also claim that government officials misled the public about the number of coronavirus deaths and argue that closing down the economy wasn't necessary. This is a screenshot of one of the many misleading and widely spread Facebook posts that claims the CDC 'confirmed' a 0.2% mortality rate for COVID-19. The federal agency hasn't established a mortality rate for the disease. Several of these posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed (Read more about PolitiFact California's partnership with Facebook). The posts, some of which implore readers to 'make this viral,' include multiple misleading and false statements. But for this fact check, we decided to focus on whether the CDC has really 'confirmed' a 0.2% mortality rate and to offer some context on the lethality of the virus. We will base our rating on that specific claim. Background On Mortality Figures On March 3, the World Health Organization announced that 3.4% of confirmed coronavirus patients around the world had died. That figure is what epidemiologists call a 'case fatality rate.' The ratio is 'crudely calculated by dividing the number of reported deaths over the number of reported confirmed cases,' Carla Drysdale, a WHO spokeswoman, told PolitiFact National in March. She also said the ratio would change over time and vary from place to place. But the mortality rate, or 'death rate' as the Facebook posts terms it, is much more difficult to determine. It is calculated by dividing the number of people who die from COVID-19 in a certain geographic area by the total estimated number of people infected. It doesn't rely solely on confirmed deaths and infections. The biggest problem is the denominator. Many who develop mild cases of COVID-19 or show no signs at all are never tested and thus aren't counted, skewing the ratio. Did The CDC Really 'Confirm' A 0.2% Death Rate? The Facebook post's claim that the CDC 'confirmed' a 0.2% death rate draws on information in a planning document the federal agency published in May. The 0.2% figure is included, but it's the lowest in a range of five estimates. Earlier this month, USA Today analyzed the five scenarios in the document while fact-checking the same claim about a 0.2% death rate that had spread widely on Facebook and Instagram. 'The first four are varying estimates of the disease's severity, from low to high, while the fifth represents the 'current best estimate,'' USA Today reported. 'The range of estimates put the fatality rate for those showing symptoms between 0.2%-1%, with a 'best estimate' of 0.4%. It also places the number of asymptomatic cases between 20%-50%, with a 'best estimate' of 35%. By combining the two estimates, the estimated overall fatality rate of those infected with the virus - with and without symptoms - would be 0.26%.' The USA Today fact check concluded that saying the CDC has 'confirmed' 0.2% as the death rate 'paints a misleading picture because the CDC has clearly stated the number is subject to change. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said the claim in the social media posts is simply 'wrong. The CDC did not confirm that.' He estimated COVID-19's death rate at 'between 0.8% and 1.0%.' 'No serious examination of the data from this pandemic would lead one to conclude that 0.2% is a realistic possibility,' Jha wrote in an email. The Facebook posts also attribute several quotes to 'the director of the Harvard Global Health Institute.' An online search shows Jha made similar statements, but on a completely separate topic. 'This is pretty stunning to me - my quote being misused to promote a falsehood,' Jha said, noting he had not been aware of the posts before being contacted by PolitiFact California. Several health experts have described the CDC estimates as low and lacking in transparency. Nicholas Jewell, professor of biostatistics at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, questioned the CDC's 0.26% mortality rate, saying 'it's not transparent where that comes from.' 'That's very much on the low-end of what's been reported by good studies,' he added. The CDC did not respond to a request for comment. Health officials have cited a May study from the University of Washington, which estimated that if all infections were known, the true death rate for Americans who show symptoms would be about 1.3%. From a public health perspective, Jewell said that claims like the one spreading on Facebook can 'do a lot of damage, largely because when it's seized on, it undercuts your message' to continue social distancing and wearing masks. 'The whole idea that this wasn't so bad is just, in my view, nonsense,' Jewell said. Asked about the mortality rate claim in the Facebook posts, Novotny, the professor of epidemiology at San Diego State University, said 'it misrepresents what the risks are.' Comparing COVID 19's Mortality Rate To Influenza In March, Myron Cohen, director of the Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told PolitiFact National that most experts believe the ultimate death rate for this coronavirus will wind up being higher than the rate for seasonal flu, which hovers around 0.1%. That lines up with what Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told Congress during his March testimony. 'The percent mortality will depend on what the denominator of number of cases is,' Fauci said. 'So if you're not counting every case, the mortality will be high. If you are counting a lot of cases that are sub-clinical, mortality will become low. But no matter how you slice it, it's many, many, many more times lethal than the influenza that we get in the season.'
|
Our ruling Facebook posts claim the CDC 'confirmed a 0.2% death-rate for COVID19.' The claim draws from the low-end of a range of estimates the CDC published in May saying the fatality rate for those showing symptoms was between 0.2% and 1%, with a 'best estimate' of 0.4%. The estimated overall mortality rate of those with and without symptoms would be 0.26%. Health experts, however, said it's difficult to pin down a precise mortality rate early in a pandemic and that the federal agency hasn't yet 'confirmed' any rate but instead offered best guesses. Over time, it is possible that estimates will show a lower than initially expected mortality rate, especially as more testing is conducted in the United States. Currently, however, the true number of deaths and infections are hard to determine, as some deaths caused by the virus aren't counted and many people with mild cases of the coronavirus are never tested. Several experts said they project the mortality rate is on the higher-end of the CDC's estimated range, closer to 1%, which is 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu. In the end, the post wrongly suggests that health officials have established COVID-19's true mortality rate and selectively picks the low-end of a range of estimates. We rate the claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE - The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
|
[
"111162-proof-14-screen_shot_FB_mortality_rate.JPG.jpg",
"111162-proof-42-2d812467a9b940c255833c0496d2e2df.jpg"
] |
Says Gov. Tony Evers 'removed the American flag from the Capitol building'
|
Contradiction
|
When protesters gathered at the state Capitol in April to call for Gov. Tony Evers to reopen the state, the lack of an American flag at their chosen location became a point of contention. The Associated Press reported chants of 'Where's our flag?' and protesters calling it a 'disgrace.' A similar claim surfaced in a viral Facebook post on June 12, 2020. 'Wisconsin Democrat Governor Evers removed the American flag from the Capitol building by ordering it to be taken down! This is beyond disgraceful!' the post said. The text accompanied an undated photo showing protesters outside the Capitol building, with an empty flagpole circled in red. This question is particularly notable since in the intervening time, Evers has ordered the Capitol fly the rainbow pride flag for Pride Month (as he did in 2019) and the Juneteenth flag to commemorate the end of slavery. 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). So did Evers really order the American flag removed at some point? Answering that means figuring out where and when this picture was taken. Let's get to sleuthing. Tracking down the setting The Wisconsin Capitol building in Madison - completed in 1917 - is a symmetrical structure with a similar façade of pillars and windows facing north, south, east and west. The peak of each entry has a flagpole. So the first question is which flagpole we're talking about. A review of photos from Google Maps shows the picture in question was taken at the West (State Street) entrance. That entrance has two rows of windows, with arched windows at the top. The other three entrances each have three rows, with a smaller row atop the arched windows. The west wing of the Capitol houses the state Assembly, so that body is in charge of which flag flies when. The Assembly policy - like the state Senate - is to fly the American flag, but only when the body is in session. The other element is when this photo was taken, since it's undated in the Facebook post. The most notable recent rally there occurred April 24, 2020, when protesters gathered to pressure Evers into reopening the state amid the coronavirus pandemic. The lone readable sign in the image - SCIENCE says 'OPEN WISCONSIN!' - gives us the key clue here. That's certainly consistent with a reopen rally. But more importantly, that same sign can be seen in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel photo of the event. Putting it together So we have a picture from April 24 on the west wing of the Capitol. That's the Assembly flagpole, and since the Assembly wasn't in session that day (having adjourned the day before), not flying the American flag was standard operating procedure. The protesters could have seen the American flag in its usual spot alongside the Wisconsin flag if they had walked around to the east side of the Capitol. The governor has authority over that flagpole and the north wing pole that flies the POW-MIA flag. The state Senate controls the remaining south wing flagpole. So the Facebook post in question is not only wrong that Evers had authority over the flagpole in question, it goes a step further by claiming the U.S. flag was absent because of a specific order from the governor. Britt Cudabeck, a spokeswoman for Evers, confirmed the governor did not order any U.S. flag taken down. The U.S. and Wisconsin flags have flown daily on the east pole as usual.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims Evers ordered the U.S. flag removed from the state Capitol, posting as support a picture of an empty flagpole. Our research shows that photo was taken seven weeks before the Facebook post in front of the west wing of the Capitol, which is controlled by the state Assembly. The flag only flies when the Assembly is in session, and it wasn't that day. So the post is not only wrong, it moves into the realm of the ridiculous by manufacturing the assertion that Evers had specifically ordered the flag removed. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Says Gov. Tony Evers 'removed the American flag from the Capitol building'
|
Contradiction
|
