claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
'We're setting record job numbers.
|
Contradiction
|
During his first White House coronavirus briefing after a months-long hiatus, President Donald Trump touted recent economic improvements on his watch. During the July 21 briefing, he was asked, 'Do you want the American people to judge you on the ballot in November by how you've handled this pandemic so far?' Trump responded, 'I think the American people will judge us on this, but they'll judge us on the economy that I created and that already we're creating. We're setting record job numbers, as you know. I think we're going to have a very strong year next year.' Trump returned to the theme of roaring job gains in the next day's briefing. 'We have an economy that's going to be booming. ... A lot of jobs are being produced. The job numbers will be coming out shortly, meaning over the next week or so, and I think it'll be a continuation of the last two months. The last two months have been incredible.' Trump's boast focuses on month-over-month job gains in May and June and ignores the huge job losses the country saw in March and April. It also overstates the overall jobs picture. Since Trump took office, the unemployment rate is significantly up, and the current number of Americans working is down. Yes, May and June saw significant job growth. According to the official Bureau of Labor Statistics count, non-farm employment rose by nearly 2.7 million in May and by 4.8 million in June. Those are significantly higher than the 1.1 million rise in September 1983, the previous record. But these large increases followed a drop of more than 20 million jobs in April. That 20 million decrease is 10 times larger than the previous record for jobs lost in one month, which came in September 1945, when post-World War II demobilization was kicking in. 'The only reason the job growth numbers for May and June set records was because of the catastrophic collapse of jobs in March, and, especially, April,' said Steve Fazzari, an economist at Washington University in St. Louis. 'There is no way job growth would be setting records without the much worse collapse that preceded the record months.' In May and June, the U.S. made back about 37% of the jobs that had been lost in April. Economists say this is an important piece of context to consider. The focus on the two monthly job gains is 'incomplete,' said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the free-market American Action Forum. 'You can't ever just look at one or two months' data,' he said. 'You have to provide some context or else you're cherry-picking.' Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, used a stock market analogy to describe the current jobs situation. 'If the price of shares drops 25% in the first half of the year and then rebounds 20% in the second half of the year, stock market investors are still 10% poorer on Dec. 31 than they were on Jan. 1st,' he said. ''The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 11.1% last month ...' is not a phrase any American president wants to see. June had the highest unemployment rate in my lifetime, except for the rates in April and May. And I'm 70 years old.' The decline in April was so large that a big bounceback is not all that surprising, said Dean Baker, an economist and co-founder of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. 'In fact, it would be incredibly scary if we didn't,' Baker said. 'The real question is how rapid the job growth will be going forward. We are still down by more than 14 million jobs. That is a disaster.'
|
Our ruling Trump said, 'We're setting record job numbers.' Trump is fixating on one piece of the jobs puzzle, the job gains in May and June, while ignoring the rest of the picture. The gains make up less than 40% of the April losses, the nation's unemployment rate remains over 11%, and the total number of Americans working now is less than when Trump took office. Trump's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"111246-proof-34-8ff28bd720ec357cc2d0dea37af4f960.jpg"
] |
'We're setting record job numbers.
|
Contradiction
|
During his first White House coronavirus briefing after a months-long hiatus, President Donald Trump touted recent economic improvements on his watch. During the July 21 briefing, he was asked, 'Do you want the American people to judge you on the ballot in November by how you've handled this pandemic so far?' Trump responded, 'I think the American people will judge us on this, but they'll judge us on the economy that I created and that already we're creating. We're setting record job numbers, as you know. I think we're going to have a very strong year next year.' Trump returned to the theme of roaring job gains in the next day's briefing. 'We have an economy that's going to be booming. ... A lot of jobs are being produced. The job numbers will be coming out shortly, meaning over the next week or so, and I think it'll be a continuation of the last two months. The last two months have been incredible.' Trump's boast focuses on month-over-month job gains in May and June and ignores the huge job losses the country saw in March and April. It also overstates the overall jobs picture. Since Trump took office, the unemployment rate is significantly up, and the current number of Americans working is down. Yes, May and June saw significant job growth. According to the official Bureau of Labor Statistics count, non-farm employment rose by nearly 2.7 million in May and by 4.8 million in June. Those are significantly higher than the 1.1 million rise in September 1983, the previous record. But these large increases followed a drop of more than 20 million jobs in April. That 20 million decrease is 10 times larger than the previous record for jobs lost in one month, which came in September 1945, when post-World War II demobilization was kicking in. 'The only reason the job growth numbers for May and June set records was because of the catastrophic collapse of jobs in March, and, especially, April,' said Steve Fazzari, an economist at Washington University in St. Louis. 'There is no way job growth would be setting records without the much worse collapse that preceded the record months.' In May and June, the U.S. made back about 37% of the jobs that had been lost in April. Economists say this is an important piece of context to consider. The focus on the two monthly job gains is 'incomplete,' said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the free-market American Action Forum. 'You can't ever just look at one or two months' data,' he said. 'You have to provide some context or else you're cherry-picking.' Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, used a stock market analogy to describe the current jobs situation. 'If the price of shares drops 25% in the first half of the year and then rebounds 20% in the second half of the year, stock market investors are still 10% poorer on Dec. 31 than they were on Jan. 1st,' he said. ''The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 11.1% last month ...' is not a phrase any American president wants to see. June had the highest unemployment rate in my lifetime, except for the rates in April and May. And I'm 70 years old.' The decline in April was so large that a big bounceback is not all that surprising, said Dean Baker, an economist and co-founder of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. 'In fact, it would be incredibly scary if we didn't,' Baker said. 'The real question is how rapid the job growth will be going forward. We are still down by more than 14 million jobs. That is a disaster.'
|
Our ruling Trump said, 'We're setting record job numbers.' Trump is fixating on one piece of the jobs puzzle, the job gains in May and June, while ignoring the rest of the picture. The gains make up less than 40% of the April losses, the nation's unemployment rate remains over 11%, and the total number of Americans working now is less than when Trump took office. Trump's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"111246-proof-34-8ff28bd720ec357cc2d0dea37af4f960.jpg"
] |
'We're setting record job numbers.
|
Contradiction
|
During his first White House coronavirus briefing after a months-long hiatus, President Donald Trump touted recent economic improvements on his watch. During the July 21 briefing, he was asked, 'Do you want the American people to judge you on the ballot in November by how you've handled this pandemic so far?' Trump responded, 'I think the American people will judge us on this, but they'll judge us on the economy that I created and that already we're creating. We're setting record job numbers, as you know. I think we're going to have a very strong year next year.' Trump returned to the theme of roaring job gains in the next day's briefing. 'We have an economy that's going to be booming. ... A lot of jobs are being produced. The job numbers will be coming out shortly, meaning over the next week or so, and I think it'll be a continuation of the last two months. The last two months have been incredible.' Trump's boast focuses on month-over-month job gains in May and June and ignores the huge job losses the country saw in March and April. It also overstates the overall jobs picture. Since Trump took office, the unemployment rate is significantly up, and the current number of Americans working is down. Yes, May and June saw significant job growth. According to the official Bureau of Labor Statistics count, non-farm employment rose by nearly 2.7 million in May and by 4.8 million in June. Those are significantly higher than the 1.1 million rise in September 1983, the previous record. But these large increases followed a drop of more than 20 million jobs in April. That 20 million decrease is 10 times larger than the previous record for jobs lost in one month, which came in September 1945, when post-World War II demobilization was kicking in. 'The only reason the job growth numbers for May and June set records was because of the catastrophic collapse of jobs in March, and, especially, April,' said Steve Fazzari, an economist at Washington University in St. Louis. 'There is no way job growth would be setting records without the much worse collapse that preceded the record months.' In May and June, the U.S. made back about 37% of the jobs that had been lost in April. Economists say this is an important piece of context to consider. The focus on the two monthly job gains is 'incomplete,' said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the free-market American Action Forum. 'You can't ever just look at one or two months' data,' he said. 'You have to provide some context or else you're cherry-picking.' Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, used a stock market analogy to describe the current jobs situation. 'If the price of shares drops 25% in the first half of the year and then rebounds 20% in the second half of the year, stock market investors are still 10% poorer on Dec. 31 than they were on Jan. 1st,' he said. ''The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 11.1% last month ...' is not a phrase any American president wants to see. June had the highest unemployment rate in my lifetime, except for the rates in April and May. And I'm 70 years old.' The decline in April was so large that a big bounceback is not all that surprising, said Dean Baker, an economist and co-founder of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. 'In fact, it would be incredibly scary if we didn't,' Baker said. 'The real question is how rapid the job growth will be going forward. We are still down by more than 14 million jobs. That is a disaster.'
|
Our ruling Trump said, 'We're setting record job numbers.' Trump is fixating on one piece of the jobs puzzle, the job gains in May and June, while ignoring the rest of the picture. The gains make up less than 40% of the April losses, the nation's unemployment rate remains over 11%, and the total number of Americans working now is less than when Trump took office. Trump's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"111246-proof-34-8ff28bd720ec357cc2d0dea37af4f960.jpg"
] |
Quotes Anthony Fauci as writing, 'I reject the notion that it's 'just a virus' and we'll all get it eventually. What a careless, lazy, heartless stance.
|
Contradiction
|
A lengthy Facebook post about viruses skips from chickenpox to herpes to HIV and, finally to the coronavirus. It's attributed to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and ends with an uncharacteristic scolding. 'For those in our society who suggest that people being cautious are cowards, for people who refuse to take even the simplest of precautions to protect themselves and those around them, I want to ask, without hyperbole and in all sincerity: How dare you?' the statement says. It goes on to encourage doing everything we can to mitigate the risk of exposure to the coronavirus, to flatten the curve and avoid unnecessary suffering and death. 'I reject the notion that it's 'just a virus' and we'll all get it eventually,' the post concludes. 'What a careless, lazy heartless stance.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The words themselves are an opinion and not something we at PolitiFact fact-check. But the attribution to Fauci is wrong and worth correcting. In a statement, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told PolitiFact that Fauci wasn't the author of the post. In the comments of another Facebook post with virtually the same words published July 14 - several days before the one we're fact-checking - a user named Amy Wright takes credit for the statement. 'I just saw your words credited to Dr. Fauci,' another user wrote. 'How about that! People are still sharing your post and learning. Thank you.' 'Oh dear,' Wright replied. The internet is like the wild west sometimes, isn't it? At least no one attributed it to Abraham Lincoln.' We rate the claim that Fauci wrote this Facebook post False.
|
We rate the claim that Fauci wrote this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Quotes Anthony Fauci as writing, 'I reject the notion that it's 'just a virus' and we'll all get it eventually. What a careless, lazy, heartless stance.
|
Contradiction
|
A lengthy Facebook post about viruses skips from chickenpox to herpes to HIV and, finally to the coronavirus. It's attributed to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and ends with an uncharacteristic scolding. 'For those in our society who suggest that people being cautious are cowards, for people who refuse to take even the simplest of precautions to protect themselves and those around them, I want to ask, without hyperbole and in all sincerity: How dare you?' the statement says. It goes on to encourage doing everything we can to mitigate the risk of exposure to the coronavirus, to flatten the curve and avoid unnecessary suffering and death. 'I reject the notion that it's 'just a virus' and we'll all get it eventually,' the post concludes. 'What a careless, lazy heartless stance.' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The words themselves are an opinion and not something we at PolitiFact fact-check. But the attribution to Fauci is wrong and worth correcting. In a statement, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told PolitiFact that Fauci wasn't the author of the post. In the comments of another Facebook post with virtually the same words published July 14 - several days before the one we're fact-checking - a user named Amy Wright takes credit for the statement. 'I just saw your words credited to Dr. Fauci,' another user wrote. 'How about that! People are still sharing your post and learning. Thank you.' 'Oh dear,' Wright replied. The internet is like the wild west sometimes, isn't it? At least no one attributed it to Abraham Lincoln.' We rate the claim that Fauci wrote this Facebook post False.
|
We rate the claim that Fauci wrote this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Photos show a photojournalist crying while capturing pictures of the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.
|
Contradiction
|
The Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem sits on a site that is sacred to Muslims, Jews and Christians, and it was the backdrop for recent violence between Israeli police and Palestinians. A photo of Israeli security forces at the mosque is among four images included in a May 10 Facebook post. The other three are of a man crying behind a camera. 'A photojournalist rolls down tears while capturing pictures of Masjid Al-Aqsa,' the post says. It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The image of the mosque is authentic and was taken on May 7 by Anadolu Agency photographer Mostafa Alkharouf. It was published on Anadolu Agency's website with this caption: 'Israeli security forces are seen as they enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, intervene Muslim worshippers with stun grenade during prayer.' But Alkharouf was not joined by the crying photographer featured in the Facebook post. A reverse image search shows that those photos have been online since early 2019. On Jan. 24 of that year, the verified Twitter account of soccer's AFC Asian Cup tweeted one of the images and wrote: 'Passionate. Emotional moment for an Iraqi photographer during the Round of 16 clash.' The tweet includes an emoji of Qatar's flag. Iraq played Qatar in the Round 16 of the 2019 AFC Asian Cup and lost 0-1. The verified Twitter account of Sports360 Arabiya tweeted the same image that day. The caption, translated by Google from Arabic to English, says: 'An Iraqi photographer cries while performing his work as he watches his country's national team exit from the Asian Cup.' We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Two photos show climate change 'is a hoax.
|
Contradiction
|
A few days before Earth Day 2021, a meme spread across Facebook claiming to have proof that climate change is a hoax. But a couple of water's-edge photographs don't prove anything, climatewise. The meme's sarcastic headline was: '99 years of sea level rise - Palm Beach Sydney.' Palm Beach is a town north of Sydney, Australia. Below the headline were two photos, apparently of the same strip of land, with water on the left and the right. A black-and-white photo was labeled 1917 and a color photo was labeled 2016. 'For years they called it Global Warming. But they were proven over and over that no such thing is happening,' the text below the photos said. 'Then they started calling it Climate Change. Again it is a hoax.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post appears to argue that the photos indicate the water level at a particular site didn't change in 99 years. Tides rise and fall, of course - even during the course of a day, as well over a period of years. According to experts, photos like these don't reveal long-term changes in sea level, and globally, sea levels are up, with climate change being the primary reason why. A Google search indicates the two photos are from Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, which is about 17 miles north of Sydney. First Draft, a nonprofit that fights misinformation, told us the black-and-white photo appears to have been taken at Palm Beach and that an Australian government website dates the image as being taken between 1917 and 1946. First Draft could not confirm details about the other photo. Facebook users who clicked on the Palm Beach meme will see it has been marked with a fact-check that Climate Feedback did in 2019. It rated as inaccurate a similar meme with two photos claiming that 'unprecedented climate change' had caused no rise in sea level at Sydney Harbour in 140 years. The fact-checkers found that two photos taken at different times cannot reveal whether a sea-level change has occurred, given that tides rise and fall. An expert from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California told Climate Feedback that during the 20th century, the sea level in Sydney rose by about 12 centimeters or just under 5 inches. Jet Propulsion Laboratory reported in May that global warming is adding about 750 gigatonnes of water to the ocean each year. Solely for visualization purposes, that's enough in one year to cover Texas more than 3 feet deep. Satellite observations from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center reported in October an increase of 3.3 millimeters per year in sea level since 1993. Sea level rose more than 200 millimeters (nearly 8 inches) from 1900 to 2018, according to coastal tide gauge and satellite data. 'Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of seawater as it warms,' NASA said. Sea-level rise is uneven in space and time but on average, sea level is rising because of climate warming caused by humans, said Thomas Frederikse, a postdoctoral fellow at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 'The post is wrong and climate change is all too real.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says two water's-edge photos, apparently from the same location, show climate change 'is a hoax.' Water's-edge photographs don't show changes in sea level over time. Global sea levels are rising, and climate change is one reason. We rate the post False. UPDATE, April 23, 2021: This fact-check was updated to add comment from Thomas Frederikse. The addition does not change the rating. Join PolitiFact LIVE on May 10-13 for a festival of fact-checking with Dr. Anthony Fauci. Register today >>
|
[] |
Two photos show climate change 'is a hoax.
|
Contradiction
|
A few days before Earth Day 2021, a meme spread across Facebook claiming to have proof that climate change is a hoax. But a couple of water's-edge photographs don't prove anything, climatewise. The meme's sarcastic headline was: '99 years of sea level rise - Palm Beach Sydney.' Palm Beach is a town north of Sydney, Australia. Below the headline were two photos, apparently of the same strip of land, with water on the left and the right. A black-and-white photo was labeled 1917 and a color photo was labeled 2016. 'For years they called it Global Warming. But they were proven over and over that no such thing is happening,' the text below the photos said. 'Then they started calling it Climate Change. Again it is a hoax.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post appears to argue that the photos indicate the water level at a particular site didn't change in 99 years. Tides rise and fall, of course - even during the course of a day, as well over a period of years. According to experts, photos like these don't reveal long-term changes in sea level, and globally, sea levels are up, with climate change being the primary reason why. A Google search indicates the two photos are from Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, which is about 17 miles north of Sydney. First Draft, a nonprofit that fights misinformation, told us the black-and-white photo appears to have been taken at Palm Beach and that an Australian government website dates the image as being taken between 1917 and 1946. First Draft could not confirm details about the other photo. Facebook users who clicked on the Palm Beach meme will see it has been marked with a fact-check that Climate Feedback did in 2019. It rated as inaccurate a similar meme with two photos claiming that 'unprecedented climate change' had caused no rise in sea level at Sydney Harbour in 140 years. The fact-checkers found that two photos taken at different times cannot reveal whether a sea-level change has occurred, given that tides rise and fall. An expert from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California told Climate Feedback that during the 20th century, the sea level in Sydney rose by about 12 centimeters or just under 5 inches. Jet Propulsion Laboratory reported in May that global warming is adding about 750 gigatonnes of water to the ocean each year. Solely for visualization purposes, that's enough in one year to cover Texas more than 3 feet deep. Satellite observations from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center reported in October an increase of 3.3 millimeters per year in sea level since 1993. Sea level rose more than 200 millimeters (nearly 8 inches) from 1900 to 2018, according to coastal tide gauge and satellite data. 'Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of seawater as it warms,' NASA said. Sea-level rise is uneven in space and time but on average, sea level is rising because of climate warming caused by humans, said Thomas Frederikse, a postdoctoral fellow at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 'The post is wrong and climate change is all too real.'
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says two water's-edge photos, apparently from the same location, show climate change 'is a hoax.' Water's-edge photographs don't show changes in sea level over time. Global sea levels are rising, and climate change is one reason. We rate the post False. UPDATE, April 23, 2021: This fact-check was updated to add comment from Thomas Frederikse. The addition does not change the rating. Join PolitiFact LIVE on May 10-13 for a festival of fact-checking with Dr. Anthony Fauci. Register today >>
|
[] |
'Report: Vaccine related deaths may rival recorded COVID-19 deaths.
|
Contradiction
|
An Instagram post with video from a show produced by Alex Jones, who runs a website known to spread fake news and conspiracy theories, includes this headline: 'Report: Vaccine related deaths may rival recorded COVID-19 deaths.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We found no credible report that says this. The headline alludes only to a claim made by a guest on a Jones show who speculated that - based on what she said is data forthcoming from a man who owns a medical billing company - 'we probably are going to see deaths over 500,000' from COVID-19 vaccines. That man says he analyzes numbers from a government database that collects and publishes unverified reports of adverse events that happen after vaccination, whether or not they're known to be caused by the vaccine. Health officials are investigating whether one of the approved COVID-19 vaccines is linked to a rare type of blood clot that can lead to death. But there is no conclusive evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines caused any of the deaths reported to that database, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile, more than 596,000 COVID-19 deaths have been recorded in the U.S. The headline in the Instagram post is the same text that appears in a June 4 tweet from Jones' FreeWorldNews.TV account. The tweet includes video from part of a Jones show with a guest identified as Dr. Jane Ruby. Ruby, who is not a medical doctor, describes herself as a health economist and New Right political pundit with a doctorate in psychology. Saying she has 'breaking news,' Ruby claimed that according to projections by Albert Benavides, 'we are facing well over 1 million side effects' from the COVID-19 vaccines, 'and I'm waiting for him to calculate the numbers of deaths, because it's going to be far more than the 5,000. We probably are going to see deaths over 500,000,' which would be 'more deaths from this poison than we ever did from the actual COVID flu.' Benavides has described himself as a California certified medical coder who has company that does medical billing services. He says he uses Excel spreadsheets to analyze data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, a public data collection tool run by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration. VAERS is designed so that any person can report an adverse event, and anyone can scour the reports. But VAERS accepts reports without verifying whether a vaccine actually caused that incident. That makes VAERS a dangerous breeding ground for misinformation that spreads quickly on social media and elsewhere. For more than 30 years, VAERS data has been misused to justify broad conclusions that vaccines are harmful. Here's what the CDC says about VAERS and the roughly 5,000 deaths reported as adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines: 'More than 302 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from Dec. 14, 2020, through June 7, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 5,208 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. 'However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and a rare and serious adverse event - blood clots with low platelets - which has caused deaths.' The CDC said May 12 that its investigation had identified 28 confirmed cases of these blood clots among the 8.7 million people who received the J&J vaccine, and three of those people died.
|
Our ruling A widely shared Instagram post claimed: 'Report: Vaccine related deaths may rival recorded COVID-19 deaths.' There is no credible report saying this. The claim came from a guest on a show produced by Alex Jones, who runs a website known to traffic in fake news and conspiracy theories. The guest said she based her statement on data that soon would be produced by a California man who runs a medical billing company. The CDC says its review of data has not established a causal link between the COVID-19 vaccines and reported deaths. COVID-19 has killed nearly 600,000 people in the U.S. We rate the post False.
|
[
"111307-proof-14-0322090ad0e0c74fb8620cb9180a9a8e.jpg"
] |
'Report: Vaccine related deaths may rival recorded COVID-19 deaths.
|
Contradiction
|
An Instagram post with video from a show produced by Alex Jones, who runs a website known to spread fake news and conspiracy theories, includes this headline: 'Report: Vaccine related deaths may rival recorded COVID-19 deaths.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We found no credible report that says this. The headline alludes only to a claim made by a guest on a Jones show who speculated that - based on what she said is data forthcoming from a man who owns a medical billing company - 'we probably are going to see deaths over 500,000' from COVID-19 vaccines. That man says he analyzes numbers from a government database that collects and publishes unverified reports of adverse events that happen after vaccination, whether or not they're known to be caused by the vaccine. Health officials are investigating whether one of the approved COVID-19 vaccines is linked to a rare type of blood clot that can lead to death. But there is no conclusive evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines caused any of the deaths reported to that database, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile, more than 596,000 COVID-19 deaths have been recorded in the U.S. The headline in the Instagram post is the same text that appears in a June 4 tweet from Jones' FreeWorldNews.TV account. The tweet includes video from part of a Jones show with a guest identified as Dr. Jane Ruby. Ruby, who is not a medical doctor, describes herself as a health economist and New Right political pundit with a doctorate in psychology. Saying she has 'breaking news,' Ruby claimed that according to projections by Albert Benavides, 'we are facing well over 1 million side effects' from the COVID-19 vaccines, 'and I'm waiting for him to calculate the numbers of deaths, because it's going to be far more than the 5,000. We probably are going to see deaths over 500,000,' which would be 'more deaths from this poison than we ever did from the actual COVID flu.' Benavides has described himself as a California certified medical coder who has company that does medical billing services. He says he uses Excel spreadsheets to analyze data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, a public data collection tool run by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration. VAERS is designed so that any person can report an adverse event, and anyone can scour the reports. But VAERS accepts reports without verifying whether a vaccine actually caused that incident. That makes VAERS a dangerous breeding ground for misinformation that spreads quickly on social media and elsewhere. For more than 30 years, VAERS data has been misused to justify broad conclusions that vaccines are harmful. Here's what the CDC says about VAERS and the roughly 5,000 deaths reported as adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines: 'More than 302 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from Dec. 14, 2020, through June 7, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 5,208 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. 'However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and a rare and serious adverse event - blood clots with low platelets - which has caused deaths.' The CDC said May 12 that its investigation had identified 28 confirmed cases of these blood clots among the 8.7 million people who received the J&J vaccine, and three of those people died.
|
Our ruling A widely shared Instagram post claimed: 'Report: Vaccine related deaths may rival recorded COVID-19 deaths.' There is no credible report saying this. The claim came from a guest on a show produced by Alex Jones, who runs a website known to traffic in fake news and conspiracy theories. The guest said she based her statement on data that soon would be produced by a California man who runs a medical billing company. The CDC says its review of data has not established a causal link between the COVID-19 vaccines and reported deaths. COVID-19 has killed nearly 600,000 people in the U.S. We rate the post False.
|
[
"111307-proof-14-0322090ad0e0c74fb8620cb9180a9a8e.jpg"
] |
'Report: Vaccine related deaths may rival recorded COVID-19 deaths.
|
Contradiction
|
An Instagram post with video from a show produced by Alex Jones, who runs a website known to spread fake news and conspiracy theories, includes this headline: 'Report: Vaccine related deaths may rival recorded COVID-19 deaths.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We found no credible report that says this. The headline alludes only to a claim made by a guest on a Jones show who speculated that - based on what she said is data forthcoming from a man who owns a medical billing company - 'we probably are going to see deaths over 500,000' from COVID-19 vaccines. That man says he analyzes numbers from a government database that collects and publishes unverified reports of adverse events that happen after vaccination, whether or not they're known to be caused by the vaccine. Health officials are investigating whether one of the approved COVID-19 vaccines is linked to a rare type of blood clot that can lead to death. But there is no conclusive evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines caused any of the deaths reported to that database, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Meanwhile, more than 596,000 COVID-19 deaths have been recorded in the U.S. The headline in the Instagram post is the same text that appears in a June 4 tweet from Jones' FreeWorldNews.TV account. The tweet includes video from part of a Jones show with a guest identified as Dr. Jane Ruby. Ruby, who is not a medical doctor, describes herself as a health economist and New Right political pundit with a doctorate in psychology. Saying she has 'breaking news,' Ruby claimed that according to projections by Albert Benavides, 'we are facing well over 1 million side effects' from the COVID-19 vaccines, 'and I'm waiting for him to calculate the numbers of deaths, because it's going to be far more than the 5,000. We probably are going to see deaths over 500,000,' which would be 'more deaths from this poison than we ever did from the actual COVID flu.' Benavides has described himself as a California certified medical coder who has company that does medical billing services. He says he uses Excel spreadsheets to analyze data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, a public data collection tool run by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration. VAERS is designed so that any person can report an adverse event, and anyone can scour the reports. But VAERS accepts reports without verifying whether a vaccine actually caused that incident. That makes VAERS a dangerous breeding ground for misinformation that spreads quickly on social media and elsewhere. For more than 30 years, VAERS data has been misused to justify broad conclusions that vaccines are harmful. Here's what the CDC says about VAERS and the roughly 5,000 deaths reported as adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines: 'More than 302 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from Dec. 14, 2020, through June 7, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 5,208 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it's unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. 'However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and a rare and serious adverse event - blood clots with low platelets - which has caused deaths.' The CDC said May 12 that its investigation had identified 28 confirmed cases of these blood clots among the 8.7 million people who received the J&J vaccine, and three of those people died.
|
Our ruling A widely shared Instagram post claimed: 'Report: Vaccine related deaths may rival recorded COVID-19 deaths.' There is no credible report saying this. The claim came from a guest on a show produced by Alex Jones, who runs a website known to traffic in fake news and conspiracy theories. The guest said she based her statement on data that soon would be produced by a California man who runs a medical billing company. The CDC says its review of data has not established a causal link between the COVID-19 vaccines and reported deaths. COVID-19 has killed nearly 600,000 people in the U.S. We rate the post False.
|
[
"111307-proof-14-0322090ad0e0c74fb8620cb9180a9a8e.jpg"
] |
A slain Chicago police officer left behind a two-month-old baby.
|
Contradiction
|
Ella French, a 29-year-old Chicago police officer, was shot and killed on Aug. 7 in a gunfight that wounded two others. The shooting happened after three officers pulled over a car and one of the people inside shot at the police, said David Brown, superintendent for the Chicago department. He told reporters that French is survived by her mother and brother. But in the days since, social media users have posted about someone else French supposedly left behind: an infant. 'This is Officer Ella French,' conservative commentator Ryan Fournier said on Facebook on Aug. 8. 'She was shot and killed last night in Chicago while responding to a call. She leaves behind a 2 month son.' Kayleigh McEnany, press secretary for then-President Donald Trump, tweeted that she had a '2-month-old daughter' and that 'Ella sacrificed her life in the line of duty and her daughter will grow up knowing her mother was a hero.' Other widely-shared posts echoed this. One said she had 'just got back from maternity leave.' But that's wrong. 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.) On Aug. 9, Stephanie Lulay, managing editor of Block Club Chicago, a nonprofit news outlet in the city, wondered in a series of tweets why international news sites, national pundits and even police departments reported that French was survived by her newborn child while local Chicago newsrooms didn't. 'Because it wasn't true,' Lulay said. Ella French's brother, Andrew French, told the Chicago Sun-Times that his sister wasn't married and had no children. Brown also said this during an Aug. 8 news conference. A reporter asked about rumors that French had just returned from maternity leave and had a child. 'That's not accurate,' Brown said. You can watch the exchange about 17 minutes into a recording of the conference. We rate these posts False.
|
We rate these posts False.
|
[] |
Says there are 'indications of grossly improper conduct from election officials right here in my district.
|
Contradiction
|
President Trump says he might lose the election because of fraud. And a couple of his supporters in North Carolina say they believe the unproven claims about fraud could be true. U.S. Rep. Dan Bishop, a Republican who represents a southern swath of the state, says he's seen hints of wrongdoing in his own district. 'Well, I'm echoing the President's claims. Indications of grossly improper conduct from election officials right here in my district,' part of his Nov. 5 tweet said. Is it true that there are 'indications of improper conduct from election officials' in his district? We reached out to Bishop's office and asked what he meant. Spokeswoman Hannah Hummelberg cited complaints about campaign volunteers at the lone early voting site in Anson County, which have been reported by WBTV and WFAE-FM public radio in Charlotte. These claims were investigated and addressed. But the actions in question were done by a candidate and his campaign volunteers -- not election officials. A quick summary The complaints: Officials received complaints that supporters of an Anson County Register of Deeds candidate, Dannie Montgomery, broke the law during early voting by assisting voters into the site and allegedly the voting booth. One voter said she was specifically told to vote for Montgomery, WBTV reported. 'As soon as I pulled up and exited my vehicle a campaign worker came up to me and forced me to vote for Dannie Montgomery and told me not to vote Greg Eudy (the unaffiliated candidate). As a first time voter I felt it wasn't fair to me,' the voter said in the complaint. What the law says: A voter can receive help only from close relatives - unless that voter has a disability. Voters who have a disability may ask for help from any person, with a couple exceptions. The law also prohibits assistants from influencing someone's vote. A response: On Oct. 23, the Anson County elections board held an emergency meeting to discuss the allegations. Meeting minutes show the board warned campaign volunteers about the behavior going forward. The Anson board received and investigated more complaints after that meeting but could not substantiate the allegations, according to Gina Clarke, the board's temporary assistant director. The state board of elections issued a press release on Oct. 31 to clarify North Carolina's laws about assisting voters The outcome: No Anson County election observers or board staff were found to have done anything wrong, according to Clarke and Pat Gannon, spokesman for the state elections board. Unofficial election results show Montgomery losing to Eudy, the other Register of Deeds candidate, and underperforming compared to Democrats at the top of the ballot. Montgomery appears to trail by more than 500 votes. Meanwhile, Joe Biden, Cal Cunningham and Roy Cooper all lead their respective Republican opponents in Anson by at least 400 votes. Republican concerns Bishop has tweeted about the Anson County allegations several times. On Oct. 29, Bishop tweeted a video of the alleged campaign volunteer in question. On Nov. 1, Bishop tweeted a letter that he sent to top state and Anson County election officials. He asked them to produce video showing the campaign worker's actions while inside the polling site. The same day, the North Carolina Republican Party sent a letter to Sherry Melton, director of the Anson County election board. The NC GOP noted that there had been 18 incident reports about Montgomery and her supporters. The party asked for the alleged rule-breakers to be banned from the polling site. The Anson board investigated complaints about the campaign volunteers, said Clarke, the board's temporary assistant director. She spoke to PolitiFact by phone on Nov. 10. Complaints filed after the Oct. 23 meeting were 'unfounded,' she said. 'We looked into each one of them,' Clarke said. She added: No election officials were found to have committed any misconduct. Important distinction The distinction between campaign volunteers, who greet people outside polling sites, and actual election officials, who conduct elections and count ballots, is an important one. We pointed out to Bishop's office that his tweet omitted this key context and asked if Bishop is aware of any direct misconduct by Anson County election officials. Hummelberg, the spokeswoman, said the congressman is 'just suggesting' that the county elections officials have been 'permitting' campaign workers to 'buttonhole voters in the buffer zone, accompany them into the voting enclosure and into the voting booth, and to direct them how to vote.' As we mentioned: the county and state boards addressed the complaints - just not in a manner that Bishop or the state GOP might have preferred. Anson officials held an emergency meeting, issued warnings and investigated the complaints,while the state elections board issued a press release.
|
Our ruling Bishop said there are 'indications of grossly improper conduct from election officials right here in my district.' His spokeswoman cited complaints about campaign volunteers outside a polling place. Complaints were filed against Anson County campaign volunteers accusing them of trying to coerce people into voting a certain way. And Bishop thinks local election officials didn't do enough to stop campaign volunteers from improperly assisting voters with their ballots. But the North Carolina elections board says it's not aware of any direct misconduct by Anson County election officials. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111333-proof-41-2511615e38a1fc4601806ca0d6a22f3a.JPG.jpg"
] |
Says there are 'indications of grossly improper conduct from election officials right here in my district.
|
Contradiction
|
President Trump says he might lose the election because of fraud. And a couple of his supporters in North Carolina say they believe the unproven claims about fraud could be true. U.S. Rep. Dan Bishop, a Republican who represents a southern swath of the state, says he's seen hints of wrongdoing in his own district. 'Well, I'm echoing the President's claims. Indications of grossly improper conduct from election officials right here in my district,' part of his Nov. 5 tweet said. Is it true that there are 'indications of improper conduct from election officials' in his district? We reached out to Bishop's office and asked what he meant. Spokeswoman Hannah Hummelberg cited complaints about campaign volunteers at the lone early voting site in Anson County, which have been reported by WBTV and WFAE-FM public radio in Charlotte. These claims were investigated and addressed. But the actions in question were done by a candidate and his campaign volunteers -- not election officials. A quick summary The complaints: Officials received complaints that supporters of an Anson County Register of Deeds candidate, Dannie Montgomery, broke the law during early voting by assisting voters into the site and allegedly the voting booth. One voter said she was specifically told to vote for Montgomery, WBTV reported. 'As soon as I pulled up and exited my vehicle a campaign worker came up to me and forced me to vote for Dannie Montgomery and told me not to vote Greg Eudy (the unaffiliated candidate). As a first time voter I felt it wasn't fair to me,' the voter said in the complaint. What the law says: A voter can receive help only from close relatives - unless that voter has a disability. Voters who have a disability may ask for help from any person, with a couple exceptions. The law also prohibits assistants from influencing someone's vote. A response: On Oct. 23, the Anson County elections board held an emergency meeting to discuss the allegations. Meeting minutes show the board warned campaign volunteers about the behavior going forward. The Anson board received and investigated more complaints after that meeting but could not substantiate the allegations, according to Gina Clarke, the board's temporary assistant director. The state board of elections issued a press release on Oct. 31 to clarify North Carolina's laws about assisting voters The outcome: No Anson County election observers or board staff were found to have done anything wrong, according to Clarke and Pat Gannon, spokesman for the state elections board. Unofficial election results show Montgomery losing to Eudy, the other Register of Deeds candidate, and underperforming compared to Democrats at the top of the ballot. Montgomery appears to trail by more than 500 votes. Meanwhile, Joe Biden, Cal Cunningham and Roy Cooper all lead their respective Republican opponents in Anson by at least 400 votes. Republican concerns Bishop has tweeted about the Anson County allegations several times. On Oct. 29, Bishop tweeted a video of the alleged campaign volunteer in question. On Nov. 1, Bishop tweeted a letter that he sent to top state and Anson County election officials. He asked them to produce video showing the campaign worker's actions while inside the polling site. The same day, the North Carolina Republican Party sent a letter to Sherry Melton, director of the Anson County election board. The NC GOP noted that there had been 18 incident reports about Montgomery and her supporters. The party asked for the alleged rule-breakers to be banned from the polling site. The Anson board investigated complaints about the campaign volunteers, said Clarke, the board's temporary assistant director. She spoke to PolitiFact by phone on Nov. 10. Complaints filed after the Oct. 23 meeting were 'unfounded,' she said. 'We looked into each one of them,' Clarke said. She added: No election officials were found to have committed any misconduct. Important distinction The distinction between campaign volunteers, who greet people outside polling sites, and actual election officials, who conduct elections and count ballots, is an important one. We pointed out to Bishop's office that his tweet omitted this key context and asked if Bishop is aware of any direct misconduct by Anson County election officials. Hummelberg, the spokeswoman, said the congressman is 'just suggesting' that the county elections officials have been 'permitting' campaign workers to 'buttonhole voters in the buffer zone, accompany them into the voting enclosure and into the voting booth, and to direct them how to vote.' As we mentioned: the county and state boards addressed the complaints - just not in a manner that Bishop or the state GOP might have preferred. Anson officials held an emergency meeting, issued warnings and investigated the complaints,while the state elections board issued a press release.
|
Our ruling Bishop said there are 'indications of grossly improper conduct from election officials right here in my district.' His spokeswoman cited complaints about campaign volunteers outside a polling place. Complaints were filed against Anson County campaign volunteers accusing them of trying to coerce people into voting a certain way. And Bishop thinks local election officials didn't do enough to stop campaign volunteers from improperly assisting voters with their ballots. But the North Carolina elections board says it's not aware of any direct misconduct by Anson County election officials. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111333-proof-41-2511615e38a1fc4601806ca0d6a22f3a.JPG.jpg"
] |
Says there are 'indications of grossly improper conduct from election officials right here in my district.
|
Contradiction
|
President Trump says he might lose the election because of fraud. And a couple of his supporters in North Carolina say they believe the unproven claims about fraud could be true. U.S. Rep. Dan Bishop, a Republican who represents a southern swath of the state, says he's seen hints of wrongdoing in his own district. 'Well, I'm echoing the President's claims. Indications of grossly improper conduct from election officials right here in my district,' part of his Nov. 5 tweet said. Is it true that there are 'indications of improper conduct from election officials' in his district? We reached out to Bishop's office and asked what he meant. Spokeswoman Hannah Hummelberg cited complaints about campaign volunteers at the lone early voting site in Anson County, which have been reported by WBTV and WFAE-FM public radio in Charlotte. These claims were investigated and addressed. But the actions in question were done by a candidate and his campaign volunteers -- not election officials. A quick summary The complaints: Officials received complaints that supporters of an Anson County Register of Deeds candidate, Dannie Montgomery, broke the law during early voting by assisting voters into the site and allegedly the voting booth. One voter said she was specifically told to vote for Montgomery, WBTV reported. 'As soon as I pulled up and exited my vehicle a campaign worker came up to me and forced me to vote for Dannie Montgomery and told me not to vote Greg Eudy (the unaffiliated candidate). As a first time voter I felt it wasn't fair to me,' the voter said in the complaint. What the law says: A voter can receive help only from close relatives - unless that voter has a disability. Voters who have a disability may ask for help from any person, with a couple exceptions. The law also prohibits assistants from influencing someone's vote. A response: On Oct. 23, the Anson County elections board held an emergency meeting to discuss the allegations. Meeting minutes show the board warned campaign volunteers about the behavior going forward. The Anson board received and investigated more complaints after that meeting but could not substantiate the allegations, according to Gina Clarke, the board's temporary assistant director. The state board of elections issued a press release on Oct. 31 to clarify North Carolina's laws about assisting voters The outcome: No Anson County election observers or board staff were found to have done anything wrong, according to Clarke and Pat Gannon, spokesman for the state elections board. Unofficial election results show Montgomery losing to Eudy, the other Register of Deeds candidate, and underperforming compared to Democrats at the top of the ballot. Montgomery appears to trail by more than 500 votes. Meanwhile, Joe Biden, Cal Cunningham and Roy Cooper all lead their respective Republican opponents in Anson by at least 400 votes. Republican concerns Bishop has tweeted about the Anson County allegations several times. On Oct. 29, Bishop tweeted a video of the alleged campaign volunteer in question. On Nov. 1, Bishop tweeted a letter that he sent to top state and Anson County election officials. He asked them to produce video showing the campaign worker's actions while inside the polling site. The same day, the North Carolina Republican Party sent a letter to Sherry Melton, director of the Anson County election board. The NC GOP noted that there had been 18 incident reports about Montgomery and her supporters. The party asked for the alleged rule-breakers to be banned from the polling site. The Anson board investigated complaints about the campaign volunteers, said Clarke, the board's temporary assistant director. She spoke to PolitiFact by phone on Nov. 10. Complaints filed after the Oct. 23 meeting were 'unfounded,' she said. 'We looked into each one of them,' Clarke said. She added: No election officials were found to have committed any misconduct. Important distinction The distinction between campaign volunteers, who greet people outside polling sites, and actual election officials, who conduct elections and count ballots, is an important one. We pointed out to Bishop's office that his tweet omitted this key context and asked if Bishop is aware of any direct misconduct by Anson County election officials. Hummelberg, the spokeswoman, said the congressman is 'just suggesting' that the county elections officials have been 'permitting' campaign workers to 'buttonhole voters in the buffer zone, accompany them into the voting enclosure and into the voting booth, and to direct them how to vote.' As we mentioned: the county and state boards addressed the complaints - just not in a manner that Bishop or the state GOP might have preferred. Anson officials held an emergency meeting, issued warnings and investigated the complaints,while the state elections board issued a press release.
|
Our ruling Bishop said there are 'indications of grossly improper conduct from election officials right here in my district.' His spokeswoman cited complaints about campaign volunteers outside a polling place. Complaints were filed against Anson County campaign volunteers accusing them of trying to coerce people into voting a certain way. And Bishop thinks local election officials didn't do enough to stop campaign volunteers from improperly assisting voters with their ballots. But the North Carolina elections board says it's not aware of any direct misconduct by Anson County election officials. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111333-proof-41-2511615e38a1fc4601806ca0d6a22f3a.JPG.jpg"
] |
Images of crowds and crowded arenas were taken 'today in Tulsa Oklahoma'
|
Contradiction
|
If you thought every photo looked like a different event in this collection of images supposedly showing President Donald Trump's rally in Tulsa, Okla., on June 20, you're mostly right - two of the images are actually the same picture. 'Today in Tulsa Oklahoma,' says the caption of this collage that's being shared on Facebook. 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.) We did reverse image searches of the photos to find their original descriptions. Clockwise from left, the first photo shows thousands of people marching in Brooklyn, N.Y., in support of Black trans people on June 14. The second photo is one we fact-checked in a previous story about photos mislabeled to look like they're from Trump's rally. In reality, this one shows Rolling Thunder motorcycle riders in a Virginia parking lot in 2019. Both the third and fifth photos - which are actually the same picture - show a crowd gathering in Great Falls, Mont., before a Trump campaign rally in July 2018. The fourth photo appears to be from outside the Tulsa rally, where hundreds lined up early to get in, an ABC News affiliate reported. But most of these photos - including the two biggest photos - are from different events, and they're being deployed en masse here to paint a misleading picture about Trump's rally in Tulsa. We rate this post False.
|
We rate this post False.
|
[] |
'Americans not vaccinated before 2022 will be put in camps'
|
Contradiction
|
A social media post falsely states that President Joe Biden has announced a plan to put unvaccinated Americans into quarantine camps in 2022. The July 20 Instagram post shows a screengrab of an article with a partial headline that reads 'Announces Americans Not Vaccinated Before 2022 Will Be Put In Camps.' The screengrab includes an illustration of Biden along with text below it that reads, 'President Joe Biden announced his latest effort to stop the spread of COVID-19, he will be putting Americans who have chosen to not be vaccinated, into 'quarantine camps' where they will be detained indefinitely until they get their shots.' None of this is true. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) The claim is a picture of a June 21 post on Valuewalk.com, which includes a 'disclaimer' at the end of the story that reads, 'This is a satirical article.' Biden has not announced any plans for quarantine camps. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated what it terms 'quarantine stations' at 20 ports of entry and land-border crossings where most international travelers arrive. Health officers in these stations decide whether ill people can enter the country. The CDC has the authority to detain and release any traveler arriving in the U.S. from abroad who may have an infectious disease.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that Biden announced that Americans not vaccinated by 2022 will be placed in 'quarantine camps.' The claim derives from an article that is labeled 'satirical' - but it is being shared on social media without that context or disclaimer. Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
'Americans not vaccinated before 2022 will be put in camps'
|
Contradiction
|
A social media post falsely states that President Joe Biden has announced a plan to put unvaccinated Americans into quarantine camps in 2022. The July 20 Instagram post shows a screengrab of an article with a partial headline that reads 'Announces Americans Not Vaccinated Before 2022 Will Be Put In Camps.' The screengrab includes an illustration of Biden along with text below it that reads, 'President Joe Biden announced his latest effort to stop the spread of COVID-19, he will be putting Americans who have chosen to not be vaccinated, into 'quarantine camps' where they will be detained indefinitely until they get their shots.' None of this is true. The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) The claim is a picture of a June 21 post on Valuewalk.com, which includes a 'disclaimer' at the end of the story that reads, 'This is a satirical article.' Biden has not announced any plans for quarantine camps. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated what it terms 'quarantine stations' at 20 ports of entry and land-border crossings where most international travelers arrive. Health officers in these stations decide whether ill people can enter the country. The CDC has the authority to detain and release any traveler arriving in the U.S. from abroad who may have an infectious disease.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post claimed that Biden announced that Americans not vaccinated by 2022 will be placed in 'quarantine camps.' The claim derives from an article that is labeled 'satirical' - but it is being shared on social media without that context or disclaimer. Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
The Texas abortion law 'provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.
|
Contradiction
|
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wrongly characterized the timeline of pregnancy, distorting how long a woman would typically know she was pregnant and be able to get an abortion under the state's new law. A reporter recently asked Abbott about SB 8, the state's law that bans doctors from providing an abortion after detecting a fetal heart beat. The law has no exceptions for rape or incest. Under the law, which went into effect Sept. 1, any person can sue abortion providers or anyone who 'aids and abets' an abortion. Plaintiffs have the opportunity to win judgments of at least $10,000. 'Why force a rape or incest victim to carry a pregnancy to term?' the reporter asked. Abbott replied: 'It doesn't require that at all, because obviously it provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.' Abbott then pivoted to vow to 'eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas.' Abbott's statement that women would have at least six weeks to get an abortion drew pushback from abortion rights supporters, who said that the Republican governor was wrong about his pregnancy timeline. We contacted a spokesperson for Abbott to ask for his evidence and did not hear back by our deadline. Abbott's comment that a woman would have six weeks to get an abortion distorts the timeline of pregnancy and assumes a woman would know almost immediately after intercourse that she was pregnant. Counting weeks of pregnancy The law doesn't state that abortion is banned after six weeks. Instead, the law says that abortion is banned after detection of a fetal heart beat, which is defined as 'cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythimc contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac.' The law is named the 'Texas Heatbeat Act,' but medical experts say that's a misnomer. 'This is medically inaccurate, because a fetus doesn't have a developed heart at this time,' Dr. Kristyn Brandi, board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Health and an abortion provider in New Jersey told PolitiFact. 'What they are referring to is being able to visualize electric activity in the cells that will eventually become a heart.' This visualization of embryonic cardiac activity often is first able to be visualized around six weeks, but it can be seen at times even before that, Brandi told PolitiFact. What people think of as a heartbeat in early pregnancy is actually created by electric impulses that are captured by an ultrasound machine and translated by the machine into the sound of a heartbeat - there are no cardiac valves, so there is no sound of them opening and closing, said Dr. Nisha Verma, who provides abortion and is a fellow at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a professional organization. 'Those electric impulses do not make the sound of a heartbeat on their own, nor do they suggest that the heart is now developed,' Verma said. 'This is not a particularly important part of fetal cardiac development, even though it may be an important moment for my patients who are connecting with their pregnancies.' Multiple experts on pregnancy told us that the length of a woman's pregnancy is measured from the first day of her last menstrual period. That means that by the time a woman misses her period, she is already considered four weeks pregnant, Verma said. That leaves women with roughly two weeks to make a decision about their pregnancy and, if they choose to do so, have an abortion. The most sensitive urine pregnancy tests may detect a pregnancy five to seven days before a woman's first missed period, Verma said. However, doctors recommend that women wait until the first day of their missed period for the most accurate test results. Not all women realize they are pregnant by that early stage. 'Women with irregular cycles often don't know they are pregnant until later than the six weeks,' said Dr. John Thoppil, president of the Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Brandi told us in 2019 that most women don't realize they're pregnant until missing at least one period. Often, it takes two. While women who are trying to conceive may track their cycles closely and know sooner if they are pregnant, that isn't generally the case for women whose pregnancies are unintended. In Texas, most patients seeking an abortion must first receive in-person counseling and then wait 24 hours before getting the procedure. The use of telemedicine for medication abortion is prohibited, and insurance policies only cover abortion in limited circumstances, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research and policy organization that supports abortion rights and whose research is widely cited. 'At its most generous interpretation, if a person discovers they are pregnant at exactly four weeks on the dot, that person would only have two weeks to decide if they want an abortion, find a clinic that has capacity to accept patients immediately, schedule two separate appointments, arrange for transportation, time off work, find childcare if needed, and pull together the money to pay for the abortion itself, which is typically around $500 at that point in pregnancy,' said Liza Fuentes, a senior research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute. The Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas found in a 2018 survey of 603 abortion patients at 12 facilities that 16% were less than six weeks pregnant at the time of their abortion. In the recent federal court case about the Texas abortion law, a co-medical director of a center that provides abortions said in 2020 about 10% of abortions were for patients up to five weeks and six days from their last menstral period. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the law to take effect.
|
Our ruling Abbott said that the new Texas abortion law 'provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.' Abbott's statement ignores how the pregnancy timeline is calculated. Doctors count pregnancy as starting from the date of a woman's last period. That means by the time a woman with a regular cycle misses her first period, she is considered four weeks pregnant, which leaves her with two weeks to get an abortion. A woman with an irregular cycle may discover she has even less time. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Fact-checking how Texas ranks for children's health in light of new abortion law
|
[
"111370-proof-00-3966cb868a534134d44c58809138177e.jpg"
] |
The Texas abortion law 'provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.
|
Contradiction
|
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wrongly characterized the timeline of pregnancy, distorting how long a woman would typically know she was pregnant and be able to get an abortion under the state's new law. A reporter recently asked Abbott about SB 8, the state's law that bans doctors from providing an abortion after detecting a fetal heart beat. The law has no exceptions for rape or incest. Under the law, which went into effect Sept. 1, any person can sue abortion providers or anyone who 'aids and abets' an abortion. Plaintiffs have the opportunity to win judgments of at least $10,000. 'Why force a rape or incest victim to carry a pregnancy to term?' the reporter asked. Abbott replied: 'It doesn't require that at all, because obviously it provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.' Abbott then pivoted to vow to 'eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas.' Abbott's statement that women would have at least six weeks to get an abortion drew pushback from abortion rights supporters, who said that the Republican governor was wrong about his pregnancy timeline. We contacted a spokesperson for Abbott to ask for his evidence and did not hear back by our deadline. Abbott's comment that a woman would have six weeks to get an abortion distorts the timeline of pregnancy and assumes a woman would know almost immediately after intercourse that she was pregnant. Counting weeks of pregnancy The law doesn't state that abortion is banned after six weeks. Instead, the law says that abortion is banned after detection of a fetal heart beat, which is defined as 'cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythimc contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac.' The law is named the 'Texas Heatbeat Act,' but medical experts say that's a misnomer. 'This is medically inaccurate, because a fetus doesn't have a developed heart at this time,' Dr. Kristyn Brandi, board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Health and an abortion provider in New Jersey told PolitiFact. 'What they are referring to is being able to visualize electric activity in the cells that will eventually become a heart.' This visualization of embryonic cardiac activity often is first able to be visualized around six weeks, but it can be seen at times even before that, Brandi told PolitiFact. What people think of as a heartbeat in early pregnancy is actually created by electric impulses that are captured by an ultrasound machine and translated by the machine into the sound of a heartbeat - there are no cardiac valves, so there is no sound of them opening and closing, said Dr. Nisha Verma, who provides abortion and is a fellow at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a professional organization. 'Those electric impulses do not make the sound of a heartbeat on their own, nor do they suggest that the heart is now developed,' Verma said. 'This is not a particularly important part of fetal cardiac development, even though it may be an important moment for my patients who are connecting with their pregnancies.' Multiple experts on pregnancy told us that the length of a woman's pregnancy is measured from the first day of her last menstrual period. That means that by the time a woman misses her period, she is already considered four weeks pregnant, Verma said. That leaves women with roughly two weeks to make a decision about their pregnancy and, if they choose to do so, have an abortion. The most sensitive urine pregnancy tests may detect a pregnancy five to seven days before a woman's first missed period, Verma said. However, doctors recommend that women wait until the first day of their missed period for the most accurate test results. Not all women realize they are pregnant by that early stage. 'Women with irregular cycles often don't know they are pregnant until later than the six weeks,' said Dr. John Thoppil, president of the Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Brandi told us in 2019 that most women don't realize they're pregnant until missing at least one period. Often, it takes two. While women who are trying to conceive may track their cycles closely and know sooner if they are pregnant, that isn't generally the case for women whose pregnancies are unintended. In Texas, most patients seeking an abortion must first receive in-person counseling and then wait 24 hours before getting the procedure. The use of telemedicine for medication abortion is prohibited, and insurance policies only cover abortion in limited circumstances, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research and policy organization that supports abortion rights and whose research is widely cited. 'At its most generous interpretation, if a person discovers they are pregnant at exactly four weeks on the dot, that person would only have two weeks to decide if they want an abortion, find a clinic that has capacity to accept patients immediately, schedule two separate appointments, arrange for transportation, time off work, find childcare if needed, and pull together the money to pay for the abortion itself, which is typically around $500 at that point in pregnancy,' said Liza Fuentes, a senior research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute. The Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas found in a 2018 survey of 603 abortion patients at 12 facilities that 16% were less than six weeks pregnant at the time of their abortion. In the recent federal court case about the Texas abortion law, a co-medical director of a center that provides abortions said in 2020 about 10% of abortions were for patients up to five weeks and six days from their last menstral period. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the law to take effect.