When protesters gathered at the state Capitol in April to call for Gov. Tony Evers to reopen the state, the lack of an American flag at their chosen location became a point of contention. The Associated Press reported chants of 'Where's our flag?' and protesters calling it a 'disgrace.' A similar claim surfaced in a viral Facebook post on June 12, 2020. 'Wisconsin Democrat Governor Evers removed the American flag from the Capitol building by ordering it to be taken down! This is beyond disgraceful!' the post said. The text accompanied an undated photo showing protesters outside the Capitol building, with an empty flagpole circled in red. This question is particularly notable since in the intervening time, Evers has ordered the Capitol fly the rainbow pride flag for Pride Month (as he did in 2019) and the Juneteenth flag to commemorate the end of slavery. 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). So did Evers really order the American flag removed at some point? Answering that means figuring out where and when this picture was taken. Let's get to sleuthing. Tracking down the setting The Wisconsin Capitol building in Madison - completed in 1917 - is a symmetrical structure with a similar façade of pillars and windows facing north, south, east and west. The peak of each entry has a flagpole. So the first question is which flagpole we're talking about. A review of photos from Google Maps shows the picture in question was taken at the West (State Street) entrance. That entrance has two rows of windows, with arched windows at the top. The other three entrances each have three rows, with a smaller row atop the arched windows. The west wing of the Capitol houses the state Assembly, so that body is in charge of which flag flies when. The Assembly policy - like the state Senate - is to fly the American flag, but only when the body is in session. The other element is when this photo was taken, since it's undated in the Facebook post. The most notable recent rally there occurred April 24, 2020, when protesters gathered to pressure Evers into reopening the state amid the coronavirus pandemic. The lone readable sign in the image - SCIENCE says 'OPEN WISCONSIN!' - gives us the key clue here. That's certainly consistent with a reopen rally. But more importantly, that same sign can be seen in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel photo of the event. Putting it together So we have a picture from April 24 on the west wing of the Capitol. That's the Assembly flagpole, and since the Assembly wasn't in session that day (having adjourned the day before), not flying the American flag was standard operating procedure. The protesters could have seen the American flag in its usual spot alongside the Wisconsin flag if they had walked around to the east side of the Capitol. The governor has authority over that flagpole and the north wing pole that flies the POW-MIA flag. The state Senate controls the remaining south wing flagpole. So the Facebook post in question is not only wrong that Evers had authority over the flagpole in question, it goes a step further by claiming the U.S. flag was absent because of a specific order from the governor. Britt Cudabeck, a spokeswoman for Evers, confirmed the governor did not order any U.S. flag taken down. The U.S. and Wisconsin flags have flown daily on the east pole as usual.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims Evers ordered the U.S. flag removed from the state Capitol, posting as support a picture of an empty flagpole. Our research shows that photo was taken seven weeks before the Facebook post in front of the west wing of the Capitol, which is controlled by the state Assembly. The flag only flies when the Assembly is in session, and it wasn't that day. So the post is not only wrong, it moves into the realm of the ridiculous by manufacturing the assertion that Evers had specifically ordered the flag removed. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Says Gov. Tony Evers 'removed the American flag from the Capitol building'
|
Contradiction
|
When protesters gathered at the state Capitol in April to call for Gov. Tony Evers to reopen the state, the lack of an American flag at their chosen location became a point of contention. The Associated Press reported chants of 'Where's our flag?' and protesters calling it a 'disgrace.' A similar claim surfaced in a viral Facebook post on June 12, 2020. 'Wisconsin Democrat Governor Evers removed the American flag from the Capitol building by ordering it to be taken down! This is beyond disgraceful!' the post said. The text accompanied an undated photo showing protesters outside the Capitol building, with an empty flagpole circled in red. This question is particularly notable since in the intervening time, Evers has ordered the Capitol fly the rainbow pride flag for Pride Month (as he did in 2019) and the Juneteenth flag to commemorate the end of slavery. 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). So did Evers really order the American flag removed at some point? Answering that means figuring out where and when this picture was taken. Let's get to sleuthing. Tracking down the setting The Wisconsin Capitol building in Madison - completed in 1917 - is a symmetrical structure with a similar façade of pillars and windows facing north, south, east and west. The peak of each entry has a flagpole. So the first question is which flagpole we're talking about. A review of photos from Google Maps shows the picture in question was taken at the West (State Street) entrance. That entrance has two rows of windows, with arched windows at the top. The other three entrances each have three rows, with a smaller row atop the arched windows. The west wing of the Capitol houses the state Assembly, so that body is in charge of which flag flies when. The Assembly policy - like the state Senate - is to fly the American flag, but only when the body is in session. The other element is when this photo was taken, since it's undated in the Facebook post. The most notable recent rally there occurred April 24, 2020, when protesters gathered to pressure Evers into reopening the state amid the coronavirus pandemic. The lone readable sign in the image - SCIENCE says 'OPEN WISCONSIN!' - gives us the key clue here. That's certainly consistent with a reopen rally. But more importantly, that same sign can be seen in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel photo of the event. Putting it together So we have a picture from April 24 on the west wing of the Capitol. That's the Assembly flagpole, and since the Assembly wasn't in session that day (having adjourned the day before), not flying the American flag was standard operating procedure. The protesters could have seen the American flag in its usual spot alongside the Wisconsin flag if they had walked around to the east side of the Capitol. The governor has authority over that flagpole and the north wing pole that flies the POW-MIA flag. The state Senate controls the remaining south wing flagpole. So the Facebook post in question is not only wrong that Evers had authority over the flagpole in question, it goes a step further by claiming the U.S. flag was absent because of a specific order from the governor. Britt Cudabeck, a spokeswoman for Evers, confirmed the governor did not order any U.S. flag taken down. The U.S. and Wisconsin flags have flown daily on the east pole as usual.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims Evers ordered the U.S. flag removed from the state Capitol, posting as support a picture of an empty flagpole. Our research shows that photo was taken seven weeks before the Facebook post in front of the west wing of the Capitol, which is controlled by the state Assembly. The flag only flies when the Assembly is in session, and it wasn't that day. So the post is not only wrong, it moves into the realm of the ridiculous by manufacturing the assertion that Evers had specifically ordered the flag removed. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Says Gov. Tony Evers 'removed the American flag from the Capitol building'
|
Contradiction
|
When protesters gathered at the state Capitol in April to call for Gov. Tony Evers to reopen the state, the lack of an American flag at their chosen location became a point of contention. The Associated Press reported chants of 'Where's our flag?' and protesters calling it a 'disgrace.' A similar claim surfaced in a viral Facebook post on June 12, 2020. 'Wisconsin Democrat Governor Evers removed the American flag from the Capitol building by ordering it to be taken down! This is beyond disgraceful!' the post said. The text accompanied an undated photo showing protesters outside the Capitol building, with an empty flagpole circled in red. This question is particularly notable since in the intervening time, Evers has ordered the Capitol fly the rainbow pride flag for Pride Month (as he did in 2019) and the Juneteenth flag to commemorate the end of slavery. 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). So did Evers really order the American flag removed at some point? Answering that means figuring out where and when this picture was taken. Let's get to sleuthing. Tracking down the setting The Wisconsin Capitol building in Madison - completed in 1917 - is a symmetrical structure with a similar façade of pillars and windows facing north, south, east and west. The peak of each entry has a flagpole. So the first question is which flagpole we're talking about. A review of photos from Google Maps shows the picture in question was taken at the West (State Street) entrance. That entrance has two rows of windows, with arched windows at the top. The other three entrances each have three rows, with a smaller row atop the arched windows. The west wing of the Capitol houses the state Assembly, so that body is in charge of which flag flies when. The Assembly policy - like the state Senate - is to fly the American flag, but only when the body is in session. The other element is when this photo was taken, since it's undated in the Facebook post. The most notable recent rally there occurred April 24, 2020, when protesters gathered to pressure Evers into reopening the state amid the coronavirus pandemic. The lone readable sign in the image - SCIENCE says 'OPEN WISCONSIN!' - gives us the key clue here. That's certainly consistent with a reopen rally. But more importantly, that same sign can be seen in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel photo of the event. Putting it together So we have a picture from April 24 on the west wing of the Capitol. That's the Assembly flagpole, and since the Assembly wasn't in session that day (having adjourned the day before), not flying the American flag was standard operating procedure. The protesters could have seen the American flag in its usual spot alongside the Wisconsin flag if they had walked around to the east side of the Capitol. The governor has authority over that flagpole and the north wing pole that flies the POW-MIA flag. The state Senate controls the remaining south wing flagpole. So the Facebook post in question is not only wrong that Evers had authority over the flagpole in question, it goes a step further by claiming the U.S. flag was absent because of a specific order from the governor. Britt Cudabeck, a spokeswoman for Evers, confirmed the governor did not order any U.S. flag taken down. The U.S. and Wisconsin flags have flown daily on the east pole as usual.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post claims Evers ordered the U.S. flag removed from the state Capitol, posting as support a picture of an empty flagpole. Our research shows that photo was taken seven weeks before the Facebook post in front of the west wing of the Capitol, which is controlled by the state Assembly. The flag only flies when the Assembly is in session, and it wasn't that day. So the post is not only wrong, it moves into the realm of the ridiculous by manufacturing the assertion that Evers had specifically ordered the flag removed. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'Masks will kill quite a few people, it's well known that they reduce blood oxygen levels and those with respiratory and cardiac disorders will die.