|
Our ruling Abbott said that the new Texas abortion law 'provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.' Abbott's statement ignores how the pregnancy timeline is calculated. Doctors count pregnancy as starting from the date of a woman's last period. That means by the time a woman with a regular cycle misses her first period, she is considered four weeks pregnant, which leaves her with two weeks to get an abortion. A woman with an irregular cycle may discover she has even less time. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Fact-checking how Texas ranks for children's health in light of new abortion law
|
[
"111370-proof-00-3966cb868a534134d44c58809138177e.jpg"
] |
The Texas abortion law 'provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.
|
Contradiction
|
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wrongly characterized the timeline of pregnancy, distorting how long a woman would typically know she was pregnant and be able to get an abortion under the state's new law. A reporter recently asked Abbott about SB 8, the state's law that bans doctors from providing an abortion after detecting a fetal heart beat. The law has no exceptions for rape or incest. Under the law, which went into effect Sept. 1, any person can sue abortion providers or anyone who 'aids and abets' an abortion. Plaintiffs have the opportunity to win judgments of at least $10,000. 'Why force a rape or incest victim to carry a pregnancy to term?' the reporter asked. Abbott replied: 'It doesn't require that at all, because obviously it provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.' Abbott then pivoted to vow to 'eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas.' Abbott's statement that women would have at least six weeks to get an abortion drew pushback from abortion rights supporters, who said that the Republican governor was wrong about his pregnancy timeline. We contacted a spokesperson for Abbott to ask for his evidence and did not hear back by our deadline. Abbott's comment that a woman would have six weeks to get an abortion distorts the timeline of pregnancy and assumes a woman would know almost immediately after intercourse that she was pregnant. Counting weeks of pregnancy The law doesn't state that abortion is banned after six weeks. Instead, the law says that abortion is banned after detection of a fetal heart beat, which is defined as 'cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythimc contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac.' The law is named the 'Texas Heatbeat Act,' but medical experts say that's a misnomer. 'This is medically inaccurate, because a fetus doesn't have a developed heart at this time,' Dr. Kristyn Brandi, board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Health and an abortion provider in New Jersey told PolitiFact. 'What they are referring to is being able to visualize electric activity in the cells that will eventually become a heart.' This visualization of embryonic cardiac activity often is first able to be visualized around six weeks, but it can be seen at times even before that, Brandi told PolitiFact. What people think of as a heartbeat in early pregnancy is actually created by electric impulses that are captured by an ultrasound machine and translated by the machine into the sound of a heartbeat - there are no cardiac valves, so there is no sound of them opening and closing, said Dr. Nisha Verma, who provides abortion and is a fellow at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a professional organization. 'Those electric impulses do not make the sound of a heartbeat on their own, nor do they suggest that the heart is now developed,' Verma said. 'This is not a particularly important part of fetal cardiac development, even though it may be an important moment for my patients who are connecting with their pregnancies.' Multiple experts on pregnancy told us that the length of a woman's pregnancy is measured from the first day of her last menstrual period. That means that by the time a woman misses her period, she is already considered four weeks pregnant, Verma said. That leaves women with roughly two weeks to make a decision about their pregnancy and, if they choose to do so, have an abortion. The most sensitive urine pregnancy tests may detect a pregnancy five to seven days before a woman's first missed period, Verma said. However, doctors recommend that women wait until the first day of their missed period for the most accurate test results. Not all women realize they are pregnant by that early stage. 'Women with irregular cycles often don't know they are pregnant until later than the six weeks,' said Dr. John Thoppil, president of the Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Brandi told us in 2019 that most women don't realize they're pregnant until missing at least one period. Often, it takes two. While women who are trying to conceive may track their cycles closely and know sooner if they are pregnant, that isn't generally the case for women whose pregnancies are unintended. In Texas, most patients seeking an abortion must first receive in-person counseling and then wait 24 hours before getting the procedure. The use of telemedicine for medication abortion is prohibited, and insurance policies only cover abortion in limited circumstances, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research and policy organization that supports abortion rights and whose research is widely cited. 'At its most generous interpretation, if a person discovers they are pregnant at exactly four weeks on the dot, that person would only have two weeks to decide if they want an abortion, find a clinic that has capacity to accept patients immediately, schedule two separate appointments, arrange for transportation, time off work, find childcare if needed, and pull together the money to pay for the abortion itself, which is typically around $500 at that point in pregnancy,' said Liza Fuentes, a senior research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute. The Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas found in a 2018 survey of 603 abortion patients at 12 facilities that 16% were less than six weeks pregnant at the time of their abortion. In the recent federal court case about the Texas abortion law, a co-medical director of a center that provides abortions said in 2020 about 10% of abortions were for patients up to five weeks and six days from their last menstral period. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the law to take effect.
|
Our ruling Abbott said that the new Texas abortion law 'provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion.' Abbott's statement ignores how the pregnancy timeline is calculated. Doctors count pregnancy as starting from the date of a woman's last period. That means by the time a woman with a regular cycle misses her first period, she is considered four weeks pregnant, which leaves her with two weeks to get an abortion. A woman with an irregular cycle may discover she has even less time. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Fact-checking how Texas ranks for children's health in light of new abortion law
|
[
"111370-proof-00-3966cb868a534134d44c58809138177e.jpg"
] |
President Joe Biden changed suits during his visit to the Vatican.
|
Contradiction
|
An unfounded claim is spreading on social media that President Joe Biden soiled himself during a recent meeting with Pope Francis at the Vatican. The evidence presented? Two photos of him wearing the same suit. But some social media users aren't convinced. 'Two different suits, same visit,' reads the text above two photos of Biden standing with the pope. 'HE CRAPPED HIS PANTS.' In the image on the left, Biden's suit appears blue. In the photo on the right, it appears darker - maybe even black. But it's not. 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.) First thing worth noting in both of the photos in the Facebook post is Biden's tie. Even though the colors in the photos appears differently, Biden's tie is slightly askew in the same way in each of them - cocked a little to the left as you're looking at the images. That's also how his tie appears in this more than 7-minute video of the meeting posted on C-SPAN. The video shows the moments that both photos in the Facebook post were taken, and it's clear Biden is wearing the same suit. We rate this post Pants on Fire.
|
We rate this post Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
'Republican state senators' who started an audit of 2020 election results in Maricopa County are 'exposing this fraud.
|
Contradiction
|
Former President Donald Trump, continuing to air falsehoods about the 2020 election, highlighted an ongoing partisan review of ballots underway in Maricopa County, Ariz., that he claimed had uncovered fraud. 'The 2020 presidential election was by far the most corrupt election in the history of our country,' Trump said June 5 at the North Carolina GOP convention, contradicting officials from his own administration who declared in November the election the 'most secure in American history' and multiple state officials, court rulings and audits that affirmed the results. Trump then offered his congratulations to 'Republican state senators in Arizona and other places for their great work that they are doing in exposing this fraud' - a reference to an ongoing audit organized by Arizona GOP state senators. Trump's praise for the senators 'exposing this fraud' gives the false impression that the GOP-led review of ballots in Arizona's largest county has uncovered signs or evidence of fraud. That's not the case. No findings have been released. Trump also said, 'I have nothing to do with the Arizona situation.' That's misleading, too. American Oversight, a watchdog group, used public records requests to obtain emails by Republican Senate President Karen Fann about the audit. In a Dec. 28 email, Fann wrote that she was doing everything legally possible to do a forensic audit and was suing Maricopa County. 'I have been in numerous conversations with Rudy Giuliani over the past weeks trying to get this done,' Fann wrote, referring to Trump's lawyer. 'I have the full support of him and a personal call from President Trump thanking us for pushing to prove any fraud.' Audit in Maricopa County will continue through June Joe Biden beat Trump in Arizona by about 10,500 votes, the first time a Democrat won there since 1996. Biden also won the vote in Maricopa County, home of the capital, Phoenix. Maricopa County conducted its own hand count audit of a sample of ballots as required by state law and hired independent firms to conduct a forensic audit of tabulation equipment. The county found no abnormalities. Judges rejected lawsuits on behalf of Republicans seeking to halt certification of the vote or alleging wrongdoing. But Republican state senators ordered up their own full audit of Maricopa's 2.1 million ballots. They acknowledged that the audit would have no impact on the 2020 election outcome. The state Senate Republicans hired a team that included Cyber Ninjas, a little-known group headed by Doug Logan, who promoted 'stop the steal' conspiracy theories about the election that culminated in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. The audit has faced widespread condemnation by election experts nationwide, including Republicans, for its partisanship and lack of objective standards. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - four of whose five members are Republicans - called the audit a 'circus' in a May letter to Fann. 'Our state has become a laughingstock,' they wrote. 'Worse, this 'audit' is encouraging our citizens to distrust elections, which weakens our democratic republic.' The audit started in late April and is expected to be completed in June. Randy Pullen, a former state GOP party chairman who is a spokesperson for the audit, told PolitiFact that the organizers are not releasing partial results while the audit continues. Once it's done, the auditors will take a few weeks to write a report about their findings and hand it over to the state Senate. 'Nothing is going to happen until the audit is done,' Pullen told PolitiFact June 7. 'The Arizona senate will review the report, and if there is something in there indicating potential fraud they will turn it over to the (state) attorney general for their review and determination if there was fraud.' We looked for voter fraud prosecutions for Arizona's 2020 election and could only find one. Attorney General Mark Brnovich announced in December that a state grand jury indicted two individuals for collecting four completed ballots during the August primary, a violation of state law that only allows for certain individuals such as family members to collect ballots from another person. The cases are still pending. The prosecution is unrelated to the audit. A spokesperson for the Maricopa County Attorney said their office did not have any voter fraud cases for the previous election. Trump's office did not respond to our request for evidence to back his claim.
|
Our ruling Trump said 'Republican state senators' are 'exposing this fraud,' through their audit of the 2020 election in Maricopa County, Ariz. The comments are misleading and premature. The organizers of the audit say they aren't releasing partial findings and don't expect to complete the audit until later in June, after which they will take a few weeks to write a report. If the Republicans find indications of potential fraud, they would forward that information to the state attorney general for investigation. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Fact-checking Donald Trump's tweet firing Christopher Krebs RELATED: No truth to the claim that Arizona audit found Trump up by 250,000 votes RELATED: No proof for Trump claim that a database for 2020 election in Ariz. was deleted RELATED: 46 minutes of falsehoods: Trump rehashes baseless election claims in White House video
|
[
"111388-proof-15-920beb02b5e4160eb44a24e5f263fe8d.jpg"
] |
'Republican state senators' who started an audit of 2020 election results in Maricopa County are 'exposing this fraud.
|
Contradiction
|
Former President Donald Trump, continuing to air falsehoods about the 2020 election, highlighted an ongoing partisan review of ballots underway in Maricopa County, Ariz., that he claimed had uncovered fraud. 'The 2020 presidential election was by far the most corrupt election in the history of our country,' Trump said June 5 at the North Carolina GOP convention, contradicting officials from his own administration who declared in November the election the 'most secure in American history' and multiple state officials, court rulings and audits that affirmed the results. Trump then offered his congratulations to 'Republican state senators in Arizona and other places for their great work that they are doing in exposing this fraud' - a reference to an ongoing audit organized by Arizona GOP state senators. Trump's praise for the senators 'exposing this fraud' gives the false impression that the GOP-led review of ballots in Arizona's largest county has uncovered signs or evidence of fraud. That's not the case. No findings have been released. Trump also said, 'I have nothing to do with the Arizona situation.' That's misleading, too. American Oversight, a watchdog group, used public records requests to obtain emails by Republican Senate President Karen Fann about the audit. In a Dec. 28 email, Fann wrote that she was doing everything legally possible to do a forensic audit and was suing Maricopa County. 'I have been in numerous conversations with Rudy Giuliani over the past weeks trying to get this done,' Fann wrote, referring to Trump's lawyer. 'I have the full support of him and a personal call from President Trump thanking us for pushing to prove any fraud.' Audit in Maricopa County will continue through June Joe Biden beat Trump in Arizona by about 10,500 votes, the first time a Democrat won there since 1996. Biden also won the vote in Maricopa County, home of the capital, Phoenix. Maricopa County conducted its own hand count audit of a sample of ballots as required by state law and hired independent firms to conduct a forensic audit of tabulation equipment. The county found no abnormalities. Judges rejected lawsuits on behalf of Republicans seeking to halt certification of the vote or alleging wrongdoing. But Republican state senators ordered up their own full audit of Maricopa's 2.1 million ballots. They acknowledged that the audit would have no impact on the 2020 election outcome. The state Senate Republicans hired a team that included Cyber Ninjas, a little-known group headed by Doug Logan, who promoted 'stop the steal' conspiracy theories about the election that culminated in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. The audit has faced widespread condemnation by election experts nationwide, including Republicans, for its partisanship and lack of objective standards. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - four of whose five members are Republicans - called the audit a 'circus' in a May letter to Fann. 'Our state has become a laughingstock,' they wrote. 'Worse, this 'audit' is encouraging our citizens to distrust elections, which weakens our democratic republic.' The audit started in late April and is expected to be completed in June. Randy Pullen, a former state GOP party chairman who is a spokesperson for the audit, told PolitiFact that the organizers are not releasing partial results while the audit continues. Once it's done, the auditors will take a few weeks to write a report about their findings and hand it over to the state Senate. 'Nothing is going to happen until the audit is done,' Pullen told PolitiFact June 7. 'The Arizona senate will review the report, and if there is something in there indicating potential fraud they will turn it over to the (state) attorney general for their review and determination if there was fraud.' We looked for voter fraud prosecutions for Arizona's 2020 election and could only find one. Attorney General Mark Brnovich announced in December that a state grand jury indicted two individuals for collecting four completed ballots during the August primary, a violation of state law that only allows for certain individuals such as family members to collect ballots from another person. The cases are still pending. The prosecution is unrelated to the audit. A spokesperson for the Maricopa County Attorney said their office did not have any voter fraud cases for the previous election. Trump's office did not respond to our request for evidence to back his claim.
|
Our ruling Trump said 'Republican state senators' are 'exposing this fraud,' through their audit of the 2020 election in Maricopa County, Ariz. The comments are misleading and premature. The organizers of the audit say they aren't releasing partial findings and don't expect to complete the audit until later in June, after which they will take a few weeks to write a report. If the Republicans find indications of potential fraud, they would forward that information to the state attorney general for investigation. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Fact-checking Donald Trump's tweet firing Christopher Krebs RELATED: No truth to the claim that Arizona audit found Trump up by 250,000 votes RELATED: No proof for Trump claim that a database for 2020 election in Ariz. was deleted RELATED: 46 minutes of falsehoods: Trump rehashes baseless election claims in White House video
|
[
"111388-proof-15-920beb02b5e4160eb44a24e5f263fe8d.jpg"
] |
Mitt Romney's father 'U.S. Senator George Romney, was a liberal Republican who had ties to Saul Alinsky, yes, the same dude who wrote the book, Rules For Radicals and dedicated to Satan.
|
Contradiction
|
After U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney cast the lone Republican vote in favor of impeaching President Donald Trump, viral news about the Utah politician flooded Facebook. One post zeroed in on his dad: 'You see, his father, U.S. Senator George Romney, was a liberal Republican who had ties to Saul Alinsky, yes, the same dude who wrote the book, Rules For Radicals and dedicated to Satan,' states the Feb. 6 post. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post wrongly called George Romney a U.S. senator - he was governor of Michigan between 1963 and 1969. (The author of the post later changed the wording to call George Romney a politician.) Gov. Romney was known as a moderate who was sometimes at odds with his Republican Party. In 1969, he was appointed by President Richard Nixon as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. A spokeswoman for Sen. Mitt Romney declined to comment. George Romney met with Alinsky in the 1960s We found that Gov. Romney did meet with Alinksy, a famous liberal community organizer, in 1967. That's not much of a tie. Nor is there much to the claim that Alinsky dedicated a book to Satan. Alinsky only mentioned Lucifer in one paragraph of his book. Alinsky was a Chicago community organizer who wrote the 1971 book 'Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals.' The book offers advice to activists seeking to influence public policy, covering topics such as class differences and tactics such as disrupting meetings and winning media attention. Alinksy didn't dedicate his book to Satan. The word 'dedication' isn't included in the intro - though he does have a 'personal acknowledgments' section where Alinsky listed his wife and editors. However, Alinsky did indeed include an opening blurb on Lucifer, attributed to Alinsky himself. The epigraph is one of three; the other two quote Rabbi Hillel and philosopher Thomas Paine. 'Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer. - SAUL ALINSKY' His point seems to be acknowledging Lucifer in a figurative sense, rather than advocacy for satanism. The rest of the book includes no real discussion of Lucifer or Satan, though it does talk about the way people demonize political opponents so that others see their opponents as 'devils.' As we noted, Mitt Romney's father George Romney did meet with Alinsky. BuzzFeed reported that after the 1967 riots in Detroit, Romney met with Alinksy to discuss the grievances of the urban poor. The Library of Congress preserved photos of Alinsky meeting with black community organizers as well as meeting with Romney. T. George Harris's 1968 book Romney's Way quoted Romney saying to his 'reluctant white friends': 'I think you ought to listen to Alinsky. It seems to me that we are always talking to the same people. Maybe the time has come to hear new voices,' he said.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said Mitt Romney's father 'U.S. Senator George Romney, was a liberal Republican who had ties to Saul Alinsky, yes, the same dude who wrote the book, Rules For Radicals and dedicated to Satan.' The elder Romney was the Michigan governor when he met with Alinsky after the 1967 Detroit riots. That's not much of a tie. And as for Alinsky, he did not dedicate his book to Satan. What any of this has to do with Mitt Romney's impeachment vote? You're guess is as good as ours. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"111414-proof-35-3627a6b9328091b8d904a9d0f72b9a96.jpg"
] |
Mitt Romney's father 'U.S. Senator George Romney, was a liberal Republican who had ties to Saul Alinsky, yes, the same dude who wrote the book, Rules For Radicals and dedicated to Satan.
|
Contradiction
|
After U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney cast the lone Republican vote in favor of impeaching President Donald Trump, viral news about the Utah politician flooded Facebook. One post zeroed in on his dad: 'You see, his father, U.S. Senator George Romney, was a liberal Republican who had ties to Saul Alinsky, yes, the same dude who wrote the book, Rules For Radicals and dedicated to Satan,' states the Feb. 6 post. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post wrongly called George Romney a U.S. senator - he was governor of Michigan between 1963 and 1969. (The author of the post later changed the wording to call George Romney a politician.) Gov. Romney was known as a moderate who was sometimes at odds with his Republican Party. In 1969, he was appointed by President Richard Nixon as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. A spokeswoman for Sen. Mitt Romney declined to comment. George Romney met with Alinsky in the 1960s We found that Gov. Romney did meet with Alinksy, a famous liberal community organizer, in 1967. That's not much of a tie. Nor is there much to the claim that Alinsky dedicated a book to Satan. Alinsky only mentioned Lucifer in one paragraph of his book. Alinsky was a Chicago community organizer who wrote the 1971 book 'Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals.' The book offers advice to activists seeking to influence public policy, covering topics such as class differences and tactics such as disrupting meetings and winning media attention. Alinksy didn't dedicate his book to Satan. The word 'dedication' isn't included in the intro - though he does have a 'personal acknowledgments' section where Alinsky listed his wife and editors. However, Alinsky did indeed include an opening blurb on Lucifer, attributed to Alinsky himself. The epigraph is one of three; the other two quote Rabbi Hillel and philosopher Thomas Paine. 'Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer. - SAUL ALINSKY' His point seems to be acknowledging Lucifer in a figurative sense, rather than advocacy for satanism. The rest of the book includes no real discussion of Lucifer or Satan, though it does talk about the way people demonize political opponents so that others see their opponents as 'devils.' As we noted, Mitt Romney's father George Romney did meet with Alinsky. BuzzFeed reported that after the 1967 riots in Detroit, Romney met with Alinksy to discuss the grievances of the urban poor. The Library of Congress preserved photos of Alinsky meeting with black community organizers as well as meeting with Romney. T. George Harris's 1968 book Romney's Way quoted Romney saying to his 'reluctant white friends': 'I think you ought to listen to Alinsky. It seems to me that we are always talking to the same people. Maybe the time has come to hear new voices,' he said.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said Mitt Romney's father 'U.S. Senator George Romney, was a liberal Republican who had ties to Saul Alinsky, yes, the same dude who wrote the book, Rules For Radicals and dedicated to Satan.' The elder Romney was the Michigan governor when he met with Alinsky after the 1967 Detroit riots. That's not much of a tie. And as for Alinsky, he did not dedicate his book to Satan. What any of this has to do with Mitt Romney's impeachment vote? You're guess is as good as ours. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"111414-proof-35-3627a6b9328091b8d904a9d0f72b9a96.jpg"
] |
Mitt Romney's father 'U.S. Senator George Romney, was a liberal Republican who had ties to Saul Alinsky, yes, the same dude who wrote the book, Rules For Radicals and dedicated to Satan.
|
Contradiction
|
After U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney cast the lone Republican vote in favor of impeaching President Donald Trump, viral news about the Utah politician flooded Facebook. One post zeroed in on his dad: 'You see, his father, U.S. Senator George Romney, was a liberal Republican who had ties to Saul Alinsky, yes, the same dude who wrote the book, Rules For Radicals and dedicated to Satan,' states the Feb. 6 post. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post wrongly called George Romney a U.S. senator - he was governor of Michigan between 1963 and 1969. (The author of the post later changed the wording to call George Romney a politician.) Gov. Romney was known as a moderate who was sometimes at odds with his Republican Party. In 1969, he was appointed by President Richard Nixon as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. A spokeswoman for Sen. Mitt Romney declined to comment. George Romney met with Alinsky in the 1960s We found that Gov. Romney did meet with Alinksy, a famous liberal community organizer, in 1967. That's not much of a tie. Nor is there much to the claim that Alinsky dedicated a book to Satan. Alinsky only mentioned Lucifer in one paragraph of his book. Alinsky was a Chicago community organizer who wrote the 1971 book 'Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals.' The book offers advice to activists seeking to influence public policy, covering topics such as class differences and tactics such as disrupting meetings and winning media attention. Alinksy didn't dedicate his book to Satan. The word 'dedication' isn't included in the intro - though he does have a 'personal acknowledgments' section where Alinsky listed his wife and editors. However, Alinsky did indeed include an opening blurb on Lucifer, attributed to Alinsky himself. The epigraph is one of three; the other two quote Rabbi Hillel and philosopher Thomas Paine. 'Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer. - SAUL ALINSKY' His point seems to be acknowledging Lucifer in a figurative sense, rather than advocacy for satanism. The rest of the book includes no real discussion of Lucifer or Satan, though it does talk about the way people demonize political opponents so that others see their opponents as 'devils.' As we noted, Mitt Romney's father George Romney did meet with Alinsky. BuzzFeed reported that after the 1967 riots in Detroit, Romney met with Alinksy to discuss the grievances of the urban poor. The Library of Congress preserved photos of Alinsky meeting with black community organizers as well as meeting with Romney. T. George Harris's 1968 book Romney's Way quoted Romney saying to his 'reluctant white friends': 'I think you ought to listen to Alinsky. It seems to me that we are always talking to the same people. Maybe the time has come to hear new voices,' he said.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post said Mitt Romney's father 'U.S. Senator George Romney, was a liberal Republican who had ties to Saul Alinsky, yes, the same dude who wrote the book, Rules For Radicals and dedicated to Satan.' The elder Romney was the Michigan governor when he met with Alinsky after the 1967 Detroit riots. That's not much of a tie. And as for Alinsky, he did not dedicate his book to Satan. What any of this has to do with Mitt Romney's impeachment vote? You're guess is as good as ours. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"111414-proof-35-3627a6b9328091b8d904a9d0f72b9a96.jpg"
] |
H&M advertised a sweatshirt that said, 'Koolest Kid in the Klan.
|
Contradiction
|
In what looks like an online advertisement for the clothes retailer H&M, a boy is smiling with his hands stuffed in the pocket of a white hooded sweatshirt. The shirt reads: 'Koolest Kid in the Klan.' Most of the text is white and black while each of the three Ks is red so that 'KKK' pops out. The sweatshirt appears to sell for $24.99. But the ad, which is being shared on Facebook, isn't authentic. 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 found no evidence that H&M ever sold such an item, and if it did, it would be widely covered in the press - especially since the company came under intense scrutiny in 2018 for using a Black child to model a sweatshirt that said 'Coolest Monkey in the Jungle.' That year, H&M had to temporarily close several stores in South Africa after people protested the sweatshirt as racist. The image in this Facebook post appears to be in response to the monkey sweatshirt. It started appearing on Reddit and meme websites in 2018. Doing a reverse image search of the boy in the KKK sweatshirt, we found what looks like the original image. In this version, though, the front of the sweatshirt is blank. H&M didn't respond to PolitiFact's query about the Facebook post, but Lead Stories reported that a spokesperson told the fact-checking website that the photo is fake. We rate this image False.
|
We rate this image False.
|
[] |
'This week the military was moving big equipment into the major big cities preparing for the Maricopa audit results.
|
Contradiction
|
A partisan review of ballots in Maricopa County, Ariz., has fueled repeated speculation on social media that the military is on hand for the release of results, but there's no evidence of this. 'Monday and Tuesday of this week the military was moving big equipment into the major big cities preparing for the Maricopa audit results,' the narrator says in a video posted July 22 on Facebook. 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 12-minute video makes a string of unsubstantiated claims about martial law being in force, Donald Trump being reinstated as president and former government officials being arrested or executed, but the part we looked at was a claim at the beginning of the video about the military being readied in connection with Maricopa County's audit results. It's similar to a post we fact-checked in June that said 'Military ready to act on audit results!' We rated that one False. The segment in the video about Maricopa included two images of military personnel, both of which were unrelated to the review of ballots in Arizona. One photo appears to match a photo of soldiers in 2009 during a re-enlistment ceremony in Iraq, while another photo appears to match a 2018 photo of service members at an Air Force base in Guam. With encouragement from President Donald Trump and his allies, Arizona Senate Republicans launched a review of the ballots cast during the presidential election in Maricopa County. The review started in April and is continuing. Election experts, including Republicans, have criticized the ballot review as partisan and amateurish and said it doesn't follow typical auditing standards. We have debunked multiple falsehoods stemming from the ballot review including Trump's claim that '74,243 mail-in ballots were counted with 'no clear record of them being sent.'' Randy Pullen, a spokesperson for the audit, estimated that contractors will finish writing their report and submit it to the state Senate in mid-August. He was not aware of any plans to send the military to cities ahead of the release of the results of the ballot review. State and federal military officials also indicated they are not preparing any response to the release of results of the ballot review. 'There has been no formal request for the Arizona National Guard to support the audit,' said David Nunn, spokesperson for the Arizona National Guard. 'There is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of elections, and we are not moving forces to Maricopa, Arizona,' said Jason Waggoner, spokesperson for the U.S. Army. Spokespersons for the Phoenix Police Department and for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office also told PolitiFact that law enforcement made no request for military involvement.
|
Our ruling A video posted on Facebook said, 'This week the military was moving big equipment into the major big cities preparing for the Maricopa audit results.' We found no evidence of that happening. Spokespersons for the Arizona National Guard and the U.S. Army said their agencies are not involved with the review of the ballots in Maricopa. The images accompanying the post are unrelated to Arizona. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Proof has not emerged to change Joe Biden's election or his wins in Ariz., Ga.
|
[
"111441-proof-13-cbe25150a4ba847bf39d9d0f4a0ef79f.jpg"
] |
'This week the military was moving big equipment into the major big cities preparing for the Maricopa audit results.
|
Contradiction
|
A partisan review of ballots in Maricopa County, Ariz., has fueled repeated speculation on social media that the military is on hand for the release of results, but there's no evidence of this. 'Monday and Tuesday of this week the military was moving big equipment into the major big cities preparing for the Maricopa audit results,' the narrator says in a video posted July 22 on Facebook. 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 12-minute video makes a string of unsubstantiated claims about martial law being in force, Donald Trump being reinstated as president and former government officials being arrested or executed, but the part we looked at was a claim at the beginning of the video about the military being readied in connection with Maricopa County's audit results. It's similar to a post we fact-checked in June that said 'Military ready to act on audit results!' We rated that one False. The segment in the video about Maricopa included two images of military personnel, both of which were unrelated to the review of ballots in Arizona. One photo appears to match a photo of soldiers in 2009 during a re-enlistment ceremony in Iraq, while another photo appears to match a 2018 photo of service members at an Air Force base in Guam. With encouragement from President Donald Trump and his allies, Arizona Senate Republicans launched a review of the ballots cast during the presidential election in Maricopa County. The review started in April and is continuing. Election experts, including Republicans, have criticized the ballot review as partisan and amateurish and said it doesn't follow typical auditing standards. We have debunked multiple falsehoods stemming from the ballot review including Trump's claim that '74,243 mail-in ballots were counted with 'no clear record of them being sent.'' Randy Pullen, a spokesperson for the audit, estimated that contractors will finish writing their report and submit it to the state Senate in mid-August. He was not aware of any plans to send the military to cities ahead of the release of the results of the ballot review. State and federal military officials also indicated they are not preparing any response to the release of results of the ballot review. 'There has been no formal request for the Arizona National Guard to support the audit,' said David Nunn, spokesperson for the Arizona National Guard. 'There is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of elections, and we are not moving forces to Maricopa, Arizona,' said Jason Waggoner, spokesperson for the U.S. Army. Spokespersons for the Phoenix Police Department and for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office also told PolitiFact that law enforcement made no request for military involvement.
|
Our ruling A video posted on Facebook said, 'This week the military was moving big equipment into the major big cities preparing for the Maricopa audit results.' We found no evidence of that happening. Spokespersons for the Arizona National Guard and the U.S. Army said their agencies are not involved with the review of the ballots in Maricopa. The images accompanying the post are unrelated to Arizona. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Proof has not emerged to change Joe Biden's election or his wins in Ariz., Ga.
|
[
"111441-proof-13-cbe25150a4ba847bf39d9d0f4a0ef79f.jpg"
] |
'This week the military was moving big equipment into the major big cities preparing for the Maricopa audit results.
|
Contradiction
|
A partisan review of ballots in Maricopa County, Ariz., has fueled repeated speculation on social media that the military is on hand for the release of results, but there's no evidence of this. 'Monday and Tuesday of this week the military was moving big equipment into the major big cities preparing for the Maricopa audit results,' the narrator says in a video posted July 22 on Facebook. 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 12-minute video makes a string of unsubstantiated claims about martial law being in force, Donald Trump being reinstated as president and former government officials being arrested or executed, but the part we looked at was a claim at the beginning of the video about the military being readied in connection with Maricopa County's audit results. It's similar to a post we fact-checked in June that said 'Military ready to act on audit results!' We rated that one False. The segment in the video about Maricopa included two images of military personnel, both of which were unrelated to the review of ballots in Arizona. One photo appears to match a photo of soldiers in 2009 during a re-enlistment ceremony in Iraq, while another photo appears to match a 2018 photo of service members at an Air Force base in Guam. With encouragement from President Donald Trump and his allies, Arizona Senate Republicans launched a review of the ballots cast during the presidential election in Maricopa County. The review started in April and is continuing. Election experts, including Republicans, have criticized the ballot review as partisan and amateurish and said it doesn't follow typical auditing standards. We have debunked multiple falsehoods stemming from the ballot review including Trump's claim that '74,243 mail-in ballots were counted with 'no clear record of them being sent.'' Randy Pullen, a spokesperson for the audit, estimated that contractors will finish writing their report and submit it to the state Senate in mid-August. He was not aware of any plans to send the military to cities ahead of the release of the results of the ballot review. State and federal military officials also indicated they are not preparing any response to the release of results of the ballot review. 'There has been no formal request for the Arizona National Guard to support the audit,' said David Nunn, spokesperson for the Arizona National Guard. 'There is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of elections, and we are not moving forces to Maricopa, Arizona,' said Jason Waggoner, spokesperson for the U.S. Army. Spokespersons for the Phoenix Police Department and for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office also told PolitiFact that law enforcement made no request for military involvement.
|
Our ruling A video posted on Facebook said, 'This week the military was moving big equipment into the major big cities preparing for the Maricopa audit results.' We found no evidence of that happening. Spokespersons for the Arizona National Guard and the U.S. Army said their agencies are not involved with the review of the ballots in Maricopa. The images accompanying the post are unrelated to Arizona. We rate this statement False. RELATED: Proof has not emerged to change Joe Biden's election or his wins in Ariz., Ga.
|
[
"111441-proof-13-cbe25150a4ba847bf39d9d0f4a0ef79f.jpg"
] |
'Guess who is the marketing CEO of Zoom? Pelosi's daughter/Newsome's cousin.
|
Contradiction
|
Most schools in California have not reopened for in-person learning, and more than 90% of the state's 6.3 million public school students are doing only distance learning as the coronavirus pandemic endures. The Los Angeles school district, the second-largest in the country, has partnered with Zoom for online classes. But several Facebook posts have looked askance at such alliances in California. 'Anyone in California find it funny that almost every school district is using Zoom to have class,' one Facebook post says before misspelling the California governor's name. 'Guess who is the marketing CEO of Zoom? Pelosi's daughter/Newsome's cousin.' The post also shows the beginning of a link to a CNBC story about 'Zoom's marketing chief on the company's rise through the pandemic.' 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 reached out to Zoom about the claim. Colleen Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the company, told us that Janine Pelosi is Zoom's chief marketing officer, but she's not related to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is from California, or the state's governor, Gavin Newsom. The CNBC story that's referenced in the Facebook post with the partial link discusses Janine Pelosi, but it makes no mention of Nancy Pelosi or Newsom. Nancy Pelosi has five children: four daughters - Nancy Corinne Prowda, Christine Pelosi, Jacqueline Kenneally and Alexandra Pelosi - and one son, Paul Pelosi. There is a connection between Nancy Pelosi's family and Newsom's family, as FactCheck.org has reported. Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law, Ron Pelosi, was married to Gavin Newsom's aunt, making Ron Pelosi Newsom's uncle by marriage. But none of those family connections make either politician kin to Zoom's marketing officer. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
Video says COVID-19 vaccines are 'weapons of mass destruction' that 'could wipe out the human race.
|
Contradiction
|
In a nearly 22-minute long Facebook video, a man who identifies himself as Dr. Vernon Coleman has a lot to say about the COVID-19 vaccines. The video post is titled, 'Covid-19 [email protected] Are Weapons of Mass Destruction - and Could Wipe out the Human Race.' (The misspelling of 'vaccines' is intentional - it helps posters avoid Facebook's moderation of anti-vaccine misinformation.) 'We all know that the evil elite - the Agenda 21 and Great Reset promoters - have all along intended to kill between 90 and 95% of the world's population,' Coleman says in the video. 'Sadly I fear it's already too late to save many of those who've had the vaccine. Millions are doomed, and I fear that many will die when they next come in contact with the coronavirus.' Coleman also goes on to reiterate that he believes the vaccines 'could kill more people than COVID-19,' and that it 'now seems likely that the vaccines may be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions who haven't been vaccinated.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This is not the first time PolitiFact has debunked Coleman's conspiracy theories about the coronavirus vaccines. The largely self-published British writer has denied the existence of HIV/AIDS and in 2019 authored a book aimed at discrediting trust in vaccines. A qualified and practicing general practitioner in the 1970s, Coleman is no longer licensed to practice medicine. The UK's Advertising Standards Authority has also repeatedly taken issue with how Coleman's work is advertised and promoted. The video's claim about the COVID-19 vaccines is rooted in what have come to be referred to as the 'Great Reset' and 'Agenda 21' conspiracy theories. Essentially, the 'Great Reset' theory is that a group of 'global elites want to use the coronavirus as a tool to reorganize global societies and economies to their benefit at the expense of ordinary people, with the ultimate goal of a global totalitarian regime.' Revived during the COVID-19 pandemic, the 'Agenda 21' conspiracy theory dates back to a UN document from the early 90s and similarly holds that 'a secret plot to impose a totalitarian world government' is in motion. There is no evidence to support these widely debunked theories, which have also been linked with the QAnon conspiracy theory. There is also no definitive evidence that deaths have been caused by COVID-19 vaccines. Various fact-checking outlets have reported that there is no clear evidence the coronavirus vaccinations have killed or will kill anyone - let alone kill millions. Even deaths that occur after someone has received a COVID-19 vaccine are not necessarily caused by the vaccine itself. Experts who work with the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, a national database that monitors vaccine safety by recording health issues that occur after vaccinations, say that isolated experiences - even deaths - do not establish causation. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, told PolitiFact that reports of deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations 'can never answer the question of whether a vaccine causes a particular outcome.' Only a study with a control group can establish causation, he said. The COVID-19 vaccines approved in the U.S. have been proven to be safe and effective in tens of thousands of people who participated in clinical trials.
|
Our ruling A video circulating on Facebook claims COVID-19 vaccines are 'weapons of mass destruction' that 'could wipe out the human race.' The claim is linked to widely-debunked conspiracy theories about a group of so-called global elites' 'secret plot' to create a totalitarian world government and purge a large portion of the planet's population. There is no evidence to support the claim that the COVID-19 vaccines are 'weapons of mass destruction' that will cause widespread deaths. The video's claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Video says COVID-19 vaccines are 'weapons of mass destruction' that 'could wipe out the human race.
|
Contradiction
|
In a nearly 22-minute long Facebook video, a man who identifies himself as Dr. Vernon Coleman has a lot to say about the COVID-19 vaccines. The video post is titled, 'Covid-19 [email protected] Are Weapons of Mass Destruction - and Could Wipe out the Human Race.' (The misspelling of 'vaccines' is intentional - it helps posters avoid Facebook's moderation of anti-vaccine misinformation.) 'We all know that the evil elite - the Agenda 21 and Great Reset promoters - have all along intended to kill between 90 and 95% of the world's population,' Coleman says in the video. 'Sadly I fear it's already too late to save many of those who've had the vaccine. Millions are doomed, and I fear that many will die when they next come in contact with the coronavirus.' Coleman also goes on to reiterate that he believes the vaccines 'could kill more people than COVID-19,' and that it 'now seems likely that the vaccines may be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions who haven't been vaccinated.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This is not the first time PolitiFact has debunked Coleman's conspiracy theories about the coronavirus vaccines. The largely self-published British writer has denied the existence of HIV/AIDS and in 2019 authored a book aimed at discrediting trust in vaccines. A qualified and practicing general practitioner in the 1970s, Coleman is no longer licensed to practice medicine. The UK's Advertising Standards Authority has also repeatedly taken issue with how Coleman's work is advertised and promoted. The video's claim about the COVID-19 vaccines is rooted in what have come to be referred to as the 'Great Reset' and 'Agenda 21' conspiracy theories. Essentially, the 'Great Reset' theory is that a group of 'global elites want to use the coronavirus as a tool to reorganize global societies and economies to their benefit at the expense of ordinary people, with the ultimate goal of a global totalitarian regime.' Revived during the COVID-19 pandemic, the 'Agenda 21' conspiracy theory dates back to a UN document from the early 90s and similarly holds that 'a secret plot to impose a totalitarian world government' is in motion. There is no evidence to support these widely debunked theories, which have also been linked with the QAnon conspiracy theory. There is also no definitive evidence that deaths have been caused by COVID-19 vaccines. Various fact-checking outlets have reported that there is no clear evidence the coronavirus vaccinations have killed or will kill anyone - let alone kill millions. Even deaths that occur after someone has received a COVID-19 vaccine are not necessarily caused by the vaccine itself. Experts who work with the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, a national database that monitors vaccine safety by recording health issues that occur after vaccinations, say that isolated experiences - even deaths - do not establish causation. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, told PolitiFact that reports of deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations 'can never answer the question of whether a vaccine causes a particular outcome.' Only a study with a control group can establish causation, he said. The COVID-19 vaccines approved in the U.S. have been proven to be safe and effective in tens of thousands of people who participated in clinical trials.
|
Our ruling A video circulating on Facebook claims COVID-19 vaccines are 'weapons of mass destruction' that 'could wipe out the human race.' The claim is linked to widely-debunked conspiracy theories about a group of so-called global elites' 'secret plot' to create a totalitarian world government and purge a large portion of the planet's population. There is no evidence to support the claim that the COVID-19 vaccines are 'weapons of mass destruction' that will cause widespread deaths. The video's claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Video says COVID-19 vaccines are 'weapons of mass destruction' that 'could wipe out the human race.
|
Contradiction
|
In a nearly 22-minute long Facebook video, a man who identifies himself as Dr. Vernon Coleman has a lot to say about the COVID-19 vaccines. The video post is titled, 'Covid-19 [email protected] Are Weapons of Mass Destruction - and Could Wipe out the Human Race.' (The misspelling of 'vaccines' is intentional - it helps posters avoid Facebook's moderation of anti-vaccine misinformation.) 'We all know that the evil elite - the Agenda 21 and Great Reset promoters - have all along intended to kill between 90 and 95% of the world's population,' Coleman says in the video. 'Sadly I fear it's already too late to save many of those who've had the vaccine. Millions are doomed, and I fear that many will die when they next come in contact with the coronavirus.' Coleman also goes on to reiterate that he believes the vaccines 'could kill more people than COVID-19,' and that it 'now seems likely that the vaccines may be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions who haven't been vaccinated.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This is not the first time PolitiFact has debunked Coleman's conspiracy theories about the coronavirus vaccines. The largely self-published British writer has denied the existence of HIV/AIDS and in 2019 authored a book aimed at discrediting trust in vaccines. A qualified and practicing general practitioner in the 1970s, Coleman is no longer licensed to practice medicine. The UK's Advertising Standards Authority has also repeatedly taken issue with how Coleman's work is advertised and promoted. The video's claim about the COVID-19 vaccines is rooted in what have come to be referred to as the 'Great Reset' and 'Agenda 21' conspiracy theories. Essentially, the 'Great Reset' theory is that a group of 'global elites want to use the coronavirus as a tool to reorganize global societies and economies to their benefit at the expense of ordinary people, with the ultimate goal of a global totalitarian regime.' Revived during the COVID-19 pandemic, the 'Agenda 21' conspiracy theory dates back to a UN document from the early 90s and similarly holds that 'a secret plot to impose a totalitarian world government' is in motion. There is no evidence to support these widely debunked theories, which have also been linked with the QAnon conspiracy theory. There is also no definitive evidence that deaths have been caused by COVID-19 vaccines. Various fact-checking outlets have reported that there is no clear evidence the coronavirus vaccinations have killed or will kill anyone - let alone kill millions. Even deaths that occur after someone has received a COVID-19 vaccine are not necessarily caused by the vaccine itself. Experts who work with the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, a national database that monitors vaccine safety by recording health issues that occur after vaccinations, say that isolated experiences - even deaths - do not establish causation. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, told PolitiFact that reports of deaths following COVID-19 vaccinations 'can never answer the question of whether a vaccine causes a particular outcome.' Only a study with a control group can establish causation, he said. The COVID-19 vaccines approved in the U.S. have been proven to be safe and effective in tens of thousands of people who participated in clinical trials.
|
Our ruling A video circulating on Facebook claims COVID-19 vaccines are 'weapons of mass destruction' that 'could wipe out the human race.' The claim is linked to widely-debunked conspiracy theories about a group of so-called global elites' 'secret plot' to create a totalitarian world government and purge a large portion of the planet's population. There is no evidence to support the claim that the COVID-19 vaccines are 'weapons of mass destruction' that will cause widespread deaths. The video's claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
Says Joe Biden and Gretchen Whitmer were maskless at the Detroit Athletic Club 'while OUR children are being mandated to wear a mask while playing outdoor sports.
|
Contradiction
|
Recent Facebook posts use an out-of-context photo of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer meeting with Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to wrongly accuse the politicians of double standards on COVID-19. The photo was taken in March, before the first cases of COVID-19 emerged in Michigan. But the angry posts make the event seem a lot more recent. 'While OUR children are being mandated to wear a mask while playing outdoor sports these hypocrites are at the Detroit Athletic Club yesterday maskless!' reads the description of an image that shows Biden and Whitmer standing in close proximity to other people and not wearing masks. 'When will the sheeple wake up! This is ALL about control and it has to STOP.' 'At the DAC in Detroit?,' one account sharing the image said. 'Where are their F#king Masks when the cameras are off? Whitmer and Biden you are pieces of and full of S---! EVERYONE REPOST THIS ASAP!' This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The photo was posted on Instagram on Sept. 9 by Dennis Archer Jr., the son of a former Detroit mayor who runs a marketing agency in the city. 'It was good to catch up with dear friend @joebiden @vdarcher earlier this year (pre Covid),' he wrote. Archer doesn't say in the post when or where the photo was taken, but they're at the Detroit Athletic Club, where Biden attended a fundraiser on March 9. Biden and Whitmer are wearing the same outfits in that photo as they were photographed in during a campaign rally in Detroit that same day. 'Before the rally, Biden attended a $1,000-per-person fundraiser at the Detroit Athletic Club, hosted by some of Michigan's biggest political names: former Gov. Jim Blanchard, Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan and Detroit businessman Dennis Archer Jr.,' the Detroit Free Press reported. This was before the first case of COVID-19 was identified in Michigan, and well before the state required people to wear face coverings. On March 10, the state's department of health and human services identified the first two presumptive-positive COVID-19 cases in Michigan. Whitmer declared an emergency. The Athletic Club shut down on March 16. On April 24, more than a month after Biden's campaign rally, Whitmer signed an executive order requiring people to wear face coverings in enclosed public spaces. On Sept. 9, the same day that Archer posted the fundraiser photo from March, Whitmer signed an executive order requiring face coverings be worn by 'athletes training for, practicing for, or competing in organized sports when the athlete cannot maintain 6 feet of social distance, except for occasional and fleeting moments.' The order doesn't apply to swimmers and athletes playing professional sports. We rate this Facebook post False.
|
We rate this Facebook post False.
|
[] |
'90% of Americans do not support universal background checks.
|
Contradiction
|
The day after the House passed legislation to expand background checks for gun sales, a lengthy Facebook questioned the popularity of the measure. The headline said: '90% of Americans Do NOT Support Universal Background Checks - HR 8 The text underneath said: 'On Wednesday, California House Representative Mike Thompson claimed that 90% of Americans Support the universal background check gun control bill HR 8. I'm here to tell you today that this is not true. The Anti-Gun Lobby has been making this lie up for years.' The post is from Colion Noir, a gun rights advocate who has 1.41 million Facebook followers. 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.) Thompson, the California Democrat who sponsored H.R. 8, has said it would require background checks for all gun sales and that 'we have 90% of the American people on our side.' The last time national polls were widely done on background checks was in 2019, when the House passed a similar bill. When Americans were asked if they support universal background checks, support was at or near 90%. We found only one national poll since 2019. It was taken online a few days before the House vote and showed 84% support. The bill and the poster H.R. 8 is the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021. It would prohibit gun transfers between private parties unless a licensed gun dealer, manufacturer, or importer first takes possession of the firearm to conduct a background check. There would be some exceptions, such as gifts between immediate-family members. 'Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to authorize the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a national firearms registry,' the bill says. The House passed the bill 227-203 on March 11 and sent it to the Senate. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the only Democrat to vote no; eight Republicans, including three from Florida, voted yes. Colion Noir is an alias used by Texas lawyer Collins Iyare Idehen Jr. As a host on the National Rifle Association's TV channel, he criticized students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., as being un-American when they led a protest march in Washington after a former student shot and killed 17 people at their school in 2018. Noir argues in his post that a national gun registry would have to be established in order to enforce universal background checks, and that support for universal checks would not be 90% if a registry were required. But neither his post nor an accompanying video provides evidence to back up his claim. He did not reply to our email. Gun sellers in all 50 states who are federal firearms licensees already use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to verify that a gun buyer does not have a criminal record or is not otherwise ineligible to purchase or own a firearm. Universal checks would extend that to all gun purchases. The most recent poll that we found was conducted March 6-8, just before the House vote, by Morning Consult/Politico. Registered voters polled online were asked: 'To what extent do you support or oppose the following - requiring background checks for all gun purchasers?' Those who said they strongly or somewhat support such a measure totaled 84%. The pollsters asked a similar question in August 2019, and found 90% support. Other polls from 2019 found support for background checks in a similar range, from 83% to 93%, even with some variety in the phrasing of the question; in some cases, it mentioned Congress, pending legislation or the goal of reducing gun violence. Here's a rundown: NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Washington Post-ABC News Sept. 2-5: 'Would you support or oppose requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers, including private sales and gun shows?' Support: 89%. Pew Research Center Sept. 3-15: 'Please indicate whether you would favor or oppose the following proposals about gun policy - making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks.' Favor: 87%. Quinnipiac University Aug. 21-26: 'Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?' Support: 93% (92% to 94% in three other polls between January and May.) September: 'As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that would require background checks on all gun sales, including those at gun shows and through online retailers. Do you support or oppose this bill?' Support: 83% (down from 86% in March). Suffolk University/USA Today Aug. 20-25: 'Do you support requiring background checks for all firearm sales?' Support: 90%. Monmouth University Aug. 16-20: 'Do you support or oppose requiring comprehensive background checks for all gun purchasers, including private sales between two individuals?' Support: 83%. NBC News/Wall Street Journal Aug. 10-14: 'I'm going to read you some actions that Congress might take related to guns. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose expanding background checks to all firearm sales and transfers?' Strongly or somewhat support: 89%. Fox News Aug. 11-13: 'Do you favor or oppose ...requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales?' Favor: 90%. Associated Press-National Opinion Research Center March 14-18: 'Do you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose ... a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers, including private sales and gun shows?' Favor: 83%. Has there been a change since 2019? Marquette Law School Poll director Charles Franklin said he hasn't polled recently on background checks because his focus has been on the coronavirus pandemic and the 2020 election, and that's likely true for other pollsters. Kathleen Weldon, director of data operations and communications at the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at Cornell University, said she was not surprised there hasn't been much recent polling on background checks, because gun control has not been in the news. 'I wouldn't put too much weight on any single polling result,' Weldon said of Morning Consult's March 2021 poll. 'To be convinced there was any sort of meaningful drop in support in something where support has been in the high-80s or low-90s for a couple decades, I would definitely want to see more than one example.'
|
Our ruling Noir claimed in a Facebook post that '90% of Americans do not support universal background checks.' This contradicts numerous polls that show the opposite: The best available evidence is that support for universal background checks is at or near 90%. We rate the post False.
|
[] |
'90% of Americans do not support universal background checks.
|
Contradiction
|
The day after the House passed legislation to expand background checks for gun sales, a lengthy Facebook questioned the popularity of the measure. The headline said: '90% of Americans Do NOT Support Universal Background Checks - HR 8 The text underneath said: 'On Wednesday, California House Representative Mike Thompson claimed that 90% of Americans Support the universal background check gun control bill HR 8. I'm here to tell you today that this is not true. The Anti-Gun Lobby has been making this lie up for years.' The post is from Colion Noir, a gun rights advocate who has 1.41 million Facebook followers. 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.) Thompson, the California Democrat who sponsored H.R. 8, has said it would require background checks for all gun sales and that 'we have 90% of the American people on our side.' The last time national polls were widely done on background checks was in 2019, when the House passed a similar bill. When Americans were asked if they support universal background checks, support was at or near 90%. We found only one national poll since 2019. It was taken online a few days before the House vote and showed 84% support. The bill and the poster H.R. 8 is the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021. It would prohibit gun transfers between private parties unless a licensed gun dealer, manufacturer, or importer first takes possession of the firearm to conduct a background check. There would be some exceptions, such as gifts between immediate-family members. 'Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to authorize the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a national firearms registry,' the bill says. The House passed the bill 227-203 on March 11 and sent it to the Senate. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the only Democrat to vote no; eight Republicans, including three from Florida, voted yes. Colion Noir is an alias used by Texas lawyer Collins Iyare Idehen Jr. As a host on the National Rifle Association's TV channel, he criticized students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., as being un-American when they led a protest march in Washington after a former student shot and killed 17 people at their school in 2018. Noir argues in his post that a national gun registry would have to be established in order to enforce universal background checks, and that support for universal checks would not be 90% if a registry were required. But neither his post nor an accompanying video provides evidence to back up his claim. He did not reply to our email. Gun sellers in all 50 states who are federal firearms licensees already use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to verify that a gun buyer does not have a criminal record or is not otherwise ineligible to purchase or own a firearm. Universal checks would extend that to all gun purchases. The most recent poll that we found was conducted March 6-8, just before the House vote, by Morning Consult/Politico. Registered voters polled online were asked: 'To what extent do you support or oppose the following - requiring background checks for all gun purchasers?' Those who said they strongly or somewhat support such a measure totaled 84%. The pollsters asked a similar question in August 2019, and found 90% support. Other polls from 2019 found support for background checks in a similar range, from 83% to 93%, even with some variety in the phrasing of the question; in some cases, it mentioned Congress, pending legislation or the goal of reducing gun violence. Here's a rundown: NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Washington Post-ABC News Sept. 2-5: 'Would you support or oppose requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers, including private sales and gun shows?' Support: 89%. Pew Research Center Sept. 3-15: 'Please indicate whether you would favor or oppose the following proposals about gun policy - making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks.' Favor: 87%. Quinnipiac University Aug. 21-26: 'Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?' Support: 93% (92% to 94% in three other polls between January and May.) September: 'As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that would require background checks on all gun sales, including those at gun shows and through online retailers. Do you support or oppose this bill?' Support: 83% (down from 86% in March). Suffolk University/USA Today Aug. 20-25: 'Do you support requiring background checks for all firearm sales?' Support: 90%. Monmouth University Aug. 16-20: 'Do you support or oppose requiring comprehensive background checks for all gun purchasers, including private sales between two individuals?' Support: 83%. NBC News/Wall Street Journal Aug. 10-14: 'I'm going to read you some actions that Congress might take related to guns. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose expanding background checks to all firearm sales and transfers?' Strongly or somewhat support: 89%. Fox News Aug. 11-13: 'Do you favor or oppose ...requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales?' Favor: 90%. Associated Press-National Opinion Research Center March 14-18: 'Do you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose ... a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers, including private sales and gun shows?' Favor: 83%. Has there been a change since 2019? Marquette Law School Poll director Charles Franklin said he hasn't polled recently on background checks because his focus has been on the coronavirus pandemic and the 2020 election, and that's likely true for other pollsters. Kathleen Weldon, director of data operations and communications at the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at Cornell University, said she was not surprised there hasn't been much recent polling on background checks, because gun control has not been in the news. 'I wouldn't put too much weight on any single polling result,' Weldon said of Morning Consult's March 2021 poll. 'To be convinced there was any sort of meaningful drop in support in something where support has been in the high-80s or low-90s for a couple decades, I would definitely want to see more than one example.'
|
Our ruling Noir claimed in a Facebook post that '90% of Americans do not support universal background checks.' This contradicts numerous polls that show the opposite: The best available evidence is that support for universal background checks is at or near 90%. We rate the post False.