|
Contradiction
|
For more than seven minutes, a video on Facebook shows a man in a large brown chair reading calmly from his notes, predicting global food shortages as 'a side effect of the coronavirus hoax,' and misleading about the use of masks to prevent the spread of the virus. About 34 seconds in, the man says: 'The masks will kill quite a few people, it's well known that they reduce blood oxygen levels and those with respiratory and cardiac disorders will die. It's true that surgeons wear masks, but they are different masks and different circumstances and not usually worn all day.' As he reads in a matter-of-fact tone, big red capital letters frame the video: 'They want to kill 6 billion of us. Here's how they will do it.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The man in the Facebook video was described by The Bangkok Post, a Thailand-based news outlet as a doctor, prolific author, and former newspaper columnist 'who has built a career on being anti-establishment,' and is now 'peddling played-out COVID-19 conspiracy theories.' This video includes several unfounded and wrong claims, but this fact-check will focus on the claim about masks having a deadly effect. Bottom line: Public health experts say masks are effective in reducing the spread of the coronavirus, and while some people may experience some discomfort wearing them, masks are generally safe to use. (The American Lung Association has suggestions on how to get used to wearing a mask.) What's known about mask usage For months, people around the world have been using masks to prevent getting or spreading the coronavirus. We found no credible reports of people dying as a result of wearing a mask. Reuters in October debunked a false claim that three children in Germany died from wearing face masks. PolitiFact has also fact-checked a lot of misinformation about masks. No, masks do not shut down or weaken the immune system. No, masks will not reduce blood oxygen levels. 'As a pulmonologist - a doctor who specializes in the respiratory system - I can assure you that behind that mask, your breathing is fine. You're getting all the oxygen you need, and your carbon dioxide levels aren't rising,' Jonathan Parsons, a pulmonologist at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and director of the Ohio State Asthma Center, wrote in an August blog post. Parsons wrote that people who experience anxiety or claustrophobia when wearing a mask can try to calm themselves by taking long, slow breaths. Thomas Tsai, a surgeon and health policy researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health, told PolitiFact in May that, 'on the margins we could probably find extreme cases where someone, somewhere with some condition has had an issue with a mask, but that's not the average.' Tsai said there was no data suggesting that it was harmful to wear a standard surgical or cloth mask under normal situations. N95 masks (ones that create a tight seal) are considered to be the most effective in protecting the wearer from airborne particles, and are commonly used by health care workers. Because of a shortage of those masks, public health officials recommended that the general public instead use other types of masks, like cloth masks, and reserve the N95s for health care workers who are routinely exposed to patients with COVID-19. What about people with underlying medical conditions? The American Lung Association says that people with chronic lung diseases may be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 and should wear cloth face masks in public areas. There is some evidence that prolonged use of N-95 masks in patients with preexisting lung disease could cause some build-up of carbon dioxide levels in the body, the association said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told Reuters earlier this year that the level of carbon dioxide likely to build up in a mask 'is mostly tolerable to people exposed to it' and that it is 'unlikely to cause hypercapnia,' a condition that develops when there is too much carbon dioxide in the bloodstream. The CDC also says that most people with underlying medical conditions can and should wear masks. People with respiratory conditions who remain concerned about wearing a mask safely should talk with their healthcare provider, the CDC said. The CDC does not recommend masks for children under 2 years old or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.
|
Our ruling A video in a Facebook post claimed, 'Masks will kill quite a few people, it's well known that they reduce blood oxygen levels and those with respiratory and cardiac disorders will die.' We found no credible reports of people dying because they used masks to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Public health experts say it is not true that masks reduce blood oxygen levels. The CDC says that people with underlying medical conditions should still wear masks. The post is not factual. We rate it False. RELATED: There's no evidence that wearing standard masks is harmful to your health
|
[
"111183-proof-31-b7f496febc4f4b06505603a97fd8ec31.jpg"
] |
'Masks will kill quite a few people, it's well known that they reduce blood oxygen levels and those with respiratory and cardiac disorders will die.
|
Contradiction
|
For more than seven minutes, a video on Facebook shows a man in a large brown chair reading calmly from his notes, predicting global food shortages as 'a side effect of the coronavirus hoax,' and misleading about the use of masks to prevent the spread of the virus. About 34 seconds in, the man says: 'The masks will kill quite a few people, it's well known that they reduce blood oxygen levels and those with respiratory and cardiac disorders will die. It's true that surgeons wear masks, but they are different masks and different circumstances and not usually worn all day.' As he reads in a matter-of-fact tone, big red capital letters frame the video: 'They want to kill 6 billion of us. Here's how they will do it.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The man in the Facebook video was described by The Bangkok Post, a Thailand-based news outlet as a doctor, prolific author, and former newspaper columnist 'who has built a career on being anti-establishment,' and is now 'peddling played-out COVID-19 conspiracy theories.' This video includes several unfounded and wrong claims, but this fact-check will focus on the claim about masks having a deadly effect. Bottom line: Public health experts say masks are effective in reducing the spread of the coronavirus, and while some people may experience some discomfort wearing them, masks are generally safe to use. (The American Lung Association has suggestions on how to get used to wearing a mask.) What's known about mask usage For months, people around the world have been using masks to prevent getting or spreading the coronavirus. We found no credible reports of people dying as a result of wearing a mask. Reuters in October debunked a false claim that three children in Germany died from wearing face masks. PolitiFact has also fact-checked a lot of misinformation about masks. No, masks do not shut down or weaken the immune system. No, masks will not reduce blood oxygen levels. 'As a pulmonologist - a doctor who specializes in the respiratory system - I can assure you that behind that mask, your breathing is fine. You're getting all the oxygen you need, and your carbon dioxide levels aren't rising,' Jonathan Parsons, a pulmonologist at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and director of the Ohio State Asthma Center, wrote in an August blog post. Parsons wrote that people who experience anxiety or claustrophobia when wearing a mask can try to calm themselves by taking long, slow breaths. Thomas Tsai, a surgeon and health policy researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health, told PolitiFact in May that, 'on the margins we could probably find extreme cases where someone, somewhere with some condition has had an issue with a mask, but that's not the average.' Tsai said there was no data suggesting that it was harmful to wear a standard surgical or cloth mask under normal situations. N95 masks (ones that create a tight seal) are considered to be the most effective in protecting the wearer from airborne particles, and are commonly used by health care workers. Because of a shortage of those masks, public health officials recommended that the general public instead use other types of masks, like cloth masks, and reserve the N95s for health care workers who are routinely exposed to patients with COVID-19. What about people with underlying medical conditions? The American Lung Association says that people with chronic lung diseases may be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 and should wear cloth face masks in public areas. There is some evidence that prolonged use of N-95 masks in patients with preexisting lung disease could cause some build-up of carbon dioxide levels in the body, the association said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told Reuters earlier this year that the level of carbon dioxide likely to build up in a mask 'is mostly tolerable to people exposed to it' and that it is 'unlikely to cause hypercapnia,' a condition that develops when there is too much carbon dioxide in the bloodstream. The CDC also says that most people with underlying medical conditions can and should wear masks. People with respiratory conditions who remain concerned about wearing a mask safely should talk with their healthcare provider, the CDC said. The CDC does not recommend masks for children under 2 years old or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.
|
Our ruling A video in a Facebook post claimed, 'Masks will kill quite a few people, it's well known that they reduce blood oxygen levels and those with respiratory and cardiac disorders will die.' We found no credible reports of people dying because they used masks to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Public health experts say it is not true that masks reduce blood oxygen levels. The CDC says that people with underlying medical conditions should still wear masks. The post is not factual. We rate it False. RELATED: There's no evidence that wearing standard masks is harmful to your health
|
[
"111183-proof-31-b7f496febc4f4b06505603a97fd8ec31.jpg"
] |
'Masks will kill quite a few people, it's well known that they reduce blood oxygen levels and those with respiratory and cardiac disorders will die.