|
[] |
'When I closed (travel from China) he said I should not have closed. ...He said this is a terrible thing, you are a xenophobe, I think he called me racist. Now he says I should have closed it earlier.
|
Contradiction
|
In the final presidential debate, Democratic candidate Joe Biden repeated his claim that President Donald Trump has mishandled the nation's response to the novel coronavirus pandemic. Trump shot back in defense, and claimed that Biden himself thought that the administration was wrong in restricting travel from China on Jan. 31, 2020, in an attempt to stop the virus from spreading in the United States. 'When I closed he said I should no't have closed,' Trump said. 'He said this is a terrible thing, you are a xenophobe, I think he called me racist. Now he says I should have closed it earlier.' 'I did not say either of those things,' Biden responded. 'I talked about his xenophobia in a different context, not about closing the border to Chinese coming to the United States.' As debate moderator Kristen Welker interjected to ask another question, Trump continued: 'He thought I shouldn't have closed the borders. That's obvious.' This isn't accurate. Biden did not directly say that he thought Trump shouldn't have restricted travel from China when he did. The former vice president did accuse Trump of 'xenophobia' in an Iowa campaign speech the same day, Jan. 31, that Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced the administration's travel restrictions on people who were in China 14 days prior to their attempted entry into the U.S. Biden said: 'This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysteria xenophobia, hysterical xenophobia, and fear-mongering to lead the way instead of science.' RELATED: Fact-checking whether Biden called Trump 'xenophobic' for restrictions on travel from China Biden's presidential campaign told the Washington Post Fact Checker that his accusations were not related to the travel restrictions, claiming he wasn't aware of the restrictions during his speech since the event started shortly after they were announced. The campaign also noted he made similar remarks in an opinion column published Jan. 27 in USA Today. And in his comments in Iowa, Biden did not mention the travel restrictions. On Feb. 1, Biden mostly repeated his remarks from the campaign stop, tweeting: 'We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science - not Donald Trump's record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.' Biden did not say whether he supported or opposed the Trump travel restrictions until April 3, when his campaign said that he supported Trump's decision to impose travel restrictions on China. 'Joe Biden supports travel bans that are guided by medical experts, advocated by public health officials, and backed by a full strategy,' the campaign told CNN. 'Science supported this ban, therefore he did too.'
|
Our ruling Trump said, 'When I closed he said I should not have closed. ...He said this is a terrible thing, you are a xenophobe, I think he called me racist. Now he says I should have closed it earlier. ... He thought I should not have closed the border. That's obvious.' Biden didn't take an official position on the China travel restrictions until months after they were first enforced. And while he has called Trump a racist and xenophobic, those comments weren't explicity in reference to the travel ban. Trump's claim contains an element of truth, but overstates and takes Biden's comments out of context. We rate the claim Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"111473-proof-01-13bf98bc6eb2ec76c541bc98c21f3b68.jpg"
] |
'When I closed (travel from China) he said I should not have closed. ...He said this is a terrible thing, you are a xenophobe, I think he called me racist. Now he says I should have closed it earlier.
|
Contradiction
|
In the final presidential debate, Democratic candidate Joe Biden repeated his claim that President Donald Trump has mishandled the nation's response to the novel coronavirus pandemic. Trump shot back in defense, and claimed that Biden himself thought that the administration was wrong in restricting travel from China on Jan. 31, 2020, in an attempt to stop the virus from spreading in the United States. 'When I closed he said I should no't have closed,' Trump said. 'He said this is a terrible thing, you are a xenophobe, I think he called me racist. Now he says I should have closed it earlier.' 'I did not say either of those things,' Biden responded. 'I talked about his xenophobia in a different context, not about closing the border to Chinese coming to the United States.' As debate moderator Kristen Welker interjected to ask another question, Trump continued: 'He thought I shouldn't have closed the borders. That's obvious.' This isn't accurate. Biden did not directly say that he thought Trump shouldn't have restricted travel from China when he did. The former vice president did accuse Trump of 'xenophobia' in an Iowa campaign speech the same day, Jan. 31, that Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced the administration's travel restrictions on people who were in China 14 days prior to their attempted entry into the U.S. Biden said: 'This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysteria xenophobia, hysterical xenophobia, and fear-mongering to lead the way instead of science.' RELATED: Fact-checking whether Biden called Trump 'xenophobic' for restrictions on travel from China Biden's presidential campaign told the Washington Post Fact Checker that his accusations were not related to the travel restrictions, claiming he wasn't aware of the restrictions during his speech since the event started shortly after they were announced. The campaign also noted he made similar remarks in an opinion column published Jan. 27 in USA Today. And in his comments in Iowa, Biden did not mention the travel restrictions. On Feb. 1, Biden mostly repeated his remarks from the campaign stop, tweeting: 'We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science - not Donald Trump's record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.' Biden did not say whether he supported or opposed the Trump travel restrictions until April 3, when his campaign said that he supported Trump's decision to impose travel restrictions on China. 'Joe Biden supports travel bans that are guided by medical experts, advocated by public health officials, and backed by a full strategy,' the campaign told CNN. 'Science supported this ban, therefore he did too.'
|
Our ruling Trump said, 'When I closed he said I should not have closed. ...He said this is a terrible thing, you are a xenophobe, I think he called me racist. Now he says I should have closed it earlier. ... He thought I should not have closed the border. That's obvious.' Biden didn't take an official position on the China travel restrictions until months after they were first enforced. And while he has called Trump a racist and xenophobic, those comments weren't explicity in reference to the travel ban. Trump's claim contains an element of truth, but overstates and takes Biden's comments out of context. We rate the claim Mostly False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[
"111473-proof-01-13bf98bc6eb2ec76c541bc98c21f3b68.jpg"
] |
Says Attorney General William Barr didn't cite the 'rule of law' in explaining his decision in the Michael Flynn case during a CBS News interview.
|
Contradiction
|
A clip played by NBC host Chuck Todd cut important context from Attorney General William Barr's interview with CBS News, leaving the impression that Barr spoke only in political terms about his move to drop charges against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. On 'Meet the Press,' Todd played an abbreviated quote from Barr's May 7 interview with CBS News' Catherine Herridge, in which Barr was asked how history would view his decision to reverse course on a prosecution that had already produced a guilty plea. 'He didn't make the case that he was upholding the rule of law,' Todd said after the clip. 'He was almost admitting that, yeah, this is a political job.' But Todd's description of Barr's remarks was wrong. Barr did say he believed he was sticking up for the rule of law - and he said it immediately after the clip Todd presented was cut off. 'Meet the Press' acknowledged the error in response to criticism from Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec on Twitter. NBC News declined to comment further, and Todd did not respond to a separate request for comment. 'Earlier today, we inadvertently and inaccurately cut short a video clip of an interview with AG Barr before offering commentary and analysis,' the show said in a tweet. 'The remaining clip included important remarks from the attorney general that we missed, and we regret the error.' You're correct. Earlier today, we inadvertently and inaccurately cut short a video clip of an interview with AG Barr before offering commentary and analysis. The remaining clip included important remarks from the attorney general that we missed, and we regret the error.- Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) May 10, 2020 The discrepancy between Todd's description of the clip he showed and Barr's complete remarks drew backlash on Twitter from conservative pundits and politicians. President Donald Trump retweeted several criticisms and called more than once for the 'Meet the Press' host to be fired, tagging the Federal Communications Commission and its chairman, Ajit Pai. 'Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd should be FIRED by 'Concast' (NBC) for this fraud,' Trump said in one tweet, using his pejorative nicknames for Todd and Comcast, NBC's parent company. 'He knew exactly what he was doing.' Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd should be FIRED by 'Concast' (NBC) for this fraud. He knew exactly what he was doing. Public Airwaves = Fake News! @AjitPaiFCC @FCC https://t.co/fLTDhjMXo4- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 11, 2020 Todd's clip was cut short, omitting key context The clip from Barr's interview was shown as part of a question during a panel discussion about the Flynn case. Todd teed up his question for Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan after NBC News reporter Kristen Welker, another panelist, mentioned the attorney general. 'I want you to listen to this Bill Barr answer to a question about what will history say about this,' Todd said. 'Wait until you hear this answer. Take a listen.' The tape rolled, showing Herridge asking Barr what the impression will be 'when history looks back on this decision' to recommend the dismissal of Flynn's charges. 'Well, history is written by the winners,' Barr said in response. 'So it largely depends on who's writing the history.' That's where the clip stopped. At that point, Todd said he was struck 'by the cynicism' of Barr's answer. 'It's a correct answer,' he said. 'But he's the attorney general. He didn't make the case that he was upholding the rule of law. He was almost admitting that, yeah, this is a political job.' But had the tape kept rolling, viewers would have seen that Barr did insist that he was upholding the rule of law. In fact, he used those exact words. Here's his full quote, with the relevant portion in bold: 'Well, history is written by the winners. So it largely depends on who's writing the history. But I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice.' Kupec said on Twitter that Barr made similar points elsewhere in the interview. For example, when asked if he was doing Trump's bidding by altering the course of the Flynn case, Barr said, 'No, I'm doing the law's bidding. I'm doing my duty under the law, as I see it.' For its part, 'CBS Evening News' also trimmed the clip of Barr in the same fashion during its May 7 TV broadcast, cutting his quote after 'winners.' Norah O'Donnell, the show's anchor, didn't claim that Barr never said he was upholding the law, as Todd did. 'CBS This Morning' presented the clip in its full context May 8.
|
Our ruling Todd said Barr 'didn't make the case that he was upholding the rule of law' with regard to Flynn during an interview with CBS News. 'Meet the Press' did not show the attorney general's complete remarks. After saying that 'history is written by the winners,' Barr said, 'I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law.' We rate Todd's statement False. UPDATE, May 13, 2020: Todd apologized for the error during the May 12 edition of MSNBC's 'Meet the Press Daily.' Todd said his team did not deliberately omit Barr's complete remarks or edit them out. They saw only the 'CBS Evening News' version of the clip, and they did not check for a full transcript, he said. 'The second part of the attorney general's answer would have put it in the proper context, and had I seen that part of the interview, I would not have framed the conversation the way I did, and I obviously am very sorry for that mistake,' Todd said.
|
[
"111495-proof-01-1eaeb91f4e363309a1eba659fea6581f.jpg"
] |
Says Attorney General William Barr didn't cite the 'rule of law' in explaining his decision in the Michael Flynn case during a CBS News interview.
|
Contradiction
|
A clip played by NBC host Chuck Todd cut important context from Attorney General William Barr's interview with CBS News, leaving the impression that Barr spoke only in political terms about his move to drop charges against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. On 'Meet the Press,' Todd played an abbreviated quote from Barr's May 7 interview with CBS News' Catherine Herridge, in which Barr was asked how history would view his decision to reverse course on a prosecution that had already produced a guilty plea. 'He didn't make the case that he was upholding the rule of law,' Todd said after the clip. 'He was almost admitting that, yeah, this is a political job.' But Todd's description of Barr's remarks was wrong. Barr did say he believed he was sticking up for the rule of law - and he said it immediately after the clip Todd presented was cut off. 'Meet the Press' acknowledged the error in response to criticism from Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec on Twitter. NBC News declined to comment further, and Todd did not respond to a separate request for comment. 'Earlier today, we inadvertently and inaccurately cut short a video clip of an interview with AG Barr before offering commentary and analysis,' the show said in a tweet. 'The remaining clip included important remarks from the attorney general that we missed, and we regret the error.' You're correct. Earlier today, we inadvertently and inaccurately cut short a video clip of an interview with AG Barr before offering commentary and analysis. The remaining clip included important remarks from the attorney general that we missed, and we regret the error.- Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) May 10, 2020 The discrepancy between Todd's description of the clip he showed and Barr's complete remarks drew backlash on Twitter from conservative pundits and politicians. President Donald Trump retweeted several criticisms and called more than once for the 'Meet the Press' host to be fired, tagging the Federal Communications Commission and its chairman, Ajit Pai. 'Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd should be FIRED by 'Concast' (NBC) for this fraud,' Trump said in one tweet, using his pejorative nicknames for Todd and Comcast, NBC's parent company. 'He knew exactly what he was doing.' Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd should be FIRED by 'Concast' (NBC) for this fraud. He knew exactly what he was doing. Public Airwaves = Fake News! @AjitPaiFCC @FCC https://t.co/fLTDhjMXo4- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 11, 2020 Todd's clip was cut short, omitting key context The clip from Barr's interview was shown as part of a question during a panel discussion about the Flynn case. Todd teed up his question for Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan after NBC News reporter Kristen Welker, another panelist, mentioned the attorney general. 'I want you to listen to this Bill Barr answer to a question about what will history say about this,' Todd said. 'Wait until you hear this answer. Take a listen.' The tape rolled, showing Herridge asking Barr what the impression will be 'when history looks back on this decision' to recommend the dismissal of Flynn's charges. 'Well, history is written by the winners,' Barr said in response. 'So it largely depends on who's writing the history.' That's where the clip stopped. At that point, Todd said he was struck 'by the cynicism' of Barr's answer. 'It's a correct answer,' he said. 'But he's the attorney general. He didn't make the case that he was upholding the rule of law. He was almost admitting that, yeah, this is a political job.' But had the tape kept rolling, viewers would have seen that Barr did insist that he was upholding the rule of law. In fact, he used those exact words. Here's his full quote, with the relevant portion in bold: 'Well, history is written by the winners. So it largely depends on who's writing the history. But I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice.' Kupec said on Twitter that Barr made similar points elsewhere in the interview. For example, when asked if he was doing Trump's bidding by altering the course of the Flynn case, Barr said, 'No, I'm doing the law's bidding. I'm doing my duty under the law, as I see it.' For its part, 'CBS Evening News' also trimmed the clip of Barr in the same fashion during its May 7 TV broadcast, cutting his quote after 'winners.' Norah O'Donnell, the show's anchor, didn't claim that Barr never said he was upholding the law, as Todd did. 'CBS This Morning' presented the clip in its full context May 8.
|
Our ruling Todd said Barr 'didn't make the case that he was upholding the rule of law' with regard to Flynn during an interview with CBS News. 'Meet the Press' did not show the attorney general's complete remarks. After saying that 'history is written by the winners,' Barr said, 'I think a fair history would say it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law.' We rate Todd's statement False. UPDATE, May 13, 2020: Todd apologized for the error during the May 12 edition of MSNBC's 'Meet the Press Daily.' Todd said his team did not deliberately omit Barr's complete remarks or edit them out. They saw only the 'CBS Evening News' version of the clip, and they did not check for a full transcript, he said. 'The second part of the attorney general's answer would have put it in the proper context, and had I seen that part of the interview, I would not have framed the conversation the way I did, and I obviously am very sorry for that mistake,' Todd said.
|
[
"111495-proof-01-1eaeb91f4e363309a1eba659fea6581f.jpg"
] |
'Schumer and Pelosi sneak funding into COVID bill.
|
Contradiction
|
Once President Joe Biden signs the American Rescue Plan Act, more than $350 billion will start to flow to state, tribal and local governments. Democrats hail the massive infusion of cash as a much needed tonic to heal the broad damage of the pandemic. Republicans have opposed it at every turn. The conservative website Trending Politics tied that particular funding stream - which is going to local governments across the country - to the machinations of the top two congressional Democrats. The site's headline called it 'pure corruption.' 'Schumer and Pelosi sneak funding into COVID bill to save them from their own failures,' the March 8 article said. 'The new stimulus package will be erasing San Francisco's projected $650 million deficit which grew as a result to (sic) Democrats', specifically Nancy Pelosi's, poor management. The package will also be erasing Chuck Schumer's deficit in New York.' It's a stretch to blame two federal elected officials for the financial woes of their home district or state. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn't the mayor of San Francisco, nor is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer the governor of New York. But beyond that, the article's first flaw is that there was nothing secret about this effort. Aid to states and localities was the single biggest item that Democrats wanted and that Republicans rejected. Democrats clamored for it in the December COVID-19 relief bill, but with Republicans running the Senate, and then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell firmly opposed, the idea was crushed. After the Senate switched hands, the $350 billion was back in play. The measure promised $220 billion for states, territories and tribal governments, and $130 billion for cities and counties in order 'to mitigate the fiscal effects stemming from the public health emergency.' State and local leaders can spend the money pretty much any way they like, except for two things: It can't go to fund pension plans, and it can't be used to pay for tax cuts. Both San Francisco and New York state faced budget gaps. San Francisco expected a shortfall of $411 million (not the $650 million in the web article) and for New York, the amount was $15.1 billion. Without aid, both jurisdictions warned of service cuts and tax hikes. The new bill has $464 million for San Francisco and $12.6 billion for New York. That would more than fill the hole in San Francisco, and largely fill the one that New York projected. Where the money will go What the Trending Politics piece never mentions is that thanks to the formulas that drive how the money gets divvied up, Republicans also do well under the bill. Those formulas use a mix of unemployment rates, population, poverty and housing factors to set each state's and locality's allocation. We might not know how the money will be spent, but there's little mystery about where its first stop will be after it leaves Washington. The House Government Oversight Committee has a spreadsheet with all the allocation details. The article singled out New York and the $12.6 billion the state government will get. But it could just have easily noted the $16.7 billion headed to Texas, home to Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz. Florida, with its Republican governor and two Republican senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott is due to get $10.2 billion. (All totals rise if funds to counties, cities and tribal governments are folded in.) Pelosi was called out for the money going to San Francisco - about $464 million - but Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's California district will also benefit. About $270 million is headed to the city of Bakersfield and to Kern County. Part of his district sits in Los Angeles, which is due to get about $1.9 billion. And like Pelosi's, McCarthy's constituents will gain from the $26 billion going to the state of California. In the overall tally, Democratic-led states do better. About $190 billion goes to states with Democratic governors and $143 billion goes to states headed by Republicans. That's due as much to demographics as politics. Republicans predominate among states that have smaller populations. If money follows people, more of it will flow to blue states. Loopholes? Funding pensions and paying for tax cuts are the only two big limits on the federal dollars. But money is money. If a state repairs a bridge with pandemic relief funds, it will free up money for other purposes - for example, funding pensions. The bill includes penalties for that. 'In theory, if money is used to shore up pension funds, or directly or indirectly funds a tax cut, then the Treasury Department could come back and make the state refund some money,' said Kim Reuben, director of the state and local finance initiative at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a Washington policy group. In practice, Reuben said, the connection between federal dollars and state and local finances might not be obvious. The state and local officials she talks to hope the Treasury Department makes things clear quickly. 'Governments are excited to get the money, but they are nervous about what Washington will say that might disqualify the money for the uses they have in mind,' Reuben said. The bill's intent, Reuben said, is for state and local leaders to spend the money on what they couldn't otherwise afford. There could be considerable debate over how well state and local governments stick to that goal.
|
Our ruling Trending Politics said Schumer and Pelosi snuck money into the COVID-19 relief bill to solve their own problems back home. The bill sends billions to New York and millions to San Francisco. But that was never any secret. The legislation has $350 billion for state, tribal and local governments, and Republicans have vigorously opposed that for many months. The Trending Politics article failed to mention the billions flowing to Republican-led states and congressional districts. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111499-proof-00-dd236955240d0df947f06f90a2eb4d0c.jpg"
] |
'Schumer and Pelosi sneak funding into COVID bill.
|
Contradiction
|
Once President Joe Biden signs the American Rescue Plan Act, more than $350 billion will start to flow to state, tribal and local governments. Democrats hail the massive infusion of cash as a much needed tonic to heal the broad damage of the pandemic. Republicans have opposed it at every turn. The conservative website Trending Politics tied that particular funding stream - which is going to local governments across the country - to the machinations of the top two congressional Democrats. The site's headline called it 'pure corruption.' 'Schumer and Pelosi sneak funding into COVID bill to save them from their own failures,' the March 8 article said. 'The new stimulus package will be erasing San Francisco's projected $650 million deficit which grew as a result to (sic) Democrats', specifically Nancy Pelosi's, poor management. The package will also be erasing Chuck Schumer's deficit in New York.' It's a stretch to blame two federal elected officials for the financial woes of their home district or state. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn't the mayor of San Francisco, nor is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer the governor of New York. But beyond that, the article's first flaw is that there was nothing secret about this effort. Aid to states and localities was the single biggest item that Democrats wanted and that Republicans rejected. Democrats clamored for it in the December COVID-19 relief bill, but with Republicans running the Senate, and then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell firmly opposed, the idea was crushed. After the Senate switched hands, the $350 billion was back in play. The measure promised $220 billion for states, territories and tribal governments, and $130 billion for cities and counties in order 'to mitigate the fiscal effects stemming from the public health emergency.' State and local leaders can spend the money pretty much any way they like, except for two things: It can't go to fund pension plans, and it can't be used to pay for tax cuts. Both San Francisco and New York state faced budget gaps. San Francisco expected a shortfall of $411 million (not the $650 million in the web article) and for New York, the amount was $15.1 billion. Without aid, both jurisdictions warned of service cuts and tax hikes. The new bill has $464 million for San Francisco and $12.6 billion for New York. That would more than fill the hole in San Francisco, and largely fill the one that New York projected. Where the money will go What the Trending Politics piece never mentions is that thanks to the formulas that drive how the money gets divvied up, Republicans also do well under the bill. Those formulas use a mix of unemployment rates, population, poverty and housing factors to set each state's and locality's allocation. We might not know how the money will be spent, but there's little mystery about where its first stop will be after it leaves Washington. The House Government Oversight Committee has a spreadsheet with all the allocation details. The article singled out New York and the $12.6 billion the state government will get. But it could just have easily noted the $16.7 billion headed to Texas, home to Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz. Florida, with its Republican governor and two Republican senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott is due to get $10.2 billion. (All totals rise if funds to counties, cities and tribal governments are folded in.) Pelosi was called out for the money going to San Francisco - about $464 million - but Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's California district will also benefit. About $270 million is headed to the city of Bakersfield and to Kern County. Part of his district sits in Los Angeles, which is due to get about $1.9 billion. And like Pelosi's, McCarthy's constituents will gain from the $26 billion going to the state of California. In the overall tally, Democratic-led states do better. About $190 billion goes to states with Democratic governors and $143 billion goes to states headed by Republicans. That's due as much to demographics as politics. Republicans predominate among states that have smaller populations. If money follows people, more of it will flow to blue states. Loopholes? Funding pensions and paying for tax cuts are the only two big limits on the federal dollars. But money is money. If a state repairs a bridge with pandemic relief funds, it will free up money for other purposes - for example, funding pensions. The bill includes penalties for that. 'In theory, if money is used to shore up pension funds, or directly or indirectly funds a tax cut, then the Treasury Department could come back and make the state refund some money,' said Kim Reuben, director of the state and local finance initiative at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a Washington policy group. In practice, Reuben said, the connection between federal dollars and state and local finances might not be obvious. The state and local officials she talks to hope the Treasury Department makes things clear quickly. 'Governments are excited to get the money, but they are nervous about what Washington will say that might disqualify the money for the uses they have in mind,' Reuben said. The bill's intent, Reuben said, is for state and local leaders to spend the money on what they couldn't otherwise afford. There could be considerable debate over how well state and local governments stick to that goal.
|
Our ruling Trending Politics said Schumer and Pelosi snuck money into the COVID-19 relief bill to solve their own problems back home. The bill sends billions to New York and millions to San Francisco. But that was never any secret. The legislation has $350 billion for state, tribal and local governments, and Republicans have vigorously opposed that for many months. The Trending Politics article failed to mention the billions flowing to Republican-led states and congressional districts. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111499-proof-00-dd236955240d0df947f06f90a2eb4d0c.jpg"
] |
'Schumer and Pelosi sneak funding into COVID bill.
|
Contradiction
|
Once President Joe Biden signs the American Rescue Plan Act, more than $350 billion will start to flow to state, tribal and local governments. Democrats hail the massive infusion of cash as a much needed tonic to heal the broad damage of the pandemic. Republicans have opposed it at every turn. The conservative website Trending Politics tied that particular funding stream - which is going to local governments across the country - to the machinations of the top two congressional Democrats. The site's headline called it 'pure corruption.' 'Schumer and Pelosi sneak funding into COVID bill to save them from their own failures,' the March 8 article said. 'The new stimulus package will be erasing San Francisco's projected $650 million deficit which grew as a result to (sic) Democrats', specifically Nancy Pelosi's, poor management. The package will also be erasing Chuck Schumer's deficit in New York.' It's a stretch to blame two federal elected officials for the financial woes of their home district or state. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn't the mayor of San Francisco, nor is Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer the governor of New York. But beyond that, the article's first flaw is that there was nothing secret about this effort. Aid to states and localities was the single biggest item that Democrats wanted and that Republicans rejected. Democrats clamored for it in the December COVID-19 relief bill, but with Republicans running the Senate, and then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell firmly opposed, the idea was crushed. After the Senate switched hands, the $350 billion was back in play. The measure promised $220 billion for states, territories and tribal governments, and $130 billion for cities and counties in order 'to mitigate the fiscal effects stemming from the public health emergency.' State and local leaders can spend the money pretty much any way they like, except for two things: It can't go to fund pension plans, and it can't be used to pay for tax cuts. Both San Francisco and New York state faced budget gaps. San Francisco expected a shortfall of $411 million (not the $650 million in the web article) and for New York, the amount was $15.1 billion. Without aid, both jurisdictions warned of service cuts and tax hikes. The new bill has $464 million for San Francisco and $12.6 billion for New York. That would more than fill the hole in San Francisco, and largely fill the one that New York projected. Where the money will go What the Trending Politics piece never mentions is that thanks to the formulas that drive how the money gets divvied up, Republicans also do well under the bill. Those formulas use a mix of unemployment rates, population, poverty and housing factors to set each state's and locality's allocation. We might not know how the money will be spent, but there's little mystery about where its first stop will be after it leaves Washington. The House Government Oversight Committee has a spreadsheet with all the allocation details. The article singled out New York and the $12.6 billion the state government will get. But it could just have easily noted the $16.7 billion headed to Texas, home to Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz. Florida, with its Republican governor and two Republican senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott is due to get $10.2 billion. (All totals rise if funds to counties, cities and tribal governments are folded in.) Pelosi was called out for the money going to San Francisco - about $464 million - but Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's California district will also benefit. About $270 million is headed to the city of Bakersfield and to Kern County. Part of his district sits in Los Angeles, which is due to get about $1.9 billion. And like Pelosi's, McCarthy's constituents will gain from the $26 billion going to the state of California. In the overall tally, Democratic-led states do better. About $190 billion goes to states with Democratic governors and $143 billion goes to states headed by Republicans. That's due as much to demographics as politics. Republicans predominate among states that have smaller populations. If money follows people, more of it will flow to blue states. Loopholes? Funding pensions and paying for tax cuts are the only two big limits on the federal dollars. But money is money. If a state repairs a bridge with pandemic relief funds, it will free up money for other purposes - for example, funding pensions. The bill includes penalties for that. 'In theory, if money is used to shore up pension funds, or directly or indirectly funds a tax cut, then the Treasury Department could come back and make the state refund some money,' said Kim Reuben, director of the state and local finance initiative at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, a Washington policy group. In practice, Reuben said, the connection between federal dollars and state and local finances might not be obvious. The state and local officials she talks to hope the Treasury Department makes things clear quickly. 'Governments are excited to get the money, but they are nervous about what Washington will say that might disqualify the money for the uses they have in mind,' Reuben said. The bill's intent, Reuben said, is for state and local leaders to spend the money on what they couldn't otherwise afford. There could be considerable debate over how well state and local governments stick to that goal.