|
Contradiction
|
For more than seven minutes, a video on Facebook shows a man in a large brown chair reading calmly from his notes, predicting global food shortages as 'a side effect of the coronavirus hoax,' and misleading about the use of masks to prevent the spread of the virus. About 34 seconds in, the man says: 'The masks will kill quite a few people, it's well known that they reduce blood oxygen levels and those with respiratory and cardiac disorders will die. It's true that surgeons wear masks, but they are different masks and different circumstances and not usually worn all day.' As he reads in a matter-of-fact tone, big red capital letters frame the video: 'They want to kill 6 billion of us. Here's how they will do it.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The man in the Facebook video was described by The Bangkok Post, a Thailand-based news outlet as a doctor, prolific author, and former newspaper columnist 'who has built a career on being anti-establishment,' and is now 'peddling played-out COVID-19 conspiracy theories.' This video includes several unfounded and wrong claims, but this fact-check will focus on the claim about masks having a deadly effect. Bottom line: Public health experts say masks are effective in reducing the spread of the coronavirus, and while some people may experience some discomfort wearing them, masks are generally safe to use. (The American Lung Association has suggestions on how to get used to wearing a mask.) What's known about mask usage For months, people around the world have been using masks to prevent getting or spreading the coronavirus. We found no credible reports of people dying as a result of wearing a mask. Reuters in October debunked a false claim that three children in Germany died from wearing face masks. PolitiFact has also fact-checked a lot of misinformation about masks. No, masks do not shut down or weaken the immune system. No, masks will not reduce blood oxygen levels. 'As a pulmonologist - a doctor who specializes in the respiratory system - I can assure you that behind that mask, your breathing is fine. You're getting all the oxygen you need, and your carbon dioxide levels aren't rising,' Jonathan Parsons, a pulmonologist at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and director of the Ohio State Asthma Center, wrote in an August blog post. Parsons wrote that people who experience anxiety or claustrophobia when wearing a mask can try to calm themselves by taking long, slow breaths. Thomas Tsai, a surgeon and health policy researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health, told PolitiFact in May that, 'on the margins we could probably find extreme cases where someone, somewhere with some condition has had an issue with a mask, but that's not the average.' Tsai said there was no data suggesting that it was harmful to wear a standard surgical or cloth mask under normal situations. N95 masks (ones that create a tight seal) are considered to be the most effective in protecting the wearer from airborne particles, and are commonly used by health care workers. Because of a shortage of those masks, public health officials recommended that the general public instead use other types of masks, like cloth masks, and reserve the N95s for health care workers who are routinely exposed to patients with COVID-19. What about people with underlying medical conditions? The American Lung Association says that people with chronic lung diseases may be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 and should wear cloth face masks in public areas. There is some evidence that prolonged use of N-95 masks in patients with preexisting lung disease could cause some build-up of carbon dioxide levels in the body, the association said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told Reuters earlier this year that the level of carbon dioxide likely to build up in a mask 'is mostly tolerable to people exposed to it' and that it is 'unlikely to cause hypercapnia,' a condition that develops when there is too much carbon dioxide in the bloodstream. The CDC also says that most people with underlying medical conditions can and should wear masks. People with respiratory conditions who remain concerned about wearing a mask safely should talk with their healthcare provider, the CDC said. The CDC does not recommend masks for children under 2 years old or anyone who has trouble breathing, is unconscious, incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the mask without assistance.
|
Our ruling A video in a Facebook post claimed, 'Masks will kill quite a few people, it's well known that they reduce blood oxygen levels and those with respiratory and cardiac disorders will die.' We found no credible reports of people dying because they used masks to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Public health experts say it is not true that masks reduce blood oxygen levels. The CDC says that people with underlying medical conditions should still wear masks. The post is not factual. We rate it False. RELATED: There's no evidence that wearing standard masks is harmful to your health
|
[
"111183-proof-31-b7f496febc4f4b06505603a97fd8ec31.jpg"
] |
Says his policy is that 'health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period.
|
Contradiction
|
Health insurance has emerged as a defining issue in the Georgia Senate race, and Republican incumbent Sen. David Perdue declared that there is one angle where he can't be attacked. 'I've always believed in protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. Period,' Perdue tweeted Aug. 18. 'Anyone who says otherwise just isn't telling the truth.' The campaign ad attached to the tweet adds, 'Health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period.' That is a sweeping policy - guaranteed coverage for anyone, with no penalty for a preexisting condition. If that's Perdue's position now, it doesn't jibe with his record as a lawmaker. He's voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act - Obamacare - and a bill he cosponsored to guarantee coverage fails to match the ironclad protections under that law. Comparing protections: Obamacare vs the Protect Act Perdue makes no bones about opposing the ACA, which contains several interlocking provisions that protect people with preexisting conditions. He voted to repeal it in 2015 and backed the Senate's failed repeal-and-replace effort in 2017. Perdue's campaign said that it's possible to be against Obamacare, and in favor of patient protections. It said, 'Perdue co-sponsored legislation to ensure preexisting conditions are covered at no additional cost to those patients.' That bill, called the Protect Act, never came to a vote in the Senate and doesn't match the ACA's guarantees. The current law blocks insurers from using any eligibility rule, list of covered services or pricing to deny anyone coverage. The Protect Act does say that insurance companies can't deny coverage based on 'any preexisting condition.' But it gives a carrier the option to deny certain coverage, if 'it will not have the capacity to deliver services adequately.' Since the bill doesn't define what that clause means, it leaves open the possibility that carriers could use it to drop coverage of certain expensive diseases from all of their policies. To Allison Hoffman, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, that's a big loophole. 'Insurers could exclude someone's preexisting conditions from coverage, even if they offered her a policy,' Hoffman told us in 2018 when the bill was first introduced. 'That fact alone sinks any claims that this law offers preexisting condition protection.' Rodney Whitlock, a health policy expert who worked for Republicans in Congress, told us concerns about loopholes are reasonable. 'Insurers will use the rules available to them to take in more in premiums than they pay out in claims,' Whitlock said in 2018. 'If you see a loophole and think insurers will use it, that's probably true.' Hoffman notes that the Protect Act's language against insurers discriminating based on genetic information also concerns her. The bill says carriers 'shall not request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to any individual prior to such individual's enrollment.' But the bill says information collected incidentally can be used by insurers. That could happen, for example, when an employee inadvertently reveals details on a questionnaire, despite being told not to include information that can be linked back to their DNA. Insurers can't use that information for setting premiums, but Hoffman says it could shape the list of covered maladies. 'If an insurer comes across genetic information incidentally, it seems to me that they could exclude any related conditions,' Hoffman warned. 'This loophole could be huge considering the amount of incidental collection and how broadly it is construed.' The bill has other holes: for instance, permitting insurers to charge women more than men. Perdue and short-term plans Perdue's stance on short-term health insurance plans also raises issues. These plans offer limited coverage that's intended to tide people over when they're between jobs. They don't need to follow the strict rules of the ACA. They don't have to cover the package of essential benefits under the law and they can exclude coverage for preexisting conditions. Under the ACA, they were limited to 90 days' coverage. The Trump administration extended that to 364 days, with the option to renew them for up to three years. Perdue voted against a 2018 resolution to oppose Trump's expansion of short-term plans. The measure failed by one vote. The Perdue campaign said that Obamacare isn't the only way to take care of people. 'The best way to protect those with preexisting conditions, lower costs for all Georgians, and expand access to coverage is through free market solutions,' the campaign said in a statement. The campaign noted that many counties have only one insurance company offering coverage. It argues that if more companies found it profitable to move into those areas, competition would improve the options for consumers.
|
Our ruling Perdue said that his policy is that 'health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period.' Perdue opposes the Affordable Care Act and weighed in on the side of short-term health plans that lack some of the ACA's strong protections for people with preexisting conditions. Perdue's bill to maintain those protections contains loopholes that insurance companies could use to avoid covering certain conditions. Perdue's promise is sweeping and absolute. The policies he has backed offer some limited protections, but don't match that promise. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111189-proof-46-0050d4e54637bdef53b5d202fc541720.jpg"
] |
Says his policy is that 'health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period.
|
Contradiction
|
Health insurance has emerged as a defining issue in the Georgia Senate race, and Republican incumbent Sen. David Perdue declared that there is one angle where he can't be attacked. 'I've always believed in protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. Period,' Perdue tweeted Aug. 18. 'Anyone who says otherwise just isn't telling the truth.' The campaign ad attached to the tweet adds, 'Health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period.' That is a sweeping policy - guaranteed coverage for anyone, with no penalty for a preexisting condition. If that's Perdue's position now, it doesn't jibe with his record as a lawmaker. He's voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act - Obamacare - and a bill he cosponsored to guarantee coverage fails to match the ironclad protections under that law. Comparing protections: Obamacare vs the Protect Act Perdue makes no bones about opposing the ACA, which contains several interlocking provisions that protect people with preexisting conditions. He voted to repeal it in 2015 and backed the Senate's failed repeal-and-replace effort in 2017. Perdue's campaign said that it's possible to be against Obamacare, and in favor of patient protections. It said, 'Perdue co-sponsored legislation to ensure preexisting conditions are covered at no additional cost to those patients.' That bill, called the Protect Act, never came to a vote in the Senate and doesn't match the ACA's guarantees. The current law blocks insurers from using any eligibility rule, list of covered services or pricing to deny anyone coverage. The Protect Act does say that insurance companies can't deny coverage based on 'any preexisting condition.' But it gives a carrier the option to deny certain coverage, if 'it will not have the capacity to deliver services adequately.' Since the bill doesn't define what that clause means, it leaves open the possibility that carriers could use it to drop coverage of certain expensive diseases from all of their policies. To Allison Hoffman, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, that's a big loophole. 'Insurers could exclude someone's preexisting conditions from coverage, even if they offered her a policy,' Hoffman told us in 2018 when the bill was first introduced. 'That fact alone sinks any claims that this law offers preexisting condition protection.' Rodney Whitlock, a health policy expert who worked for Republicans in Congress, told us concerns about loopholes are reasonable. 'Insurers will use the rules available to them to take in more in premiums than they pay out in claims,' Whitlock said in 2018. 'If you see a loophole and think insurers will use it, that's probably true.' Hoffman notes that the Protect Act's language against insurers discriminating based on genetic information also concerns her. The bill says carriers 'shall not request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to any individual prior to such individual's enrollment.' But the bill says information collected incidentally can be used by insurers. That could happen, for example, when an employee inadvertently reveals details on a questionnaire, despite being told not to include information that can be linked back to their DNA. Insurers can't use that information for setting premiums, but Hoffman says it could shape the list of covered maladies. 'If an insurer comes across genetic information incidentally, it seems to me that they could exclude any related conditions,' Hoffman warned. 'This loophole could be huge considering the amount of incidental collection and how broadly it is construed.' The bill has other holes: for instance, permitting insurers to charge women more than men. Perdue and short-term plans Perdue's stance on short-term health insurance plans also raises issues. These plans offer limited coverage that's intended to tide people over when they're between jobs. They don't need to follow the strict rules of the ACA. They don't have to cover the package of essential benefits under the law and they can exclude coverage for preexisting conditions. Under the ACA, they were limited to 90 days' coverage. The Trump administration extended that to 364 days, with the option to renew them for up to three years. Perdue voted against a 2018 resolution to oppose Trump's expansion of short-term plans. The measure failed by one vote. The Perdue campaign said that Obamacare isn't the only way to take care of people. 'The best way to protect those with preexisting conditions, lower costs for all Georgians, and expand access to coverage is through free market solutions,' the campaign said in a statement. The campaign noted that many counties have only one insurance company offering coverage. It argues that if more companies found it profitable to move into those areas, competition would improve the options for consumers.
|
Our ruling Perdue said that his policy is that 'health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period.' Perdue opposes the Affordable Care Act and weighed in on the side of short-term health plans that lack some of the ACA's strong protections for people with preexisting conditions. Perdue's bill to maintain those protections contains loopholes that insurance companies could use to avoid covering certain conditions. Perdue's promise is sweeping and absolute. The policies he has backed offer some limited protections, but don't match that promise. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111189-proof-46-0050d4e54637bdef53b5d202fc541720.jpg"
] |
Says his policy is that 'health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period.
|
Contradiction
|
Health insurance has emerged as a defining issue in the Georgia Senate race, and Republican incumbent Sen. David Perdue declared that there is one angle where he can't be attacked. 'I've always believed in protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. Period,' Perdue tweeted Aug. 18. 'Anyone who says otherwise just isn't telling the truth.' The campaign ad attached to the tweet adds, 'Health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period.' That is a sweeping policy - guaranteed coverage for anyone, with no penalty for a preexisting condition. If that's Perdue's position now, it doesn't jibe with his record as a lawmaker. He's voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act - Obamacare - and a bill he cosponsored to guarantee coverage fails to match the ironclad protections under that law. Comparing protections: Obamacare vs the Protect Act Perdue makes no bones about opposing the ACA, which contains several interlocking provisions that protect people with preexisting conditions. He voted to repeal it in 2015 and backed the Senate's failed repeal-and-replace effort in 2017. Perdue's campaign said that it's possible to be against Obamacare, and in favor of patient protections. It said, 'Perdue co-sponsored legislation to ensure preexisting conditions are covered at no additional cost to those patients.' That bill, called the Protect Act, never came to a vote in the Senate and doesn't match the ACA's guarantees. The current law blocks insurers from using any eligibility rule, list of covered services or pricing to deny anyone coverage. The Protect Act does say that insurance companies can't deny coverage based on 'any preexisting condition.' But it gives a carrier the option to deny certain coverage, if 'it will not have the capacity to deliver services adequately.' Since the bill doesn't define what that clause means, it leaves open the possibility that carriers could use it to drop coverage of certain expensive diseases from all of their policies. To Allison Hoffman, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, that's a big loophole. 'Insurers could exclude someone's preexisting conditions from coverage, even if they offered her a policy,' Hoffman told us in 2018 when the bill was first introduced. 'That fact alone sinks any claims that this law offers preexisting condition protection.' Rodney Whitlock, a health policy expert who worked for Republicans in Congress, told us concerns about loopholes are reasonable. 'Insurers will use the rules available to them to take in more in premiums than they pay out in claims,' Whitlock said in 2018. 'If you see a loophole and think insurers will use it, that's probably true.' Hoffman notes that the Protect Act's language against insurers discriminating based on genetic information also concerns her. The bill says carriers 'shall not request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to any individual prior to such individual's enrollment.' But the bill says information collected incidentally can be used by insurers. That could happen, for example, when an employee inadvertently reveals details on a questionnaire, despite being told not to include information that can be linked back to their DNA. Insurers can't use that information for setting premiums, but Hoffman says it could shape the list of covered maladies. 'If an insurer comes across genetic information incidentally, it seems to me that they could exclude any related conditions,' Hoffman warned. 'This loophole could be huge considering the amount of incidental collection and how broadly it is construed.' The bill has other holes: for instance, permitting insurers to charge women more than men. Perdue and short-term plans Perdue's stance on short-term health insurance plans also raises issues. These plans offer limited coverage that's intended to tide people over when they're between jobs. They don't need to follow the strict rules of the ACA. They don't have to cover the package of essential benefits under the law and they can exclude coverage for preexisting conditions. Under the ACA, they were limited to 90 days' coverage. The Trump administration extended that to 364 days, with the option to renew them for up to three years. Perdue voted against a 2018 resolution to oppose Trump's expansion of short-term plans. The measure failed by one vote. The Perdue campaign said that Obamacare isn't the only way to take care of people. 'The best way to protect those with preexisting conditions, lower costs for all Georgians, and expand access to coverage is through free market solutions,' the campaign said in a statement. The campaign noted that many counties have only one insurance company offering coverage. It argues that if more companies found it profitable to move into those areas, competition would improve the options for consumers.
|
Our ruling Perdue said that his policy is that 'health insurance should always cover preexisting conditions. For anyone. Period.' Perdue opposes the Affordable Care Act and weighed in on the side of short-term health plans that lack some of the ACA's strong protections for people with preexisting conditions. Perdue's bill to maintain those protections contains loopholes that insurance companies could use to avoid covering certain conditions. Perdue's promise is sweeping and absolute. The policies he has backed offer some limited protections, but don't match that promise. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111189-proof-46-0050d4e54637bdef53b5d202fc541720.jpg"
] |
Says he 'is the only candidate in the Wisconsin Attorney General race with experience as a prosecutor.
|
Contradiction
|
Repeat a story -- or fact -- often enough and you eventually mess it up. That's what appears to have happened with Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney, who is running for the Republican nomination for attorney general, and has repeatedly made variations of this claim: 'I'm the only front-line prosecutor in this race that's actually used the resources of the Wisconsin Crime Lab in the prosecution of cases.' He's technically accurate, but more clarification was needed (more on that below). We have rated that claim Mostly True. Now for the messed up version. On Sept. 9, 2021, Toney issued a news release announcing the endorsement of La Crosse County Sheriff Jeff Wolf. The news release said this of Toney: 'He is the only candidate in the Wisconsin Attorney General race with experience as a prosecutor.' As we noted in our earlier fact-check, incumbent Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, is a former federal prosecutor in Baltimore, a position he held from 2010 to 2014. In that role, well, he prosecuted criminals, such as murderers and drug traffickers. As attorney general, meanwhile, Kaul oversees the Department of Justice's more than 800 employees, which includes about 20 prosecutors (and, by the way, also includes the state crime lab that Toney more regularly references). Those prosecutors cover cases ranging from fraud to drug trafficking to homicides. When asked about the new version of the claim, Toney left us a voicemail that blamed a 'drafting error.' The campaign then issued a new version of the release that specified that Toney is the only candidate with experience as 'a front-line Wisconsin prosecutor.' In short, the battle of biographies continues.