|
Our ruling Trending Politics said Schumer and Pelosi snuck money into the COVID-19 relief bill to solve their own problems back home. The bill sends billions to New York and millions to San Francisco. But that was never any secret. The legislation has $350 billion for state, tribal and local governments, and Republicans have vigorously opposed that for many months. The Trending Politics article failed to mention the billions flowing to Republican-led states and congressional districts. We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111499-proof-00-dd236955240d0df947f06f90a2eb4d0c.jpg"
] |
Says N.C. Attorney General Josh Stein has gone after Jan. 6 protesters but he has 'said nothing' about violent summer protests in North Carolina and was 'derelict in his duty.
|
Contradiction
|
North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson is accusing the state's top prosecutor of doing his job in bad faith. Robinson took aim at North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein during an interview with conservative pundits Diamond and Silk. Robinson told them he follows his 'religious convictions,' and claimed that Democrats such as Gov. Roy Cooper follow their 'political convictions.' 'It's the same way with our attorney general,' Robinson said around the 10-minute mark of this video, adding: 'His deeply held political convictions cause him to go after his political enemies, who he believes committed the acts on January 6th. Meanwhile, those folks here in Raleigh and Winston who were committing acts of terrorism on our streets a couple summers ago, he's said nothing about it and was derelict in his duty in prosecuting any of those people.' Robinson, a Republican, has said he's 95% sure he'll run for governor in 2024. Stein is expected to run for governor on the Democratic side. Some of Robinson's statements could benefit from more clarity. But his office didn't return calls or emails from PolitiFact North Carolina. Nonetheless, it's clear that Robinson is accusing Stein of pursuing some people who commit violence while failing to speak out or even prosecute others who commit violence. Not only does Robinson get some facts wrong, he misrepresents the extent of the attorney general's power. Let's go over the various parts of his claim. Stein and Capitol stormers Shortly after protesters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked for the public's assistance 'in identifying individuals who made unlawful entry into the U.S. Capitol building and committed various other alleged criminal violations.' Robinson said Stein decided to 'go after' the people who stormed the Capitol. That's not exactly right. Stein invited people who might recognize Jan. 6 protestors in media coverage to report information to the attorney general's office. 'Our office received a number of calls from North Carolinians who wanted to share their opinion and/or tips about the Jan. 6 insurrection,' spokeswoman Laura Brewer told PolitiFact NC in an email. Then, as vice president of the National Association of Attorneys General, Stein signed a letter to Acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen stating that he and other attorneys generals would 'continue to do our part to repair the damage done to institutions and build a more perfect union.' More than 650 people face federal charges in connection with the Capitol breach on Jan. 6. As a state attorney, Stein wouldn't be involved in actually prosecuting those federal cases. The attorney general's office merely 'referred the tips we received to the FBI,' spokesperson Nazneed Ahmed said. Ahmed emailed a statement from Stein, who says he viewed helping the FBI as an effort to protect the country's laws. 'The insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol not only destroyed property and defiled the most important building in our democracy, they tried to overturn an election,' Stein's statement to PolitiFact NC said. 'We cannot allow those who promote the big lie to cover up what happened and its profound implications for American democracy.' Stein and protestors Robinson referred to people 'who were committing acts of terrorism on our streets a couple summers ago.' He was likely referring to violence that broke out in late May 2020 as people protested a Minnesota police officer's murder of George Floyd. Robinson claimed that Stein 'said nothing' about that violence. That's inaccurate. Stein released a statement about the protests, which he posted on Facebook on June 1. While Stein recognized the harms of systemic racism, he also condemned violence. 'The overwhelming majority of protesters are protesting because they want things to get better - and they're prepared to work to make it so,' Stein's 2020 statement said. 'Others are exploiting these moments for their own agenda, forcing many already struggling small businesses to bear the cost. That is unacceptable and wrongdoers should be held accountable, but it will not distract from the work we have to do to heal our nation.' Robinson said Stein has been 'derelict in his duty in prosecuting any of those people.' That also appears to be inaccurate. Stein's office says state law blocks the attorney general from prosecuting local charges unless the case is referred to the attorney general's office by a local district attorney. And Ahmed said Stein hasn't received any such requests. 'The Attorney General may not, absent an invitation from a district attorney, prosecute a person or entity for a state law crime in the state's trial courts,' according to Shea Riggsbee Denning, director of the North Carolina Judicial College at UNC. That interpretation is backed-up by the state Supreme Court, Denning told PolitiFact NC in an email. She wrote about the case in 2018. 'The Supreme Court explained in State v. Camacho, 329 N.C. 589 (1991), that the elected district attorney has exclusive discretion and authority to determine whether to permit the prosecution of any case by the special prosecution division of the attorney general's office,' she said.
|
Our ruling Robinson said Stein decided to 'go after his political enemies' who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, but has 'said nothing' about violent protesters 'and has been derelict in his duty in prosecuting any of those people.' Robinson embellished Stein's role in finding people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. The attorney general's office, which doesn't have jurisdiction to prosecute federal charges, merely collected and relayed tips to the FBI. Robinson is wrong about Stein staying 'silent' about violent protests in North Carolina. He released a statement in June. He also appears to be wrong about Stein being 'derelict in his duty' to prosecute violent protesters. Stein's office says it hasn't received a request to participate in a local case, which it would legally need in order to get involved. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"111508-proof-27-226ff63625bc2ed2a8723ca2129533c9.jpg"
] |
Says N.C. Attorney General Josh Stein has gone after Jan. 6 protesters but he has 'said nothing' about violent summer protests in North Carolina and was 'derelict in his duty.
|
Contradiction
|
North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson is accusing the state's top prosecutor of doing his job in bad faith. Robinson took aim at North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein during an interview with conservative pundits Diamond and Silk. Robinson told them he follows his 'religious convictions,' and claimed that Democrats such as Gov. Roy Cooper follow their 'political convictions.' 'It's the same way with our attorney general,' Robinson said around the 10-minute mark of this video, adding: 'His deeply held political convictions cause him to go after his political enemies, who he believes committed the acts on January 6th. Meanwhile, those folks here in Raleigh and Winston who were committing acts of terrorism on our streets a couple summers ago, he's said nothing about it and was derelict in his duty in prosecuting any of those people.' Robinson, a Republican, has said he's 95% sure he'll run for governor in 2024. Stein is expected to run for governor on the Democratic side. Some of Robinson's statements could benefit from more clarity. But his office didn't return calls or emails from PolitiFact North Carolina. Nonetheless, it's clear that Robinson is accusing Stein of pursuing some people who commit violence while failing to speak out or even prosecute others who commit violence. Not only does Robinson get some facts wrong, he misrepresents the extent of the attorney general's power. Let's go over the various parts of his claim. Stein and Capitol stormers Shortly after protesters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked for the public's assistance 'in identifying individuals who made unlawful entry into the U.S. Capitol building and committed various other alleged criminal violations.' Robinson said Stein decided to 'go after' the people who stormed the Capitol. That's not exactly right. Stein invited people who might recognize Jan. 6 protestors in media coverage to report information to the attorney general's office. 'Our office received a number of calls from North Carolinians who wanted to share their opinion and/or tips about the Jan. 6 insurrection,' spokeswoman Laura Brewer told PolitiFact NC in an email. Then, as vice president of the National Association of Attorneys General, Stein signed a letter to Acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen stating that he and other attorneys generals would 'continue to do our part to repair the damage done to institutions and build a more perfect union.' More than 650 people face federal charges in connection with the Capitol breach on Jan. 6. As a state attorney, Stein wouldn't be involved in actually prosecuting those federal cases. The attorney general's office merely 'referred the tips we received to the FBI,' spokesperson Nazneed Ahmed said. Ahmed emailed a statement from Stein, who says he viewed helping the FBI as an effort to protect the country's laws. 'The insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol not only destroyed property and defiled the most important building in our democracy, they tried to overturn an election,' Stein's statement to PolitiFact NC said. 'We cannot allow those who promote the big lie to cover up what happened and its profound implications for American democracy.' Stein and protestors Robinson referred to people 'who were committing acts of terrorism on our streets a couple summers ago.' He was likely referring to violence that broke out in late May 2020 as people protested a Minnesota police officer's murder of George Floyd. Robinson claimed that Stein 'said nothing' about that violence. That's inaccurate. Stein released a statement about the protests, which he posted on Facebook on June 1. While Stein recognized the harms of systemic racism, he also condemned violence. 'The overwhelming majority of protesters are protesting because they want things to get better - and they're prepared to work to make it so,' Stein's 2020 statement said. 'Others are exploiting these moments for their own agenda, forcing many already struggling small businesses to bear the cost. That is unacceptable and wrongdoers should be held accountable, but it will not distract from the work we have to do to heal our nation.' Robinson said Stein has been 'derelict in his duty in prosecuting any of those people.' That also appears to be inaccurate. Stein's office says state law blocks the attorney general from prosecuting local charges unless the case is referred to the attorney general's office by a local district attorney. And Ahmed said Stein hasn't received any such requests. 'The Attorney General may not, absent an invitation from a district attorney, prosecute a person or entity for a state law crime in the state's trial courts,' according to Shea Riggsbee Denning, director of the North Carolina Judicial College at UNC. That interpretation is backed-up by the state Supreme Court, Denning told PolitiFact NC in an email. She wrote about the case in 2018. 'The Supreme Court explained in State v. Camacho, 329 N.C. 589 (1991), that the elected district attorney has exclusive discretion and authority to determine whether to permit the prosecution of any case by the special prosecution division of the attorney general's office,' she said.
|
Our ruling Robinson said Stein decided to 'go after his political enemies' who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, but has 'said nothing' about violent protesters 'and has been derelict in his duty in prosecuting any of those people.' Robinson embellished Stein's role in finding people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. The attorney general's office, which doesn't have jurisdiction to prosecute federal charges, merely collected and relayed tips to the FBI. Robinson is wrong about Stein staying 'silent' about violent protests in North Carolina. He released a statement in June. He also appears to be wrong about Stein being 'derelict in his duty' to prosecute violent protesters. Stein's office says it hasn't received a request to participate in a local case, which it would legally need in order to get involved. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"111508-proof-27-226ff63625bc2ed2a8723ca2129533c9.jpg"
] |
Says N.C. Attorney General Josh Stein has gone after Jan. 6 protesters but he has 'said nothing' about violent summer protests in North Carolina and was 'derelict in his duty.
|
Contradiction
|
North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson is accusing the state's top prosecutor of doing his job in bad faith. Robinson took aim at North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein during an interview with conservative pundits Diamond and Silk. Robinson told them he follows his 'religious convictions,' and claimed that Democrats such as Gov. Roy Cooper follow their 'political convictions.' 'It's the same way with our attorney general,' Robinson said around the 10-minute mark of this video, adding: 'His deeply held political convictions cause him to go after his political enemies, who he believes committed the acts on January 6th. Meanwhile, those folks here in Raleigh and Winston who were committing acts of terrorism on our streets a couple summers ago, he's said nothing about it and was derelict in his duty in prosecuting any of those people.' Robinson, a Republican, has said he's 95% sure he'll run for governor in 2024. Stein is expected to run for governor on the Democratic side. Some of Robinson's statements could benefit from more clarity. But his office didn't return calls or emails from PolitiFact North Carolina. Nonetheless, it's clear that Robinson is accusing Stein of pursuing some people who commit violence while failing to speak out or even prosecute others who commit violence. Not only does Robinson get some facts wrong, he misrepresents the extent of the attorney general's power. Let's go over the various parts of his claim. Stein and Capitol stormers Shortly after protesters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked for the public's assistance 'in identifying individuals who made unlawful entry into the U.S. Capitol building and committed various other alleged criminal violations.' Robinson said Stein decided to 'go after' the people who stormed the Capitol. That's not exactly right. Stein invited people who might recognize Jan. 6 protestors in media coverage to report information to the attorney general's office. 'Our office received a number of calls from North Carolinians who wanted to share their opinion and/or tips about the Jan. 6 insurrection,' spokeswoman Laura Brewer told PolitiFact NC in an email. Then, as vice president of the National Association of Attorneys General, Stein signed a letter to Acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen stating that he and other attorneys generals would 'continue to do our part to repair the damage done to institutions and build a more perfect union.' More than 650 people face federal charges in connection with the Capitol breach on Jan. 6. As a state attorney, Stein wouldn't be involved in actually prosecuting those federal cases. The attorney general's office merely 'referred the tips we received to the FBI,' spokesperson Nazneed Ahmed said. Ahmed emailed a statement from Stein, who says he viewed helping the FBI as an effort to protect the country's laws. 'The insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol not only destroyed property and defiled the most important building in our democracy, they tried to overturn an election,' Stein's statement to PolitiFact NC said. 'We cannot allow those who promote the big lie to cover up what happened and its profound implications for American democracy.' Stein and protestors Robinson referred to people 'who were committing acts of terrorism on our streets a couple summers ago.' He was likely referring to violence that broke out in late May 2020 as people protested a Minnesota police officer's murder of George Floyd. Robinson claimed that Stein 'said nothing' about that violence. That's inaccurate. Stein released a statement about the protests, which he posted on Facebook on June 1. While Stein recognized the harms of systemic racism, he also condemned violence. 'The overwhelming majority of protesters are protesting because they want things to get better - and they're prepared to work to make it so,' Stein's 2020 statement said. 'Others are exploiting these moments for their own agenda, forcing many already struggling small businesses to bear the cost. That is unacceptable and wrongdoers should be held accountable, but it will not distract from the work we have to do to heal our nation.' Robinson said Stein has been 'derelict in his duty in prosecuting any of those people.' That also appears to be inaccurate. Stein's office says state law blocks the attorney general from prosecuting local charges unless the case is referred to the attorney general's office by a local district attorney. And Ahmed said Stein hasn't received any such requests. 'The Attorney General may not, absent an invitation from a district attorney, prosecute a person or entity for a state law crime in the state's trial courts,' according to Shea Riggsbee Denning, director of the North Carolina Judicial College at UNC. That interpretation is backed-up by the state Supreme Court, Denning told PolitiFact NC in an email. She wrote about the case in 2018. 'The Supreme Court explained in State v. Camacho, 329 N.C. 589 (1991), that the elected district attorney has exclusive discretion and authority to determine whether to permit the prosecution of any case by the special prosecution division of the attorney general's office,' she said.
|
Our ruling Robinson said Stein decided to 'go after his political enemies' who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, but has 'said nothing' about violent protesters 'and has been derelict in his duty in prosecuting any of those people.' Robinson embellished Stein's role in finding people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. The attorney general's office, which doesn't have jurisdiction to prosecute federal charges, merely collected and relayed tips to the FBI. Robinson is wrong about Stein staying 'silent' about violent protests in North Carolina. He released a statement in June. He also appears to be wrong about Stein being 'derelict in his duty' to prosecute violent protesters. Stein's office says it hasn't received a request to participate in a local case, which it would legally need in order to get involved. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"111508-proof-27-226ff63625bc2ed2a8723ca2129533c9.jpg"
] |
Photo shows ''kids in cages' taken in 2014 under the Obama admin.
|
Contradiction
|
A couple of years ago, President Donald Trump accurately called out some Democrats for characterizing a photo of child migrants at a detention facility as a failure of the Trump administration when, in fact, the picture was taken in 2014, when Barack Obama was president. But a Facebook post that claims another photo shows 'kids in cages' in 2014 has its facts wrong. The image shows children amid space blankets in what looks like a chain link cell. ''Kids in cages' taken in 2014 under the Obama admin,' the post says. 'Did Michelle Obama care about the kids in cages then?' 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.) While the post isn't explicit about why it is referencing Michelle Obama, the former first lady criticized Trump's border policies recently during the 2020 Democratic National Convention, saying, 'children are torn from their families and thrown into cages.' U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., tweeted the image used in this Facebook post in July 2019 - more than two years into Trump's presidency - when she visited the 'Ursula' detention center in McAllen, Tex. 'The 1st sounds we heard before we could see the children held at Ursula were haunting cries of babies & toddlers,' Speier said in the tweet. 'I spoke to a dad of a sick 6-month-old girl. She was flushed, listless, her little fists clung tightly to his shirt. Flu, meningitis, typhus, lice & more. #Border.' Chain-link enclosures to hold migrant children at the border precede the Trump administration, but this photo is from his first term - not Obama's second. We rate this Facebook post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
We rate this Facebook post False. This fact check is available at IFCN's 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Click here, for more.
|
[] |
'Antifa is warning that tonight they're moving out of the cities - and into residential areas to 'take what's ours.
|
Contradiction
|
After President Donald Trump blamed violent protests across the country on antifa, Facebook and Twitter users started spreading misinformation about the left-wing movement. A Facebook post published May 31 shows a screenshot of a tweet from a now-suspended account called 'ANTIFA America.' The tweet claimed the anti-fascist protest movement planned to move into white residential areas to continue protesting the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in police custody after a white officer knelt on his neck. 'Antifa is warning that tonight they're moving out of the cities - and into residential areas to 'take what's ours,'' reads the caption on the Facebook post, which was published by a page called U.S. Law Enforcement. 'Law enforcement across the country on high alert.' 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.) It has been shared more than 6,300 times. There is no evidence to support the Facebook post or the deleted tweet. (Screenshot from Facebook) We can't access the original ANTIFA America tweet since the account has been suspended. We reached out to Twitter for a comment on why it was suspended, but we haven't heard back. What we do know is that there is no national organization for antifa, which means there is no official Twitter account for the movement. And there were no reports we could find of antifa or other groups specifically targeting white residentials. Antifa is a broad, loosely affiliated coalition of left-wing, anti-fascist activists. It has no leaders and is organized into autonomous local groups. The movement has participated in several protests across the country in recent years, including the 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va. Antifa activists have a history of attacking police officers and journalists during demonstrations. 'Unfortunately, with the rioting that is occurring in many of our cities around the country, the voices of peaceful protests are being hijacked by violent radical elements,' said Attorney General William Barr on May 30. 'In many places it appears the violence is planned, organized, and driven by far left extremist groups and anarchic groups using antifa-like tactics.' But as of now, there is no proof that antifa activists are the primary demonstrators stoking violence at Black Lives Matter protesters across the country. Neither Trump nor Barr have offered public evidence that the leftist movement is behind the demonstrations. And while they are probably part of the protests, experts say it's unlikely that antifa groups are culpable for a significant portion of damage. 'I haven't seen any instances in these demonstrations of groups marching behind a banner saying, 'Hey, we are antifa,'' said Mark Bray, a part-time lecturer at Rutgers University and author of 'Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.' 'That said, I think there's a fair likelihood that some antifa groups have participated in the protests that we've seen.' Antifa activists sometimes use property destruction as a political strategy. In 2017, antifa groups confronted police and smashed windows at the University of California-Berkeley to protest a speech from right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. But Bray said the notion that the anti-fascist movement is behind much of the violence and vandalism at Black Lives Matter protests doesn't hold water. 'The key issue here is that they are not nearly numerous or politically consequential enough to pull off the most massive rebellion this country has seen in the past 50 years,' he said. We reached out to the National Guard and police departments in several major cities for a comment, but we haven't heard back. We checked the Twitter accounts for local antifa cells in New York City, Atlanta, Minneapolis and Philadelphia. None of them have tweeted about 'moving out of the cities and into residential areas,' as the Facebook post claims. We could find no news reports about antifa-led protests in residential areas on the evening of May 31. Without additional evidence, the Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
Without additional evidence, the Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"111527-proof-33-cb34e569f3249814ccfc17fdeca3d39d.jpg",
"111527-proof-40-Screen_Shot_2020-06-01_at_6.04.44_PM.jpg"
] |
'Antifa is warning that tonight they're moving out of the cities - and into residential areas to 'take what's ours.
|
Contradiction
|
After President Donald Trump blamed violent protests across the country on antifa, Facebook and Twitter users started spreading misinformation about the left-wing movement. A Facebook post published May 31 shows a screenshot of a tweet from a now-suspended account called 'ANTIFA America.' The tweet claimed the anti-fascist protest movement planned to move into white residential areas to continue protesting the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in police custody after a white officer knelt on his neck. 'Antifa is warning that tonight they're moving out of the cities - and into residential areas to 'take what's ours,'' reads the caption on the Facebook post, which was published by a page called U.S. Law Enforcement. 'Law enforcement across the country on high alert.' 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.) It has been shared more than 6,300 times. There is no evidence to support the Facebook post or the deleted tweet. (Screenshot from Facebook) We can't access the original ANTIFA America tweet since the account has been suspended. We reached out to Twitter for a comment on why it was suspended, but we haven't heard back. What we do know is that there is no national organization for antifa, which means there is no official Twitter account for the movement. And there were no reports we could find of antifa or other groups specifically targeting white residentials. Antifa is a broad, loosely affiliated coalition of left-wing, anti-fascist activists. It has no leaders and is organized into autonomous local groups. The movement has participated in several protests across the country in recent years, including the 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va. Antifa activists have a history of attacking police officers and journalists during demonstrations. 'Unfortunately, with the rioting that is occurring in many of our cities around the country, the voices of peaceful protests are being hijacked by violent radical elements,' said Attorney General William Barr on May 30. 'In many places it appears the violence is planned, organized, and driven by far left extremist groups and anarchic groups using antifa-like tactics.' But as of now, there is no proof that antifa activists are the primary demonstrators stoking violence at Black Lives Matter protesters across the country. Neither Trump nor Barr have offered public evidence that the leftist movement is behind the demonstrations. And while they are probably part of the protests, experts say it's unlikely that antifa groups are culpable for a significant portion of damage. 'I haven't seen any instances in these demonstrations of groups marching behind a banner saying, 'Hey, we are antifa,'' said Mark Bray, a part-time lecturer at Rutgers University and author of 'Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.' 'That said, I think there's a fair likelihood that some antifa groups have participated in the protests that we've seen.' Antifa activists sometimes use property destruction as a political strategy. In 2017, antifa groups confronted police and smashed windows at the University of California-Berkeley to protest a speech from right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. But Bray said the notion that the anti-fascist movement is behind much of the violence and vandalism at Black Lives Matter protests doesn't hold water. 'The key issue here is that they are not nearly numerous or politically consequential enough to pull off the most massive rebellion this country has seen in the past 50 years,' he said. We reached out to the National Guard and police departments in several major cities for a comment, but we haven't heard back. We checked the Twitter accounts for local antifa cells in New York City, Atlanta, Minneapolis and Philadelphia. None of them have tweeted about 'moving out of the cities and into residential areas,' as the Facebook post claims. We could find no news reports about antifa-led protests in residential areas on the evening of May 31. Without additional evidence, the Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
Without additional evidence, the Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"111527-proof-33-cb34e569f3249814ccfc17fdeca3d39d.jpg",
"111527-proof-40-Screen_Shot_2020-06-01_at_6.04.44_PM.jpg"
] |
'Antifa is warning that tonight they're moving out of the cities - and into residential areas to 'take what's ours.
|
Contradiction
|
After President Donald Trump blamed violent protests across the country on antifa, Facebook and Twitter users started spreading misinformation about the left-wing movement. A Facebook post published May 31 shows a screenshot of a tweet from a now-suspended account called 'ANTIFA America.' The tweet claimed the anti-fascist protest movement planned to move into white residential areas to continue protesting the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in police custody after a white officer knelt on his neck. 'Antifa is warning that tonight they're moving out of the cities - and into residential areas to 'take what's ours,'' reads the caption on the Facebook post, which was published by a page called U.S. Law Enforcement. 'Law enforcement across the country on high alert.' 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.) It has been shared more than 6,300 times. There is no evidence to support the Facebook post or the deleted tweet. (Screenshot from Facebook) We can't access the original ANTIFA America tweet since the account has been suspended. We reached out to Twitter for a comment on why it was suspended, but we haven't heard back. What we do know is that there is no national organization for antifa, which means there is no official Twitter account for the movement. And there were no reports we could find of antifa or other groups specifically targeting white residentials. Antifa is a broad, loosely affiliated coalition of left-wing, anti-fascist activists. It has no leaders and is organized into autonomous local groups. The movement has participated in several protests across the country in recent years, including the 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Va. Antifa activists have a history of attacking police officers and journalists during demonstrations. 'Unfortunately, with the rioting that is occurring in many of our cities around the country, the voices of peaceful protests are being hijacked by violent radical elements,' said Attorney General William Barr on May 30. 'In many places it appears the violence is planned, organized, and driven by far left extremist groups and anarchic groups using antifa-like tactics.' But as of now, there is no proof that antifa activists are the primary demonstrators stoking violence at Black Lives Matter protesters across the country. Neither Trump nor Barr have offered public evidence that the leftist movement is behind the demonstrations. And while they are probably part of the protests, experts say it's unlikely that antifa groups are culpable for a significant portion of damage. 'I haven't seen any instances in these demonstrations of groups marching behind a banner saying, 'Hey, we are antifa,'' said Mark Bray, a part-time lecturer at Rutgers University and author of 'Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.' 'That said, I think there's a fair likelihood that some antifa groups have participated in the protests that we've seen.' Antifa activists sometimes use property destruction as a political strategy. In 2017, antifa groups confronted police and smashed windows at the University of California-Berkeley to protest a speech from right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. But Bray said the notion that the anti-fascist movement is behind much of the violence and vandalism at Black Lives Matter protests doesn't hold water. 'The key issue here is that they are not nearly numerous or politically consequential enough to pull off the most massive rebellion this country has seen in the past 50 years,' he said. We reached out to the National Guard and police departments in several major cities for a comment, but we haven't heard back. We checked the Twitter accounts for local antifa cells in New York City, Atlanta, Minneapolis and Philadelphia. None of them have tweeted about 'moving out of the cities and into residential areas,' as the Facebook post claims. We could find no news reports about antifa-led protests in residential areas on the evening of May 31. Without additional evidence, the Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
Without additional evidence, the Facebook post is inaccurate. We rate it False.
|
[
"111527-proof-33-cb34e569f3249814ccfc17fdeca3d39d.jpg",
"111527-proof-40-Screen_Shot_2020-06-01_at_6.04.44_PM.jpg"
] |
Says 5-year-olds can 'take hormones and change my sex.
|
Contradiction
|
Misinformation about medical treatments for transgender patients has proliferated in recent weeks, as a spate of events brought transgender rights into the spotlight. The social media backlash was swift following executive actions from President Joe Biden to expand transgender rights, his nomination of a transgender woman for assistant health secretary and the U.S. House of Representatives' passing of the Equality Act to prohibit discrimation based on sexual orientation and gender identity. One Facebook post features an image of a father and son from the comic strip 'The Family Circus,' with text that reads, 'Can I have a cigarette? No, you're 5. Can I have a beer? No, you're 5. Can I drive the car? No, you're 5. Can I take hormones and change my sex? Sure! You know best.' (Screenshot from Facebook) The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim is unsubstantiated. Professional organizations such as the Endocrine Society recommend against puberty blockers for children who have not reached puberty, and recommend that patients be at least 16 years old before beginning hormone treatments for feminization or masculinization of the body. The last step in transitioning to another gender, gender reassignment surgery, is only available to those 18 and older in the United States. The onset of puberty is the baseline for medical intervention. Puberty typically occurs between ages 10 and 14 for girls and 12 and 16 for boys. Guidelines for the medical care of transgender patients, developed by organizations such as the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, begin with counseling and psychological evaluation by a team of medical professionals before any physical interventions are considered. If patients have begun to go through puberty, and they have 'demonstrated a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria,' then treatments such as puberty blockers can be considered, according to the standards of care for transgender people by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Gender dysphoria refers to distress people may experience as a result of the discrepancy between their gender identity and the sex assigned to them at birth. Puberty blockers, which suppress the release of testosterone and estrogen during puberty, allow adolescents 'more time to explore their gender nonconformity and other developmental issues,' and can be used for a few years, the standards of care say. One guideline for giving the medication says parents or guardians must consent to the treatment and also provide support to the youth during the process. If a patient decides to continue transitioning, hormone therapy for feminization or masculinization of the body can follow the use of puberty blockers. But, again, the Endocrine Society's guidelines say patients should be at least 16 years old to receive hormone treatment, which is partly irreversible. Many hospitals, such as the Duke Health Center for Gender Care for Children and Adolescents, will only offer hormone replacement therapies for adolescents 16 or older. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health reports that gender dysphoria in childhood 'does not inevitably continue into adulthood.' One study showed that children who had not yet reached puberty who were referred to clinics for assessment of gender dysphoria had a 12% to 27% persistence rate of gender dysphoria into adulthood. By comparison, adolescents with gender dysphoria are much more likely to have it persist into adulthood, the association reports, though no formal studies have been conducted for adolescents.