|
Our ruling In a news release, Toney's campaign claimed: 'He is the only candidate in the Wisconsin Attorney General race with experience as a prosecutor.' That's flatly wrong. Indeed, Toney should well know that precisely because he has taken such pains to frame his other statements regarding his experience much more narrowly, and much more correctly. We rate this one False.
|
[
"111191-proof-29-4b9420cf3f0c4a86aaace130312664d7.jpg"
] |
Says he 'is the only candidate in the Wisconsin Attorney General race with experience as a prosecutor.
|
Contradiction
|
Repeat a story -- or fact -- often enough and you eventually mess it up. That's what appears to have happened with Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney, who is running for the Republican nomination for attorney general, and has repeatedly made variations of this claim: 'I'm the only front-line prosecutor in this race that's actually used the resources of the Wisconsin Crime Lab in the prosecution of cases.' He's technically accurate, but more clarification was needed (more on that below). We have rated that claim Mostly True. Now for the messed up version. On Sept. 9, 2021, Toney issued a news release announcing the endorsement of La Crosse County Sheriff Jeff Wolf. The news release said this of Toney: 'He is the only candidate in the Wisconsin Attorney General race with experience as a prosecutor.' As we noted in our earlier fact-check, incumbent Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, is a former federal prosecutor in Baltimore, a position he held from 2010 to 2014. In that role, well, he prosecuted criminals, such as murderers and drug traffickers. As attorney general, meanwhile, Kaul oversees the Department of Justice's more than 800 employees, which includes about 20 prosecutors (and, by the way, also includes the state crime lab that Toney more regularly references). Those prosecutors cover cases ranging from fraud to drug trafficking to homicides. When asked about the new version of the claim, Toney left us a voicemail that blamed a 'drafting error.' The campaign then issued a new version of the release that specified that Toney is the only candidate with experience as 'a front-line Wisconsin prosecutor.' In short, the battle of biographies continues.
|
Our ruling In a news release, Toney's campaign claimed: 'He is the only candidate in the Wisconsin Attorney General race with experience as a prosecutor.' That's flatly wrong. Indeed, Toney should well know that precisely because he has taken such pains to frame his other statements regarding his experience much more narrowly, and much more correctly. We rate this one False.
|
[
"111191-proof-29-4b9420cf3f0c4a86aaace130312664d7.jpg"
] |
Says he 'is the only candidate in the Wisconsin Attorney General race with experience as a prosecutor.
|
Contradiction
|
Repeat a story -- or fact -- often enough and you eventually mess it up. That's what appears to have happened with Fond du Lac County District Attorney Eric Toney, who is running for the Republican nomination for attorney general, and has repeatedly made variations of this claim: 'I'm the only front-line prosecutor in this race that's actually used the resources of the Wisconsin Crime Lab in the prosecution of cases.' He's technically accurate, but more clarification was needed (more on that below). We have rated that claim Mostly True. Now for the messed up version. On Sept. 9, 2021, Toney issued a news release announcing the endorsement of La Crosse County Sheriff Jeff Wolf. The news release said this of Toney: 'He is the only candidate in the Wisconsin Attorney General race with experience as a prosecutor.' As we noted in our earlier fact-check, incumbent Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, is a former federal prosecutor in Baltimore, a position he held from 2010 to 2014. In that role, well, he prosecuted criminals, such as murderers and drug traffickers. As attorney general, meanwhile, Kaul oversees the Department of Justice's more than 800 employees, which includes about 20 prosecutors (and, by the way, also includes the state crime lab that Toney more regularly references). Those prosecutors cover cases ranging from fraud to drug trafficking to homicides. When asked about the new version of the claim, Toney left us a voicemail that blamed a 'drafting error.' The campaign then issued a new version of the release that specified that Toney is the only candidate with experience as 'a front-line Wisconsin prosecutor.' In short, the battle of biographies continues.
|
Our ruling In a news release, Toney's campaign claimed: 'He is the only candidate in the Wisconsin Attorney General race with experience as a prosecutor.' That's flatly wrong. Indeed, Toney should well know that precisely because he has taken such pains to frame his other statements regarding his experience much more narrowly, and much more correctly. We rate this one False.
|
[
"111191-proof-29-4b9420cf3f0c4a86aaace130312664d7.jpg"
] |
'The Bidens own 10% of' a Chinese firm whose stock is up almost 300%' since Joe Biden was elected.
|
Contradiction
|
A vague attack on 'the Bidens' claims they own 10% of the Chinese company Contemporary Amperex Technology Ltd., and that the company's stock 'has soared almost 300%' since Joe Biden was elected. CATL is known as China's top battery maker and counts electric vehicle maker Tesla among its customers. It has been a hot stock as more automakers shift their attention to electric vehicles. A 10% stake would be worth about $18 billion. The attack, shared in a Facebook post, continues with a conspiracy theory alleging that the Bidens will profit because China has been in talks with the Taliban and will 'take over' Afghanistan's market for lithium, which is used in electric vehicle batteries. Biden in August issued an executive order aimed at making half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 electric. The Facebook post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence for either part of the claim. No Bidens among largest shareholders: Three individuals own 10% or more of CATL, according to MarketScreener.com, a stock market and financial news website. They are the company's chairman, Yu Qun Zeng; its vice chairman, Shi Lin Huang; and Chinese billionaire Zhen Hua Pei. No individual stocks owned by Joe, Jill Biden: Since becoming president, Biden has filed one financial disclosure form for himself and his wife, Jill, on May 17, 2021. Previously, Biden filed a disclosure as a presidential candidate, on May 20, 2020. The forms show that the couple's investments did not include any individual stocks. Joe Biden's son Hunter has been scrutinized for his financial ties to China, but no reports have emerged that he has a large direct stake in CATL. The Wall Street Journal reported in December 2020 that Hunter Biden had a 10% stake in the private-equity firm Bohai Harvest RST (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund Management Co. BHR, founded by a Chinese businessman, invested in CATL and profited from it, but Biden's lawyer said Biden made no return on his own investment, according to the article. Stock up 90%, not 300%: CATL shares trade on China's Shenzhen stock exchange. The closing prices for CATL stock were 256.02 yuan (or about $40) on Nov. 3, 2020, the day of the presidential election; 266.43 yuan on Nov. 9, the first market day after he was declared the winner; and 486.50 yuan on Sept. 3, 2021, the last market day before the image was posted on Facebook. From Nov. 3, 2020, to Sept. 3, 2021, the price increased 90%. In 2020, the year before Biden took office, the stock price tripled. We rate the claim False.
|
We rate the claim False.
|
[
"111193-proof-13-4a65e3d4689f27ba7c425889ab81a007.jpg"
] |
Following Hurricane Ida, animals from Turtle Back Zoo in New Jersey are 'fleeing the premises.
|
Contradiction
|
Tropical Storm Ida hit New York and New Jersey with torrential downpours, flash flooding and tornadoes on the night of Sept. 1. For all of the dangerous conditions awaiting residents the next morning, escaped zoo animals were not one of them. A viral text message warning of lions, gorillas and bears on the loose was a hoax. An image of a text alert spread across social media, including this Facebook post, and said, 'Animals from Turtle Back Zoo (West Orange 07052) are fleeing the premises. Animals listed: penguins, lions, bears, otters, gorillas, and reptiles. Any exotic animals seen please call local animal control services immediately so we can return animals back to the zoo safely.' Some were alarmed by the warning, even saying that they had even heard of an alligator roaming South Orange Avenue, but others called it fake. The zoo is part of the Essex County park system. Essex County Executive Joseph N. DiVincenzo Jr. said the rumor was 'unequivocally false.' 'Turtle Back is an accredited facility that takes the care and welfare of our animals very seriously,' DiVincenzo said in an emailed statement. 'In advance of Hurricane Ida, our animal care team secured all the animals indoors and staff remained on grounds to monitor the situation.' Turtle Back Zoo thanked people for their concern on Twitter. 'There was no loss of power and all of our animals and animal areas weathered the storm well and remain safe and secure within the facility,' the zoo wrote.
|
Our ruling A social media claim warned of animals that escaped from New Jersey's Turtle Back Zoo during Tropical Storm Ida. Both the zoo and Essex County executive said that didn't happen. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
|
[
"111196-proof-24-421b24b78febae6683e2d5b04a49170d.jpg"
] |
'Under part 2 of the infrastructure bill, upon death the entire value of your accumulated wealth and estate will be taxed at 61%.
|
Contradiction
|
No, the infrastructure bill backed by President Joe Biden wouldn't create a per-mile driving tax (False) or a 3% property tax (Pants on Fire). How about a 61% tax on wealth and estates? That's the exaggerated claim made in a viral image that says: 'How Many Citizens Are Actually Aware Under Part 2 Of The Infrastructure Bill, Upon Death The Entire Value Of Your Accumulated Wealth & Estate Will Be Taxed At 61%?' 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.) Biden did make such a proposal - but it would have applied to few estates, only those worth nearly $12 million or more. Moreover, the proposal is not currently included in a budget reconciliation bill being debated in Congress. A proposal that isn't pending Biden's American Families Plan (not his infrastructure plan), which was released in April, included two proposals to end what it described as tax 'loopholes' for the rich. They would have covered capital gains and estates. Capital gains taxes apply to the appreciation of an asset. A capital gain is the difference between the cost of the asset when you bought it and the value of the asset when you sell it. Estate taxes apply to the value of an estate when the owner dies and the assets are distributed to others. Broadly speaking, the Biden proposals would have raised the top capital gains tax rate to match the rate on earned income, and changed the way capital gains are calculated on inherited assets, so that a greater share of investment gains would be subject to capital-gains and estate taxes. But the two changes would have applied to very few estates - only those worth more than $11.7 million that also had unrealized capital gains worth more than $1 million. On a $100 million estate, according to the Tax Foundation, the combination of the two Biden proposals would have resulted in a tax of $61 million, or an effective tax rate of 61%. But the two proposals are not part of the budget reconciliation bill approved Sept. 15 by the House Ways and Means Committee. And according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 'there has been no discussion of including major portions of this proposal by lawmakers.' Currently, individual estates worth up to $11.7 million (about $23.4 million for couples) are exempt from the estate tax. Any amount above that is subject to the tax, which tops out at 40%. The bill being considered would apply the estate tax to more estates - those worth about $6 million or more (about $12 million for couples), with estates worth less than that paying no estate tax, said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. That bill would apply to only a few thousand estates, Gleckman said. The Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation did not estimate how many estates Biden's proposal would have applied to. But the number would have been far more than a few thousand, Gleckman said.
|
Our ruling A viral image stated: 'Under part 2 of the infrastructure bill, upon death the entire value of your accumulated wealth and estate will be taxed at 61%.' The claim wrongly suggests that this is an active part of legislation that would be broadly applied to the entire value of all estates. Biden did propose two tax changes that, according to the Tax Foundation, would have created an effective 61% tax rate on an example estate of $100 million, including capital gains and estate taxes. The proposal was not in his infrastructure plan, but in a separate plan. It would have applied only to very large estates. However, the proposals are not currently included in a budget reconciliation bill now being debated in Congress. We rate the post False.
|
[] |
'Under part 2 of the infrastructure bill, upon death the entire value of your accumulated wealth and estate will be taxed at 61%.
|
Contradiction
|
No, the infrastructure bill backed by President Joe Biden wouldn't create a per-mile driving tax (False) or a 3% property tax (Pants on Fire). How about a 61% tax on wealth and estates? That's the exaggerated claim made in a viral image that says: 'How Many Citizens Are Actually Aware Under Part 2 Of The Infrastructure Bill, Upon Death The Entire Value Of Your Accumulated Wealth & Estate Will Be Taxed At 61%?' 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.) Biden did make such a proposal - but it would have applied to few estates, only those worth nearly $12 million or more. Moreover, the proposal is not currently included in a budget reconciliation bill being debated in Congress. A proposal that isn't pending Biden's American Families Plan (not his infrastructure plan), which was released in April, included two proposals to end what it described as tax 'loopholes' for the rich. They would have covered capital gains and estates. Capital gains taxes apply to the appreciation of an asset. A capital gain is the difference between the cost of the asset when you bought it and the value of the asset when you sell it. Estate taxes apply to the value of an estate when the owner dies and the assets are distributed to others. Broadly speaking, the Biden proposals would have raised the top capital gains tax rate to match the rate on earned income, and changed the way capital gains are calculated on inherited assets, so that a greater share of investment gains would be subject to capital-gains and estate taxes. But the two changes would have applied to very few estates - only those worth more than $11.7 million that also had unrealized capital gains worth more than $1 million. On a $100 million estate, according to the Tax Foundation, the combination of the two Biden proposals would have resulted in a tax of $61 million, or an effective tax rate of 61%. But the two proposals are not part of the budget reconciliation bill approved Sept. 15 by the House Ways and Means Committee. And according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 'there has been no discussion of including major portions of this proposal by lawmakers.' Currently, individual estates worth up to $11.7 million (about $23.4 million for couples) are exempt from the estate tax. Any amount above that is subject to the tax, which tops out at 40%. The bill being considered would apply the estate tax to more estates - those worth about $6 million or more (about $12 million for couples), with estates worth less than that paying no estate tax, said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. That bill would apply to only a few thousand estates, Gleckman said. The Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation did not estimate how many estates Biden's proposal would have applied to. But the number would have been far more than a few thousand, Gleckman said.
|
Our ruling A viral image stated: 'Under part 2 of the infrastructure bill, upon death the entire value of your accumulated wealth and estate will be taxed at 61%.' The claim wrongly suggests that this is an active part of legislation that would be broadly applied to the entire value of all estates. Biden did propose two tax changes that, according to the Tax Foundation, would have created an effective 61% tax rate on an example estate of $100 million, including capital gains and estate taxes. The proposal was not in his infrastructure plan, but in a separate plan. It would have applied only to very large estates. However, the proposals are not currently included in a budget reconciliation bill now being debated in Congress. We rate the post False.
|
[] |
'Joe Biden completely botches the Pledge of Allegiance.
|
Contradiction
|
In a video that's being shared on social media, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden stands in front of an American flag wearing a face mask. 'I pledge allegiance to the United States one nation, indivisible, under God, for real,' he says. Steve Guest, rapid response director for the Republican National Committee, tweeted the clip and said, 'Joe Biden completely botches the Pledge of Allegiance.' But Biden wasn't reciting the pledge, and the tweet 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 clip of Biden comes from remarks he gave in Manitowoc, Wis., on Sept. 21. He says that line around the 23-minute 45-second mark of this video posted on YouTube by NBC News. Leading up to that moment, Biden is criticizing President Donald Trump for what Biden calls a 'deeply flawed and divisive view of the United States' and for favoring Republican states over Democratic ones. 'He's saying, if you live in a state like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, states with Democratic governors, you're not his problem,' Biden said. 'He has no obligation to you. He's not responsible for you as president, your family or your wellbeing. I don't see the presidency that way. I don't pledge allegiance to red states of America or blue states of America, I pledge allegiance to the United States of America. One nation, indivisible, under God. For real. I'm running as a proud Democrat, but I'm not going to govern as a Democratic president. I'm going to govern as president.' We rate this tweet False.
|
We rate this tweet False.
|
[] |
'Joe Biden completely botches the Pledge of Allegiance.
|
Contradiction
|
In a video that's being shared on social media, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden stands in front of an American flag wearing a face mask. 'I pledge allegiance to the United States one nation, indivisible, under God, for real,' he says. Steve Guest, rapid response director for the Republican National Committee, tweeted the clip and said, 'Joe Biden completely botches the Pledge of Allegiance.' But Biden wasn't reciting the pledge, and the tweet 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 clip of Biden comes from remarks he gave in Manitowoc, Wis., on Sept. 21. He says that line around the 23-minute 45-second mark of this video posted on YouTube by NBC News. Leading up to that moment, Biden is criticizing President Donald Trump for what Biden calls a 'deeply flawed and divisive view of the United States' and for favoring Republican states over Democratic ones. 'He's saying, if you live in a state like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, states with Democratic governors, you're not his problem,' Biden said. 'He has no obligation to you. He's not responsible for you as president, your family or your wellbeing. I don't see the presidency that way. I don't pledge allegiance to red states of America or blue states of America, I pledge allegiance to the United States of America. One nation, indivisible, under God. For real. I'm running as a proud Democrat, but I'm not going to govern as a Democratic president. I'm going to govern as president.' We rate this tweet False.
|
We rate this tweet False.
|
[] |
'Joe Biden completely botches the Pledge of Allegiance.