|
Our ruling A cartoon on Facebook implies that a child who is 5 can 'take hormones and change my sex.' The information is unsubstantiated. The guidelines for the medical care of transgender patients, developed by organizations such as the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, do not recommend puberty blockers for children who have not reached puberty; do not recommend hormone treatment for those under 16 years old; and typically restrict genital reassignment surgery to those 18 and older, who also meet other criteria. We rate this claim False. RELATED: What the Equality Act debate gets wrong about gender, sex RELATED: Rachel Levine does not support gender confirmation surgery for all children
|
[] |
Says 5-year-olds can 'take hormones and change my sex.
|
Contradiction
|
Misinformation about medical treatments for transgender patients has proliferated in recent weeks, as a spate of events brought transgender rights into the spotlight. The social media backlash was swift following executive actions from President Joe Biden to expand transgender rights, his nomination of a transgender woman for assistant health secretary and the U.S. House of Representatives' passing of the Equality Act to prohibit discrimation based on sexual orientation and gender identity. One Facebook post features an image of a father and son from the comic strip 'The Family Circus,' with text that reads, 'Can I have a cigarette? No, you're 5. Can I have a beer? No, you're 5. Can I drive the car? No, you're 5. Can I take hormones and change my sex? Sure! You know best.' (Screenshot from Facebook) The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim is unsubstantiated. Professional organizations such as the Endocrine Society recommend against puberty blockers for children who have not reached puberty, and recommend that patients be at least 16 years old before beginning hormone treatments for feminization or masculinization of the body. The last step in transitioning to another gender, gender reassignment surgery, is only available to those 18 and older in the United States. The onset of puberty is the baseline for medical intervention. Puberty typically occurs between ages 10 and 14 for girls and 12 and 16 for boys. Guidelines for the medical care of transgender patients, developed by organizations such as the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, begin with counseling and psychological evaluation by a team of medical professionals before any physical interventions are considered. If patients have begun to go through puberty, and they have 'demonstrated a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria,' then treatments such as puberty blockers can be considered, according to the standards of care for transgender people by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Gender dysphoria refers to distress people may experience as a result of the discrepancy between their gender identity and the sex assigned to them at birth. Puberty blockers, which suppress the release of testosterone and estrogen during puberty, allow adolescents 'more time to explore their gender nonconformity and other developmental issues,' and can be used for a few years, the standards of care say. One guideline for giving the medication says parents or guardians must consent to the treatment and also provide support to the youth during the process. If a patient decides to continue transitioning, hormone therapy for feminization or masculinization of the body can follow the use of puberty blockers. But, again, the Endocrine Society's guidelines say patients should be at least 16 years old to receive hormone treatment, which is partly irreversible. Many hospitals, such as the Duke Health Center for Gender Care for Children and Adolescents, will only offer hormone replacement therapies for adolescents 16 or older. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health reports that gender dysphoria in childhood 'does not inevitably continue into adulthood.' One study showed that children who had not yet reached puberty who were referred to clinics for assessment of gender dysphoria had a 12% to 27% persistence rate of gender dysphoria into adulthood. By comparison, adolescents with gender dysphoria are much more likely to have it persist into adulthood, the association reports, though no formal studies have been conducted for adolescents.
|
Our ruling A cartoon on Facebook implies that a child who is 5 can 'take hormones and change my sex.' The information is unsubstantiated. The guidelines for the medical care of transgender patients, developed by organizations such as the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, do not recommend puberty blockers for children who have not reached puberty; do not recommend hormone treatment for those under 16 years old; and typically restrict genital reassignment surgery to those 18 and older, who also meet other criteria. We rate this claim False. RELATED: What the Equality Act debate gets wrong about gender, sex RELATED: Rachel Levine does not support gender confirmation surgery for all children
|
[] |
Says 5-year-olds can 'take hormones and change my sex.
|
Contradiction
|
Misinformation about medical treatments for transgender patients has proliferated in recent weeks, as a spate of events brought transgender rights into the spotlight. The social media backlash was swift following executive actions from President Joe Biden to expand transgender rights, his nomination of a transgender woman for assistant health secretary and the U.S. House of Representatives' passing of the Equality Act to prohibit discrimation based on sexual orientation and gender identity. One Facebook post features an image of a father and son from the comic strip 'The Family Circus,' with text that reads, 'Can I have a cigarette? No, you're 5. Can I have a beer? No, you're 5. Can I drive the car? No, you're 5. Can I take hormones and change my sex? Sure! You know best.' (Screenshot from Facebook) The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim is unsubstantiated. Professional organizations such as the Endocrine Society recommend against puberty blockers for children who have not reached puberty, and recommend that patients be at least 16 years old before beginning hormone treatments for feminization or masculinization of the body. The last step in transitioning to another gender, gender reassignment surgery, is only available to those 18 and older in the United States. The onset of puberty is the baseline for medical intervention. Puberty typically occurs between ages 10 and 14 for girls and 12 and 16 for boys. Guidelines for the medical care of transgender patients, developed by organizations such as the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, begin with counseling and psychological evaluation by a team of medical professionals before any physical interventions are considered. If patients have begun to go through puberty, and they have 'demonstrated a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria,' then treatments such as puberty blockers can be considered, according to the standards of care for transgender people by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Gender dysphoria refers to distress people may experience as a result of the discrepancy between their gender identity and the sex assigned to them at birth. Puberty blockers, which suppress the release of testosterone and estrogen during puberty, allow adolescents 'more time to explore their gender nonconformity and other developmental issues,' and can be used for a few years, the standards of care say. One guideline for giving the medication says parents or guardians must consent to the treatment and also provide support to the youth during the process. If a patient decides to continue transitioning, hormone therapy for feminization or masculinization of the body can follow the use of puberty blockers. But, again, the Endocrine Society's guidelines say patients should be at least 16 years old to receive hormone treatment, which is partly irreversible. Many hospitals, such as the Duke Health Center for Gender Care for Children and Adolescents, will only offer hormone replacement therapies for adolescents 16 or older. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health reports that gender dysphoria in childhood 'does not inevitably continue into adulthood.' One study showed that children who had not yet reached puberty who were referred to clinics for assessment of gender dysphoria had a 12% to 27% persistence rate of gender dysphoria into adulthood. By comparison, adolescents with gender dysphoria are much more likely to have it persist into adulthood, the association reports, though no formal studies have been conducted for adolescents.
|
Our ruling A cartoon on Facebook implies that a child who is 5 can 'take hormones and change my sex.' The information is unsubstantiated. The guidelines for the medical care of transgender patients, developed by organizations such as the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, do not recommend puberty blockers for children who have not reached puberty; do not recommend hormone treatment for those under 16 years old; and typically restrict genital reassignment surgery to those 18 and older, who also meet other criteria. We rate this claim False. RELATED: What the Equality Act debate gets wrong about gender, sex RELATED: Rachel Levine does not support gender confirmation surgery for all children
|
[] |
'U.S. acres burned each year are much fewer now - even in our worst years - than was the case in the early 20th century.
|
Contradiction
|
The wildfire season in the U.S. has gotten longer. In recent decades, what once lasted four months has grown to six or even eight months. Climate change makes summers warmer, but past forest management has also left forests with more fuel to ignite. An article from the conservative Heartland Institute argues that the role of climate change is 'grossly overemphasized.' 'U.S. acres burned each year are much fewer now - even in our worst years - than was the case in the early 20th century,' the Oct. 11 article said. The author points to U.S. government data that shows a dramatic drop in the number of acres burned, from over 40 million in 1930 down to 10 million around 2015. The problem is, federal officials have known for some time that their data was unreliable, and this year, they took most of it off their website (which drew accusations of cherry picking the numbers from the Heartland Institute). Many factors made the data shaky. Perhaps the most intriguing part of this story of bad data is that the government's old information includes millions of acres in the 1920s and 1930s that burned not by accident, but by intent. On top of that, there was also double counting, and, as some see it, undercounting. Explaining the data The Heartland Institute pointed to this chart to back up their claim about wildfire trends. The data came from the National Interagency Fire Center. A fact-sheet from the conservative Heartland Institute used this chart based on federal data. If you go to the federal center's wildfire page today, you will find this message: 'Prior to 1983, the federal wildland fire agencies did not track official wildfire data using current reporting processes. As a result, there is no official data prior to 1983 posted on this site.' A 2015 article from a Forest Service researcher explained why that data was unreliable. She wrote that multiple federal, state and local agencies filled out fire reports each in their own way, using different approaches to report different kinds of information. The article talked about records 'compromised by inherent reporting biases, inconsistencies and errors or uncertainty in the data.' There were instances when fires were counted twice, or more, said John Abatzoglou, a fire researcher at the University of California Merced. 'Some fires can be counted in triplicate as multiple agencies responding to the fire would count that fire in their summary statistics,' Abatzoglou said. The Heartland article author, senior fellow H. Sterling Burnett, minimized that concern. 'It's not that there isn't any overcounting,' Burnett said. 'But people managing federal agencies were smart enough to notice when two organizations reported the same fire.' As a record of the total number of acres burned over many years, historian Stephen Pyne, Arizona State University professor emeritus, said he thinks the government probably underestimated the damage. 'Most of the country outside federal lands was not counted at all,' Pyne said. The most certain conclusion about the government numbers behind the chart is that they can't be trusted. But many experts who have dug into the archives talk about a major flaw that greatly inflated the federal statistics. They describe how conflict between the U.S. Forest Service and southern landowners likely threw off the totals by millions of acres. 1920 to 1930: A heated dispute in the southeast In a 2018 article, Randal O'Toole, a senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute, included that same chart showing the dramatic fall in wildfires based on federal data. O'Toole is skeptical of broad claims of climate change. But O'Toole offered this chart with a stinging caption. 'Some people use the data behind this chart to argue against anthropogenic climate change. The problem is that the data before about 1955 are a lie.' O'Toole noted that at the turn of the 20th century, Congress told the Forest Service to suppress fires. This mandate put the federal agency in direct conflict with landowners in the southeast. The Forest Service was steadfast in its opposition to all fires. But the southeaster landowners burned their forests every four or five years to control underbrush. 'Perhaps 20% of forests would be burned each year, compared with less than 1% of forests burned through actual wildfires,' O'Toole wrote. 'The Forest Service responded by counting all fires in that state, prescribed or wild, as wildfires.' There is broad agreement on this problem. 'The early U.S. Forest Service wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the U.S. Forest Service as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated,' the Forest Service researcher wrote in that 2015 article. That wasn't exactly news. Researchers for an outside report commissioned by the Forest Service wrote in 2003 that 'in excess of 10 million acres were burned by wildfires annually' between 1930 and 1950. 'Most of the area burned during this period was in the Southeastern United States and were primarily incendiary fires,' the authors wrote. (Incendiary fires are intentional fires.) We raised these issues of the unreliability of the federal database with Heartland's Burnett. He said many articles in peer-reviewed journals had also relied on it. 'You can only go with the data you have,' Burnett said. He said even if the numbers are flawed, the number of acres lost to wildfires today is still less than it was in 1930. That's unlikely. Measuring fire in the West No expert we reached knew of any national study that could fix the errors in the government's original data. But there has been a lot of work done on the western states where the largest fires take place. Jeremy Littell with the Department of Interior Alaska Climate Science Center, along with several colleagues, examined fire reports for 11 western states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. They used a blend of federal, state and regional reports, and they filtered out intentional fires, only counting burns on federal or federally-protected land. They looked at the years 1916 to 2020 The peak of 7.4 million acres burned came in 2012. But the next highest, 6.7 million, came in 1919. Among the top 20 highest years, a bit more than half, 13, took place after 1987. The rest came before 1932. The fact is, there were some huge fires at the turn of the century. 'The large fire years in the West between about 1916 and the late 1930s were comparable to those in recent years,' Littell said. Littell said the triggers for large fires are the same today as they were in the first decades of the 1900s. Hot and dry summers in a preceding year lead to worse fire seasons. And since 1980, those conditions have become more common.
|
Our ruling The Heartland Institute said, 'U.S. acres burned each year are much fewer now - even in our worst years - than was the case in the early 20th century.' The claim was based on federal data. However, over the years, researchers concluded that the federal data was deeply flawed. While there might have been some undercounting, double and triple counting also took place. Most damaging of all, in the 1920s and 1930s, millions of acres of intentional fires in the southeast were counted as wildfires. One climate change skeptic called the government data 'a lie.' This year, the government withdrew its original dataset, and now only provides counts starting in 1983. There is no national level analysis going back to the turn of the last century, but an analysis of 11 western states suggests that the toll of fires today is at least on par with the fires in the first few decades. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"111549-proof-38-d74eae964c2ada630641fd4de758d9de.jpg"
] |
'U.S. acres burned each year are much fewer now - even in our worst years - than was the case in the early 20th century.
|
Contradiction
|
The wildfire season in the U.S. has gotten longer. In recent decades, what once lasted four months has grown to six or even eight months. Climate change makes summers warmer, but past forest management has also left forests with more fuel to ignite. An article from the conservative Heartland Institute argues that the role of climate change is 'grossly overemphasized.' 'U.S. acres burned each year are much fewer now - even in our worst years - than was the case in the early 20th century,' the Oct. 11 article said. The author points to U.S. government data that shows a dramatic drop in the number of acres burned, from over 40 million in 1930 down to 10 million around 2015. The problem is, federal officials have known for some time that their data was unreliable, and this year, they took most of it off their website (which drew accusations of cherry picking the numbers from the Heartland Institute). Many factors made the data shaky. Perhaps the most intriguing part of this story of bad data is that the government's old information includes millions of acres in the 1920s and 1930s that burned not by accident, but by intent. On top of that, there was also double counting, and, as some see it, undercounting. Explaining the data The Heartland Institute pointed to this chart to back up their claim about wildfire trends. The data came from the National Interagency Fire Center. A fact-sheet from the conservative Heartland Institute used this chart based on federal data. If you go to the federal center's wildfire page today, you will find this message: 'Prior to 1983, the federal wildland fire agencies did not track official wildfire data using current reporting processes. As a result, there is no official data prior to 1983 posted on this site.' A 2015 article from a Forest Service researcher explained why that data was unreliable. She wrote that multiple federal, state and local agencies filled out fire reports each in their own way, using different approaches to report different kinds of information. The article talked about records 'compromised by inherent reporting biases, inconsistencies and errors or uncertainty in the data.' There were instances when fires were counted twice, or more, said John Abatzoglou, a fire researcher at the University of California Merced. 'Some fires can be counted in triplicate as multiple agencies responding to the fire would count that fire in their summary statistics,' Abatzoglou said. The Heartland article author, senior fellow H. Sterling Burnett, minimized that concern. 'It's not that there isn't any overcounting,' Burnett said. 'But people managing federal agencies were smart enough to notice when two organizations reported the same fire.' As a record of the total number of acres burned over many years, historian Stephen Pyne, Arizona State University professor emeritus, said he thinks the government probably underestimated the damage. 'Most of the country outside federal lands was not counted at all,' Pyne said. The most certain conclusion about the government numbers behind the chart is that they can't be trusted. But many experts who have dug into the archives talk about a major flaw that greatly inflated the federal statistics. They describe how conflict between the U.S. Forest Service and southern landowners likely threw off the totals by millions of acres. 1920 to 1930: A heated dispute in the southeast In a 2018 article, Randal O'Toole, a senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute, included that same chart showing the dramatic fall in wildfires based on federal data. O'Toole is skeptical of broad claims of climate change. But O'Toole offered this chart with a stinging caption. 'Some people use the data behind this chart to argue against anthropogenic climate change. The problem is that the data before about 1955 are a lie.' O'Toole noted that at the turn of the 20th century, Congress told the Forest Service to suppress fires. This mandate put the federal agency in direct conflict with landowners in the southeast. The Forest Service was steadfast in its opposition to all fires. But the southeaster landowners burned their forests every four or five years to control underbrush. 'Perhaps 20% of forests would be burned each year, compared with less than 1% of forests burned through actual wildfires,' O'Toole wrote. 'The Forest Service responded by counting all fires in that state, prescribed or wild, as wildfires.' There is broad agreement on this problem. 'The early U.S. Forest Service wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the U.S. Forest Service as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated,' the Forest Service researcher wrote in that 2015 article. That wasn't exactly news. Researchers for an outside report commissioned by the Forest Service wrote in 2003 that 'in excess of 10 million acres were burned by wildfires annually' between 1930 and 1950. 'Most of the area burned during this period was in the Southeastern United States and were primarily incendiary fires,' the authors wrote. (Incendiary fires are intentional fires.) We raised these issues of the unreliability of the federal database with Heartland's Burnett. He said many articles in peer-reviewed journals had also relied on it. 'You can only go with the data you have,' Burnett said. He said even if the numbers are flawed, the number of acres lost to wildfires today is still less than it was in 1930. That's unlikely. Measuring fire in the West No expert we reached knew of any national study that could fix the errors in the government's original data. But there has been a lot of work done on the western states where the largest fires take place. Jeremy Littell with the Department of Interior Alaska Climate Science Center, along with several colleagues, examined fire reports for 11 western states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. They used a blend of federal, state and regional reports, and they filtered out intentional fires, only counting burns on federal or federally-protected land. They looked at the years 1916 to 2020 The peak of 7.4 million acres burned came in 2012. But the next highest, 6.7 million, came in 1919. Among the top 20 highest years, a bit more than half, 13, took place after 1987. The rest came before 1932. The fact is, there were some huge fires at the turn of the century. 'The large fire years in the West between about 1916 and the late 1930s were comparable to those in recent years,' Littell said. Littell said the triggers for large fires are the same today as they were in the first decades of the 1900s. Hot and dry summers in a preceding year lead to worse fire seasons. And since 1980, those conditions have become more common.
|
Our ruling The Heartland Institute said, 'U.S. acres burned each year are much fewer now - even in our worst years - than was the case in the early 20th century.' The claim was based on federal data. However, over the years, researchers concluded that the federal data was deeply flawed. While there might have been some undercounting, double and triple counting also took place. Most damaging of all, in the 1920s and 1930s, millions of acres of intentional fires in the southeast were counted as wildfires. One climate change skeptic called the government data 'a lie.' This year, the government withdrew its original dataset, and now only provides counts starting in 1983. There is no national level analysis going back to the turn of the last century, but an analysis of 11 western states suggests that the toll of fires today is at least on par with the fires in the first few decades. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"111549-proof-38-d74eae964c2ada630641fd4de758d9de.jpg"
] |
'U.S. acres burned each year are much fewer now - even in our worst years - than was the case in the early 20th century.
|
Contradiction
|
The wildfire season in the U.S. has gotten longer. In recent decades, what once lasted four months has grown to six or even eight months. Climate change makes summers warmer, but past forest management has also left forests with more fuel to ignite. An article from the conservative Heartland Institute argues that the role of climate change is 'grossly overemphasized.' 'U.S. acres burned each year are much fewer now - even in our worst years - than was the case in the early 20th century,' the Oct. 11 article said. The author points to U.S. government data that shows a dramatic drop in the number of acres burned, from over 40 million in 1930 down to 10 million around 2015. The problem is, federal officials have known for some time that their data was unreliable, and this year, they took most of it off their website (which drew accusations of cherry picking the numbers from the Heartland Institute). Many factors made the data shaky. Perhaps the most intriguing part of this story of bad data is that the government's old information includes millions of acres in the 1920s and 1930s that burned not by accident, but by intent. On top of that, there was also double counting, and, as some see it, undercounting. Explaining the data The Heartland Institute pointed to this chart to back up their claim about wildfire trends. The data came from the National Interagency Fire Center. A fact-sheet from the conservative Heartland Institute used this chart based on federal data. If you go to the federal center's wildfire page today, you will find this message: 'Prior to 1983, the federal wildland fire agencies did not track official wildfire data using current reporting processes. As a result, there is no official data prior to 1983 posted on this site.' A 2015 article from a Forest Service researcher explained why that data was unreliable. She wrote that multiple federal, state and local agencies filled out fire reports each in their own way, using different approaches to report different kinds of information. The article talked about records 'compromised by inherent reporting biases, inconsistencies and errors or uncertainty in the data.' There were instances when fires were counted twice, or more, said John Abatzoglou, a fire researcher at the University of California Merced. 'Some fires can be counted in triplicate as multiple agencies responding to the fire would count that fire in their summary statistics,' Abatzoglou said. The Heartland article author, senior fellow H. Sterling Burnett, minimized that concern. 'It's not that there isn't any overcounting,' Burnett said. 'But people managing federal agencies were smart enough to notice when two organizations reported the same fire.' As a record of the total number of acres burned over many years, historian Stephen Pyne, Arizona State University professor emeritus, said he thinks the government probably underestimated the damage. 'Most of the country outside federal lands was not counted at all,' Pyne said. The most certain conclusion about the government numbers behind the chart is that they can't be trusted. But many experts who have dug into the archives talk about a major flaw that greatly inflated the federal statistics. They describe how conflict between the U.S. Forest Service and southern landowners likely threw off the totals by millions of acres. 1920 to 1930: A heated dispute in the southeast In a 2018 article, Randal O'Toole, a senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute, included that same chart showing the dramatic fall in wildfires based on federal data. O'Toole is skeptical of broad claims of climate change. But O'Toole offered this chart with a stinging caption. 'Some people use the data behind this chart to argue against anthropogenic climate change. The problem is that the data before about 1955 are a lie.' O'Toole noted that at the turn of the 20th century, Congress told the Forest Service to suppress fires. This mandate put the federal agency in direct conflict with landowners in the southeast. The Forest Service was steadfast in its opposition to all fires. But the southeaster landowners burned their forests every four or five years to control underbrush. 'Perhaps 20% of forests would be burned each year, compared with less than 1% of forests burned through actual wildfires,' O'Toole wrote. 'The Forest Service responded by counting all fires in that state, prescribed or wild, as wildfires.' There is broad agreement on this problem. 'The early U.S. Forest Service wildfire activity summaries do include millions of hectares of intentional burning on 'unprotected' lands, which, until approximately the mid-20th century was viewed by the U.S. Forest Service as akin to wildfire, as something that should be prevented and ultimately eradicated,' the Forest Service researcher wrote in that 2015 article. That wasn't exactly news. Researchers for an outside report commissioned by the Forest Service wrote in 2003 that 'in excess of 10 million acres were burned by wildfires annually' between 1930 and 1950. 'Most of the area burned during this period was in the Southeastern United States and were primarily incendiary fires,' the authors wrote. (Incendiary fires are intentional fires.) We raised these issues of the unreliability of the federal database with Heartland's Burnett. He said many articles in peer-reviewed journals had also relied on it. 'You can only go with the data you have,' Burnett said. He said even if the numbers are flawed, the number of acres lost to wildfires today is still less than it was in 1930. That's unlikely. Measuring fire in the West No expert we reached knew of any national study that could fix the errors in the government's original data. But there has been a lot of work done on the western states where the largest fires take place. Jeremy Littell with the Department of Interior Alaska Climate Science Center, along with several colleagues, examined fire reports for 11 western states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. They used a blend of federal, state and regional reports, and they filtered out intentional fires, only counting burns on federal or federally-protected land. They looked at the years 1916 to 2020 The peak of 7.4 million acres burned came in 2012. But the next highest, 6.7 million, came in 1919. Among the top 20 highest years, a bit more than half, 13, took place after 1987. The rest came before 1932. The fact is, there were some huge fires at the turn of the century. 'The large fire years in the West between about 1916 and the late 1930s were comparable to those in recent years,' Littell said. Littell said the triggers for large fires are the same today as they were in the first decades of the 1900s. Hot and dry summers in a preceding year lead to worse fire seasons. And since 1980, those conditions have become more common.
|
Our ruling The Heartland Institute said, 'U.S. acres burned each year are much fewer now - even in our worst years - than was the case in the early 20th century.' The claim was based on federal data. However, over the years, researchers concluded that the federal data was deeply flawed. While there might have been some undercounting, double and triple counting also took place. Most damaging of all, in the 1920s and 1930s, millions of acres of intentional fires in the southeast were counted as wildfires. One climate change skeptic called the government data 'a lie.' This year, the government withdrew its original dataset, and now only provides counts starting in 1983. There is no national level analysis going back to the turn of the last century, but an analysis of 11 western states suggests that the toll of fires today is at least on par with the fires in the first few decades. We rate this claim Mostly False.
|
[
"111549-proof-38-d74eae964c2ada630641fd4de758d9de.jpg"
] |
New York 'is trying to pass a bill that would allow them to round up non mask wearers and people who don't want to take the vaccine into concentration camps. Then with a court order they can force vaccinate you.
|
Contradiction
|
A dormant, years-old bill in New York that would allow officials to detain contagious patients during a health emergency has reemerged amid the COVID-19 pandemic and has quickly become the subject of rapidly spreading conspiracy theories, some of which claim it's a scheme by Gov. Andrew Cuomo to throw people in detainment camps. 'New York is trying to pass a bill that would allow them to round up non mask wearers and people who don't want to take the vaccine into concentration camps,' one popular post on Facebook reads. 'Then with a court order they can force vaccinate you.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This is wrong, and a faulty interpretation of the bill in question, A416. While the legislation may be applicable in the COVID-19 era, the bill has been dormant since it was drafted and proposed during the 2015 Ebola outbreak, before a vaccine for the disease was approved. The bill specifies that it applies to infected people and their contacts who refuse to quarantine in a health emergency. Like other evergreen bills that get introduced year after year with little regard, the legislation has never been heard by committee. It was introduced for the state's 2021-22 legislative session, but it was also introduced in the 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2019-20 sessions and has never had a co-sponsor. An idea during the Ebola crisis Assembly bill 416 was introduced by Assemblyman N. Nick Perry, D- Brooklyn, and is described as: 'An act to amend the public health law, in relation to the removal of cases, contacts and carriers of communicable diseases who are potentially dangerous to the public health.' Frank Shea, Perry's communications director, said the assemblyman proposed the legislation in 2015 after a nurse who worked closely with Ebola patients in Africa refused to quarantine upon returning to the United States. It was designed to be similar to existing laws that allow for the detainment of mental health patients who are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. The bill says that during a health emergency, officials would have the authority to detain in a medical or 'other appropriate facility' any infected persons and their contacts who are deemed a threat to the public. It also says that, if the detentions last longer than three business days, the state would need a court order. 'The assemblyman thought that we needed a mechanism for the government to say that we can't have someone with this type of communicable disease who says 'the hell with the rest of you' and travels on our trains and buses and goes into our schools,' Shea said. Its creation had nothing to do with the COVID-19 crisis, he added, and despite being reintroduced, Perry hasn't pushed the bill or solicited sponsorships. Bill isn't going anywhere Republican U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin of Suffolk released a statement rebuking the bill on Jan. 3, and initially claimed that it was scheduled 'to be taken up by the New York State Assembly's Health Committee on Wednesday, January 6, 2021.' But that isn't true. The Assembly has no committee hearings on its schedule that day, the first day of session. On Jan. 3 Politico reported that it received no reply from Zeldin's office about where he got the information that the Health Committee was taking up the bill. Zeldin's statement appears to have been amended shortly after to say that the bill will instead be 'referred' to the committee that day. Cuomo's office, meanwhile, says they weren't aware of the bill until recently. 'No, the governor doesn't want to open up concentration camps,' Cuomo's senior adviser, Rich Azzopardi, told PolitiFact. 'We didn't even know this bill existed.' Perry says he's receiving threats over the bill and wrote in an emailed statement that he's open to amendments that would address concerns raised by critics. In this statement, he urged a careful reading of the bill. 'There is no intent, no plan, or provisions in my bill to take away, or violate any rights, or liberties that all Americans are entitled to under our Constitution, either state or federal,' the statement says. 'A proper reading of the bill would find that significant attention was paid to protect individual rights which could be affected by exercising the authority granted in this bill.'