|
Contradiction
|
In a video that's being shared on social media, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden stands in front of an American flag wearing a face mask. 'I pledge allegiance to the United States one nation, indivisible, under God, for real,' he says. Steve Guest, rapid response director for the Republican National Committee, tweeted the clip and said, 'Joe Biden completely botches the Pledge of Allegiance.' But Biden wasn't reciting the pledge, and the tweet 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 clip of Biden comes from remarks he gave in Manitowoc, Wis., on Sept. 21. He says that line around the 23-minute 45-second mark of this video posted on YouTube by NBC News. Leading up to that moment, Biden is criticizing President Donald Trump for what Biden calls a 'deeply flawed and divisive view of the United States' and for favoring Republican states over Democratic ones. 'He's saying, if you live in a state like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, states with Democratic governors, you're not his problem,' Biden said. 'He has no obligation to you. He's not responsible for you as president, your family or your wellbeing. I don't see the presidency that way. I don't pledge allegiance to red states of America or blue states of America, I pledge allegiance to the United States of America. One nation, indivisible, under God. For real. I'm running as a proud Democrat, but I'm not going to govern as a Democratic president. I'm going to govern as president.' We rate this tweet False.
|
We rate this tweet False.
|
[] |
'The Walker-Kleefisch administration slashed $800 million from public schools.
|
Contradiction
|
There is an adage that if you repeat a statement enough times, it eventually will be accepted as true. But that's not how we work around here. At PolitiFact Wisconsin, if you keep recycling the same claim, it's not going to lead to a better rating. Instead, it'll lead back to where we started. Consider a claim posted Sept. 13, 2021 on Instagram by the state Democratic Party of Wisconsin, in which they target Republican gubernatorial candidate Rebecca Kleefisch, who was lieutenant governor under Gov. Scott Walker before the pair were ousted in 2018: 'The Walker-Kleefisch administration slashed $800 million from public schools.' We clicked our way back through our files, and found this claim from a September 2018 campaign ad from now-Gov. Tony Evers, that Walker 'cut $800 million from our schools.' We wrote: In the ad, Evers claims Walker cut $800 million from schools. He did cut close to that ($784 million), in raw dollars in a single two-year budget. But that ignores changes made through Walker's Act 10 that saved districts money. And the ad does not make clear that it's referring only to cuts from 2011-'13, so viewers wouldn't know that subsequent funding increases have made up most of that reduction. We rated it Mostly False. Going a little further back, there was also this claim, from April 2018 -- that despite a recent increase in school funding, Walker 'has taken over a billion dollars from the public schools.' We wrote: In Walker's first year as governor (2011), he cut school aid by $426.5 million from the previous year, which was Jim Doyle's final year as governor. Because it took five years to get school funding back to that base level, it could be argued that Walker 'took' a total of $1.17 billion from schools over that period. But since then, Walker had increased school funding to the point that the deficit, in comparison to the base year, was $183.6 million. We also rated that claim Mostly False. So, what's new this time? Not much. When asked to back up their claim, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin emailed a list of media reports that describe the same cuts and budget moves we mentioned above. For instance, they sent a June 27, 2011, article from WISN 12 News titled 'Walker's Budget Cuts $800 Million From Public Education.' But the very same article included comments from Walker that noted, as we did in our factcheck, there is another side to the equation -- money that districts could gain through Act 10.
|
Our ruling The Democratic Party of Wisconsin claimed that 'The Walker-Kleefisch administration slashed $800 million from public schools.' We have rated that claim before, when various Democrats tried to pin it solely on Walker. The same numbers and logic apply now: The Walker-Kleefisch administration did cut close to that amount ($784 million), in raw dollars in a single two-year budget. But that ignores changes made through Walker's Act 10 that saved districts money. And the fact that large chunks of the funding were restored over time. We rated the claim Mostly False then. We rate it the same way now.
|
[
"111239-proof-41-4f17be61a2774a0946faa84088b62182.jpg"
] |
'The Walker-Kleefisch administration slashed $800 million from public schools.
|
Contradiction
|
There is an adage that if you repeat a statement enough times, it eventually will be accepted as true. But that's not how we work around here. At PolitiFact Wisconsin, if you keep recycling the same claim, it's not going to lead to a better rating. Instead, it'll lead back to where we started. Consider a claim posted Sept. 13, 2021 on Instagram by the state Democratic Party of Wisconsin, in which they target Republican gubernatorial candidate Rebecca Kleefisch, who was lieutenant governor under Gov. Scott Walker before the pair were ousted in 2018: 'The Walker-Kleefisch administration slashed $800 million from public schools.' We clicked our way back through our files, and found this claim from a September 2018 campaign ad from now-Gov. Tony Evers, that Walker 'cut $800 million from our schools.' We wrote: In the ad, Evers claims Walker cut $800 million from schools. He did cut close to that ($784 million), in raw dollars in a single two-year budget. But that ignores changes made through Walker's Act 10 that saved districts money. And the ad does not make clear that it's referring only to cuts from 2011-'13, so viewers wouldn't know that subsequent funding increases have made up most of that reduction. We rated it Mostly False. Going a little further back, there was also this claim, from April 2018 -- that despite a recent increase in school funding, Walker 'has taken over a billion dollars from the public schools.' We wrote: In Walker's first year as governor (2011), he cut school aid by $426.5 million from the previous year, which was Jim Doyle's final year as governor. Because it took five years to get school funding back to that base level, it could be argued that Walker 'took' a total of $1.17 billion from schools over that period. But since then, Walker had increased school funding to the point that the deficit, in comparison to the base year, was $183.6 million. We also rated that claim Mostly False. So, what's new this time? Not much. When asked to back up their claim, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin emailed a list of media reports that describe the same cuts and budget moves we mentioned above. For instance, they sent a June 27, 2011, article from WISN 12 News titled 'Walker's Budget Cuts $800 Million From Public Education.' But the very same article included comments from Walker that noted, as we did in our factcheck, there is another side to the equation -- money that districts could gain through Act 10.
|
Our ruling The Democratic Party of Wisconsin claimed that 'The Walker-Kleefisch administration slashed $800 million from public schools.' We have rated that claim before, when various Democrats tried to pin it solely on Walker. The same numbers and logic apply now: The Walker-Kleefisch administration did cut close to that amount ($784 million), in raw dollars in a single two-year budget. But that ignores changes made through Walker's Act 10 that saved districts money. And the fact that large chunks of the funding were restored over time. We rated the claim Mostly False then. We rate it the same way now.
|
[
"111239-proof-41-4f17be61a2774a0946faa84088b62182.jpg"
] |
'The Walker-Kleefisch administration slashed $800 million from public schools.
|
Contradiction
|
There is an adage that if you repeat a statement enough times, it eventually will be accepted as true. But that's not how we work around here. At PolitiFact Wisconsin, if you keep recycling the same claim, it's not going to lead to a better rating. Instead, it'll lead back to where we started. Consider a claim posted Sept. 13, 2021 on Instagram by the state Democratic Party of Wisconsin, in which they target Republican gubernatorial candidate Rebecca Kleefisch, who was lieutenant governor under Gov. Scott Walker before the pair were ousted in 2018: 'The Walker-Kleefisch administration slashed $800 million from public schools.' We clicked our way back through our files, and found this claim from a September 2018 campaign ad from now-Gov. Tony Evers, that Walker 'cut $800 million from our schools.' We wrote: In the ad, Evers claims Walker cut $800 million from schools. He did cut close to that ($784 million), in raw dollars in a single two-year budget. But that ignores changes made through Walker's Act 10 that saved districts money. And the ad does not make clear that it's referring only to cuts from 2011-'13, so viewers wouldn't know that subsequent funding increases have made up most of that reduction. We rated it Mostly False. Going a little further back, there was also this claim, from April 2018 -- that despite a recent increase in school funding, Walker 'has taken over a billion dollars from the public schools.' We wrote: In Walker's first year as governor (2011), he cut school aid by $426.5 million from the previous year, which was Jim Doyle's final year as governor. Because it took five years to get school funding back to that base level, it could be argued that Walker 'took' a total of $1.17 billion from schools over that period. But since then, Walker had increased school funding to the point that the deficit, in comparison to the base year, was $183.6 million. We also rated that claim Mostly False. So, what's new this time? Not much. When asked to back up their claim, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin emailed a list of media reports that describe the same cuts and budget moves we mentioned above. For instance, they sent a June 27, 2011, article from WISN 12 News titled 'Walker's Budget Cuts $800 Million From Public Education.' But the very same article included comments from Walker that noted, as we did in our factcheck, there is another side to the equation -- money that districts could gain through Act 10.
|
Our ruling The Democratic Party of Wisconsin claimed that 'The Walker-Kleefisch administration slashed $800 million from public schools.' We have rated that claim before, when various Democrats tried to pin it solely on Walker. The same numbers and logic apply now: The Walker-Kleefisch administration did cut close to that amount ($784 million), in raw dollars in a single two-year budget. But that ignores changes made through Walker's Act 10 that saved districts money. And the fact that large chunks of the funding were restored over time. We rated the claim Mostly False then. We rate it the same way now.
|
[
"111239-proof-41-4f17be61a2774a0946faa84088b62182.jpg"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.