|
Our ruling Social media posts claim that New York officials are trying to pass a bill that would allow them to round up non-mask wearers and those who don't want to get vaccinated into 'concentration camps' to eventually force vaccinations for COVID-19. This is wrong. While the bill, A416, may be applicable in the COVID-19 era, it has sat dormant since it was introduced in 2015 during the Ebola outbreak and has not gained any traction in the New York State Assembly. The legislation specifies that it applies to infected people and their contacts who refuse to quarantine in a health emergency. The bill has no co-sponsors and has never once been heard by committee despite being introduced in the 2015-16, 2017-18, 2019-20 sessions, and the current session. We rate this False.
|
[] |
New York 'is trying to pass a bill that would allow them to round up non mask wearers and people who don't want to take the vaccine into concentration camps. Then with a court order they can force vaccinate you.
|
Contradiction
|
A dormant, years-old bill in New York that would allow officials to detain contagious patients during a health emergency has reemerged amid the COVID-19 pandemic and has quickly become the subject of rapidly spreading conspiracy theories, some of which claim it's a scheme by Gov. Andrew Cuomo to throw people in detainment camps. 'New York is trying to pass a bill that would allow them to round up non mask wearers and people who don't want to take the vaccine into concentration camps,' one popular post on Facebook reads. 'Then with a court order they can force vaccinate you.' The post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) This is wrong, and a faulty interpretation of the bill in question, A416. While the legislation may be applicable in the COVID-19 era, the bill has been dormant since it was drafted and proposed during the 2015 Ebola outbreak, before a vaccine for the disease was approved. The bill specifies that it applies to infected people and their contacts who refuse to quarantine in a health emergency. Like other evergreen bills that get introduced year after year with little regard, the legislation has never been heard by committee. It was introduced for the state's 2021-22 legislative session, but it was also introduced in the 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2019-20 sessions and has never had a co-sponsor. An idea during the Ebola crisis Assembly bill 416 was introduced by Assemblyman N. Nick Perry, D- Brooklyn, and is described as: 'An act to amend the public health law, in relation to the removal of cases, contacts and carriers of communicable diseases who are potentially dangerous to the public health.' Frank Shea, Perry's communications director, said the assemblyman proposed the legislation in 2015 after a nurse who worked closely with Ebola patients in Africa refused to quarantine upon returning to the United States. It was designed to be similar to existing laws that allow for the detainment of mental health patients who are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. The bill says that during a health emergency, officials would have the authority to detain in a medical or 'other appropriate facility' any infected persons and their contacts who are deemed a threat to the public. It also says that, if the detentions last longer than three business days, the state would need a court order. 'The assemblyman thought that we needed a mechanism for the government to say that we can't have someone with this type of communicable disease who says 'the hell with the rest of you' and travels on our trains and buses and goes into our schools,' Shea said. Its creation had nothing to do with the COVID-19 crisis, he added, and despite being reintroduced, Perry hasn't pushed the bill or solicited sponsorships. Bill isn't going anywhere Republican U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin of Suffolk released a statement rebuking the bill on Jan. 3, and initially claimed that it was scheduled 'to be taken up by the New York State Assembly's Health Committee on Wednesday, January 6, 2021.' But that isn't true. The Assembly has no committee hearings on its schedule that day, the first day of session. On Jan. 3 Politico reported that it received no reply from Zeldin's office about where he got the information that the Health Committee was taking up the bill. Zeldin's statement appears to have been amended shortly after to say that the bill will instead be 'referred' to the committee that day. Cuomo's office, meanwhile, says they weren't aware of the bill until recently. 'No, the governor doesn't want to open up concentration camps,' Cuomo's senior adviser, Rich Azzopardi, told PolitiFact. 'We didn't even know this bill existed.' Perry says he's receiving threats over the bill and wrote in an emailed statement that he's open to amendments that would address concerns raised by critics. In this statement, he urged a careful reading of the bill. 'There is no intent, no plan, or provisions in my bill to take away, or violate any rights, or liberties that all Americans are entitled to under our Constitution, either state or federal,' the statement says. 'A proper reading of the bill would find that significant attention was paid to protect individual rights which could be affected by exercising the authority granted in this bill.'
|
Our ruling Social media posts claim that New York officials are trying to pass a bill that would allow them to round up non-mask wearers and those who don't want to get vaccinated into 'concentration camps' to eventually force vaccinations for COVID-19. This is wrong. While the bill, A416, may be applicable in the COVID-19 era, it has sat dormant since it was introduced in 2015 during the Ebola outbreak and has not gained any traction in the New York State Assembly. The legislation specifies that it applies to infected people and their contacts who refuse to quarantine in a health emergency. The bill has no co-sponsors and has never once been heard by committee despite being introduced in the 2015-16, 2017-18, 2019-20 sessions, and the current session. We rate this False.
|
[] |
'We need filibuster reform, and I've always been very clear about that.
|
Contradiction
|
One of North Carolina's U.S. Senate candidates told voters that she has been misquoted about her stance on the filibuster, a tool used to block legislation. Cheri Beasley, former chief justice of the N.C. Supreme Court, is one of several Democrats running for the senate seat that Republican Sen. Richard Burr will vacate at the end of 2022. During a campaign event at Duke University in mid-October, she was asked about her position on whether the U.S. Senate should eliminate the filibuster. A man asked Beasley: 'I read online that you're the only Democratic U.S. Senate candidate from North Carolina that supports the filibuster. How can you justify that position amid everything going on in D.C.?' Beasley responded this way: 'I appreciate the question. I can only tell you that I remember the article that you read and it just is not quite true. Let's take a look back. Because the reality is there is something deeply wrong when there is a process that allows a procedure which really is a tool of gridlock, which stops and prohibits the passage of the kind of legislation that the majority of the American people support - like voting rights. We need filibuster reform, and I've always been very clear about that. I'm sorry I was misquoted on that.' She went on to say she hoped the U.S. Senate would pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which Republicans ultimately blocked. Given the confusion at the Duke event, we wondered: Has Beasley always been very clear about supporting filibuster reform, as she asserts? Her previous statements on the issue certainly show a willingness to consider filibuster reform. However, it's an exaggeration to say Beasley has 'always been very clear about her position.' Where top candidates stand The filibuster, a loosely-defined term, generally refers to a rule allowing a minority of senators to hold up legislation. Lawmakers can delay things by speaking on the Senate floor for hours at a time, as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) did in 2013 when he read the children's book 'Green Eggs and Ham' in an effort to defund the Affordable Care Act. The speeches can influence other senators or stall the vote to give lawmakers time to reach a compromise. In some cases, the speeches go down as merely performative - having no influence on legislation. Senators don't actually need to speak for hours on the floor to effectively use the filibuster, as PBS explained earlier this year. They can simply say they object to the legislation under consideration. Then, to end debate on the bill, the Senate must trigger what's known as 'cloture.' But that tool requires 60 favorable votes. Republicans effectively used the tool last month to block the Democrats' voting rights legislation, known as the For The People Act. Democrats control the White House and Congress, but their majority is so narrow that a filibuster can effectively block almost any controversial legislation. In North Carolina, Democrats running for Burr's seat have been repeatedly asked about this issue on the campaign trail. While several candidates are seeking the party's nomination, Beasley is considered a top contender because she has won a statewide election and because of the amount of money she has raised. Other leading candidates include state Sen. Jeff Jackson and former state Sen. Erica Smith. Smith called for eliminating the filibuster early in her campaign. Jackson has taken a wait-and-see approach while criticizing Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) for saying he would under 'no circumstance' consider scrapping it. While the National Republican Senatorial Committee accused Jackson of flip-flopping on the issue, PolitiFact NC found that Jackson repeatedly tied his position to how Republicans treated Democrats' top legislative priorities. The Jackson campaign told PolitiFact NC on Nov. 17 that he supports eliminating the filibuster. 'The filibuster is simply being used as a bad faith tool of gridlock by Mitch McConnell, particularly around voting rights legislation,' campaign spokesman Dylan Arant said. 'If there weren't enough support for elimination, then Jackson would also support the 'talking filibuster' reform to make it harder to obstruct.' Beasley, for her part, announced on Oct. 28 that she fully supports eliminating the filibuster. The move came after months of Beasley saying she would 'take a look at' full elimination. But was she always 'very clear' about wanting reform? What Beasley has said Let's take a look at what Beasley has said about the filibuster. May 1: WFAE-FM asked Beasley whether she would eliminate the filibuster in order to pass H.R. 1, the voting rights bill. She responded: 'I am glad to take a look at it, but what I am confident of is that legislation that supports the people of North Carolina, that there be no barriers to that passing. Voting rights are very important. We really must do everything in our power to make sure that people are not prevented from casting their ballot and stating their choice for those who offer themselves for service.' Asked specifically about eliminating the filibuster, she said it's 'something that I would take a look at.' June 11: WXII-TV asked Beasley if she would vote to end the filibuster to pass H.R. 1. 'I would certainly think about the relevancy of it.' July 26: The News & Observer reported on the Democratic U.S. Senate candidates' positions on the filibuster. Beasley told the paper: 'A procedural rule shouldn't stand in the way of policies that the overwhelming majority of Americans and North Carolinians support, which is why I'd take a look at changes that would benefit our state, recognizing that it also has been used to block harmful legislation in the past.' Aug. 16: Beasley was asked about her position during a webinar with supporters dubbed, 'Women for Beasley.' She responded: 'You know, I have thought deeply about it. And the reality is, it has in many ways benefited Democrats and people across North Carolina and this state. I'll certainly take a look at it. What I am confident of, is that legislation that people here in North Carolina care deeply about, and people across the country (care deeply about), like voting rights, should not be held up by the filibuster.' Aug. 17: WXII-TV reported 'Two months ago, Ms. Beasley did not provide a definitive answer on the Senate filibuster that's holding up voting reform. That position did not change today.' Beasley told the reporter: 'It's a tough issue. HR1, SR1 need to pass. They absolutely do. The filibuster is a much bigger issue.' Aug. 28: When asked in an interview with WCNC-TV whether she'd vote to eliminate the filibuster, Beasley didn't give a yes or no answer. She said: 'I am very concerned and understand that, here we are 56 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and we are still fighting for basic fundamental rights around the right to vote. I'm deeply concerned about that. I also know it's been almost 200 days that the Senate has sat on the For The People Act. And the For the People Act is exactly what the people of North Carolina want passed. They want to know there's voter protection, and they also want to know that there will be a senator there who's going to fight to protect this very basic and fundamental right to vote. And they don't want the Senate to play around with that.' Sept. 1: The Daily Beast reported on comments Beasley made during an Aug. 16 'Women for Beasley' event. Campaign spokeswoman Dory MacMillan told the Daily Beast that Beasley 'believes a procedural rule shouldn't stand in the way of solutions that an overwhelming majority of North Carolinians support' and that 'given the grave threat to democracy she would support a carve out for legislation to support voting rights, and as she has said, would consider broader reforms to the filibuster.' Oct. 22: In a video forum with LGBTQ+ Dems, Beasley said this about filibuster reform: 'And so as you ask about the filibuster, the reality is we must be deeply concerned about a process where there's a procedure that contains a tool of gridlock that prohibits the passage of legislation the majority of Americans support. And the reality is the majority of Americans support the Equality Act and the Voting Rights Act - and so many other pieces of legislation that the Senate is not able to get passed. We must get past this, and we absolutely must have filibuster reform.' The 'misquoted' comment During her campaign event at Duke University, Beasley claimed she had been misquoted about her position. When we inquired with her campaign about what was misquoted, MacMillan said Beasley was referring to the headline of the Daily Beast story, which said, 'New footage shows NC Dem Senate candidate lauding filibuster.' Beasley merely noted how the filibuster had been used in the past, MacMillan said, and didn't 'laud' it as the Daily Beast headline suggested. The definition of 'laud' means to praise or extol, according to Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster. While Beasley highlighted how the filibuster has worked to benefit Democrats - something she would certainly be grateful for - footage reviewed by PolitiFact NC didn't show Beasley explicitly stating that the filibuster is a positive thing.
|
Our ruling Beasley said 'We need filibuster reform, and I've always been very clear about that.' Beasley's quote makes it seem like, prior to her October commitment to eliminate the filibuster, she had come out fully in favor of some kind of reform. From May through July, she said she'd 'take a look at' or 'think about' eliminating the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation. Based on the information PolitiFact NC has reviewed and Beasley's campaign has provided, it wasn't until September that Beasley's campaign explicitly said she would 'carve out' the filibuster to support voting rights and would 'consider' broader reforms. Her statement contains an element of truth - she has consistently said there should be no barriers to passing voting rights legislation. But it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression - she didn't specify her stance on filibuster reform until September. And only in October did she clearly state 'we absolutely must have filibuster reform.' We rate the claim that she has always been clear about that Mostly False.
|
[
"111581-proof-37-dafbec1d79bcd8e50efa4c2535af3b28.jpg"
] |
'We need filibuster reform, and I've always been very clear about that.
|
Contradiction
|
One of North Carolina's U.S. Senate candidates told voters that she has been misquoted about her stance on the filibuster, a tool used to block legislation. Cheri Beasley, former chief justice of the N.C. Supreme Court, is one of several Democrats running for the senate seat that Republican Sen. Richard Burr will vacate at the end of 2022. During a campaign event at Duke University in mid-October, she was asked about her position on whether the U.S. Senate should eliminate the filibuster. A man asked Beasley: 'I read online that you're the only Democratic U.S. Senate candidate from North Carolina that supports the filibuster. How can you justify that position amid everything going on in D.C.?' Beasley responded this way: 'I appreciate the question. I can only tell you that I remember the article that you read and it just is not quite true. Let's take a look back. Because the reality is there is something deeply wrong when there is a process that allows a procedure which really is a tool of gridlock, which stops and prohibits the passage of the kind of legislation that the majority of the American people support - like voting rights. We need filibuster reform, and I've always been very clear about that. I'm sorry I was misquoted on that.' She went on to say she hoped the U.S. Senate would pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which Republicans ultimately blocked. Given the confusion at the Duke event, we wondered: Has Beasley always been very clear about supporting filibuster reform, as she asserts? Her previous statements on the issue certainly show a willingness to consider filibuster reform. However, it's an exaggeration to say Beasley has 'always been very clear about her position.' Where top candidates stand The filibuster, a loosely-defined term, generally refers to a rule allowing a minority of senators to hold up legislation. Lawmakers can delay things by speaking on the Senate floor for hours at a time, as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) did in 2013 when he read the children's book 'Green Eggs and Ham' in an effort to defund the Affordable Care Act. The speeches can influence other senators or stall the vote to give lawmakers time to reach a compromise. In some cases, the speeches go down as merely performative - having no influence on legislation. Senators don't actually need to speak for hours on the floor to effectively use the filibuster, as PBS explained earlier this year. They can simply say they object to the legislation under consideration. Then, to end debate on the bill, the Senate must trigger what's known as 'cloture.' But that tool requires 60 favorable votes. Republicans effectively used the tool last month to block the Democrats' voting rights legislation, known as the For The People Act. Democrats control the White House and Congress, but their majority is so narrow that a filibuster can effectively block almost any controversial legislation. In North Carolina, Democrats running for Burr's seat have been repeatedly asked about this issue on the campaign trail. While several candidates are seeking the party's nomination, Beasley is considered a top contender because she has won a statewide election and because of the amount of money she has raised. Other leading candidates include state Sen. Jeff Jackson and former state Sen. Erica Smith. Smith called for eliminating the filibuster early in her campaign. Jackson has taken a wait-and-see approach while criticizing Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) for saying he would under 'no circumstance' consider scrapping it. While the National Republican Senatorial Committee accused Jackson of flip-flopping on the issue, PolitiFact NC found that Jackson repeatedly tied his position to how Republicans treated Democrats' top legislative priorities. The Jackson campaign told PolitiFact NC on Nov. 17 that he supports eliminating the filibuster. 'The filibuster is simply being used as a bad faith tool of gridlock by Mitch McConnell, particularly around voting rights legislation,' campaign spokesman Dylan Arant said. 'If there weren't enough support for elimination, then Jackson would also support the 'talking filibuster' reform to make it harder to obstruct.' Beasley, for her part, announced on Oct. 28 that she fully supports eliminating the filibuster. The move came after months of Beasley saying she would 'take a look at' full elimination. But was she always 'very clear' about wanting reform? What Beasley has said Let's take a look at what Beasley has said about the filibuster. May 1: WFAE-FM asked Beasley whether she would eliminate the filibuster in order to pass H.R. 1, the voting rights bill. She responded: 'I am glad to take a look at it, but what I am confident of is that legislation that supports the people of North Carolina, that there be no barriers to that passing. Voting rights are very important. We really must do everything in our power to make sure that people are not prevented from casting their ballot and stating their choice for those who offer themselves for service.' Asked specifically about eliminating the filibuster, she said it's 'something that I would take a look at.' June 11: WXII-TV asked Beasley if she would vote to end the filibuster to pass H.R. 1. 'I would certainly think about the relevancy of it.' July 26: The News & Observer reported on the Democratic U.S. Senate candidates' positions on the filibuster. Beasley told the paper: 'A procedural rule shouldn't stand in the way of policies that the overwhelming majority of Americans and North Carolinians support, which is why I'd take a look at changes that would benefit our state, recognizing that it also has been used to block harmful legislation in the past.' Aug. 16: Beasley was asked about her position during a webinar with supporters dubbed, 'Women for Beasley.' She responded: 'You know, I have thought deeply about it. And the reality is, it has in many ways benefited Democrats and people across North Carolina and this state. I'll certainly take a look at it. What I am confident of, is that legislation that people here in North Carolina care deeply about, and people across the country (care deeply about), like voting rights, should not be held up by the filibuster.' Aug. 17: WXII-TV reported 'Two months ago, Ms. Beasley did not provide a definitive answer on the Senate filibuster that's holding up voting reform. That position did not change today.' Beasley told the reporter: 'It's a tough issue. HR1, SR1 need to pass. They absolutely do. The filibuster is a much bigger issue.' Aug. 28: When asked in an interview with WCNC-TV whether she'd vote to eliminate the filibuster, Beasley didn't give a yes or no answer. She said: 'I am very concerned and understand that, here we are 56 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and we are still fighting for basic fundamental rights around the right to vote. I'm deeply concerned about that. I also know it's been almost 200 days that the Senate has sat on the For The People Act. And the For the People Act is exactly what the people of North Carolina want passed. They want to know there's voter protection, and they also want to know that there will be a senator there who's going to fight to protect this very basic and fundamental right to vote. And they don't want the Senate to play around with that.' Sept. 1: The Daily Beast reported on comments Beasley made during an Aug. 16 'Women for Beasley' event. Campaign spokeswoman Dory MacMillan told the Daily Beast that Beasley 'believes a procedural rule shouldn't stand in the way of solutions that an overwhelming majority of North Carolinians support' and that 'given the grave threat to democracy she would support a carve out for legislation to support voting rights, and as she has said, would consider broader reforms to the filibuster.' Oct. 22: In a video forum with LGBTQ+ Dems, Beasley said this about filibuster reform: 'And so as you ask about the filibuster, the reality is we must be deeply concerned about a process where there's a procedure that contains a tool of gridlock that prohibits the passage of legislation the majority of Americans support. And the reality is the majority of Americans support the Equality Act and the Voting Rights Act - and so many other pieces of legislation that the Senate is not able to get passed. We must get past this, and we absolutely must have filibuster reform.' The 'misquoted' comment During her campaign event at Duke University, Beasley claimed she had been misquoted about her position. When we inquired with her campaign about what was misquoted, MacMillan said Beasley was referring to the headline of the Daily Beast story, which said, 'New footage shows NC Dem Senate candidate lauding filibuster.' Beasley merely noted how the filibuster had been used in the past, MacMillan said, and didn't 'laud' it as the Daily Beast headline suggested. The definition of 'laud' means to praise or extol, according to Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster. While Beasley highlighted how the filibuster has worked to benefit Democrats - something she would certainly be grateful for - footage reviewed by PolitiFact NC didn't show Beasley explicitly stating that the filibuster is a positive thing.
|
Our ruling Beasley said 'We need filibuster reform, and I've always been very clear about that.' Beasley's quote makes it seem like, prior to her October commitment to eliminate the filibuster, she had come out fully in favor of some kind of reform. From May through July, she said she'd 'take a look at' or 'think about' eliminating the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation. Based on the information PolitiFact NC has reviewed and Beasley's campaign has provided, it wasn't until September that Beasley's campaign explicitly said she would 'carve out' the filibuster to support voting rights and would 'consider' broader reforms. Her statement contains an element of truth - she has consistently said there should be no barriers to passing voting rights legislation. But it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression - she didn't specify her stance on filibuster reform until September. And only in October did she clearly state 'we absolutely must have filibuster reform.' We rate the claim that she has always been clear about that Mostly False.
|
[
"111581-proof-37-dafbec1d79bcd8e50efa4c2535af3b28.jpg"
] |
'We need filibuster reform, and I've always been very clear about that.
|
Contradiction
|
One of North Carolina's U.S. Senate candidates told voters that she has been misquoted about her stance on the filibuster, a tool used to block legislation. Cheri Beasley, former chief justice of the N.C. Supreme Court, is one of several Democrats running for the senate seat that Republican Sen. Richard Burr will vacate at the end of 2022. During a campaign event at Duke University in mid-October, she was asked about her position on whether the U.S. Senate should eliminate the filibuster. A man asked Beasley: 'I read online that you're the only Democratic U.S. Senate candidate from North Carolina that supports the filibuster. How can you justify that position amid everything going on in D.C.?' Beasley responded this way: 'I appreciate the question. I can only tell you that I remember the article that you read and it just is not quite true. Let's take a look back. Because the reality is there is something deeply wrong when there is a process that allows a procedure which really is a tool of gridlock, which stops and prohibits the passage of the kind of legislation that the majority of the American people support - like voting rights. We need filibuster reform, and I've always been very clear about that. I'm sorry I was misquoted on that.' She went on to say she hoped the U.S. Senate would pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which Republicans ultimately blocked. Given the confusion at the Duke event, we wondered: Has Beasley always been very clear about supporting filibuster reform, as she asserts? Her previous statements on the issue certainly show a willingness to consider filibuster reform. However, it's an exaggeration to say Beasley has 'always been very clear about her position.' Where top candidates stand The filibuster, a loosely-defined term, generally refers to a rule allowing a minority of senators to hold up legislation. Lawmakers can delay things by speaking on the Senate floor for hours at a time, as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) did in 2013 when he read the children's book 'Green Eggs and Ham' in an effort to defund the Affordable Care Act. The speeches can influence other senators or stall the vote to give lawmakers time to reach a compromise. In some cases, the speeches go down as merely performative - having no influence on legislation. Senators don't actually need to speak for hours on the floor to effectively use the filibuster, as PBS explained earlier this year. They can simply say they object to the legislation under consideration. Then, to end debate on the bill, the Senate must trigger what's known as 'cloture.' But that tool requires 60 favorable votes. Republicans effectively used the tool last month to block the Democrats' voting rights legislation, known as the For The People Act. Democrats control the White House and Congress, but their majority is so narrow that a filibuster can effectively block almost any controversial legislation. In North Carolina, Democrats running for Burr's seat have been repeatedly asked about this issue on the campaign trail. While several candidates are seeking the party's nomination, Beasley is considered a top contender because she has won a statewide election and because of the amount of money she has raised. Other leading candidates include state Sen. Jeff Jackson and former state Sen. Erica Smith. Smith called for eliminating the filibuster early in her campaign. Jackson has taken a wait-and-see approach while criticizing Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) for saying he would under 'no circumstance' consider scrapping it. While the National Republican Senatorial Committee accused Jackson of flip-flopping on the issue, PolitiFact NC found that Jackson repeatedly tied his position to how Republicans treated Democrats' top legislative priorities. The Jackson campaign told PolitiFact NC on Nov. 17 that he supports eliminating the filibuster. 'The filibuster is simply being used as a bad faith tool of gridlock by Mitch McConnell, particularly around voting rights legislation,' campaign spokesman Dylan Arant said. 'If there weren't enough support for elimination, then Jackson would also support the 'talking filibuster' reform to make it harder to obstruct.' Beasley, for her part, announced on Oct. 28 that she fully supports eliminating the filibuster. The move came after months of Beasley saying she would 'take a look at' full elimination. But was she always 'very clear' about wanting reform? What Beasley has said Let's take a look at what Beasley has said about the filibuster. May 1: WFAE-FM asked Beasley whether she would eliminate the filibuster in order to pass H.R. 1, the voting rights bill. She responded: 'I am glad to take a look at it, but what I am confident of is that legislation that supports the people of North Carolina, that there be no barriers to that passing. Voting rights are very important. We really must do everything in our power to make sure that people are not prevented from casting their ballot and stating their choice for those who offer themselves for service.' Asked specifically about eliminating the filibuster, she said it's 'something that I would take a look at.' June 11: WXII-TV asked Beasley if she would vote to end the filibuster to pass H.R. 1. 'I would certainly think about the relevancy of it.' July 26: The News & Observer reported on the Democratic U.S. Senate candidates' positions on the filibuster. Beasley told the paper: 'A procedural rule shouldn't stand in the way of policies that the overwhelming majority of Americans and North Carolinians support, which is why I'd take a look at changes that would benefit our state, recognizing that it also has been used to block harmful legislation in the past.' Aug. 16: Beasley was asked about her position during a webinar with supporters dubbed, 'Women for Beasley.' She responded: 'You know, I have thought deeply about it. And the reality is, it has in many ways benefited Democrats and people across North Carolina and this state. I'll certainly take a look at it. What I am confident of, is that legislation that people here in North Carolina care deeply about, and people across the country (care deeply about), like voting rights, should not be held up by the filibuster.' Aug. 17: WXII-TV reported 'Two months ago, Ms. Beasley did not provide a definitive answer on the Senate filibuster that's holding up voting reform. That position did not change today.' Beasley told the reporter: 'It's a tough issue. HR1, SR1 need to pass. They absolutely do. The filibuster is a much bigger issue.' Aug. 28: When asked in an interview with WCNC-TV whether she'd vote to eliminate the filibuster, Beasley didn't give a yes or no answer. She said: 'I am very concerned and understand that, here we are 56 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and we are still fighting for basic fundamental rights around the right to vote. I'm deeply concerned about that. I also know it's been almost 200 days that the Senate has sat on the For The People Act. And the For the People Act is exactly what the people of North Carolina want passed. They want to know there's voter protection, and they also want to know that there will be a senator there who's going to fight to protect this very basic and fundamental right to vote. And they don't want the Senate to play around with that.' Sept. 1: The Daily Beast reported on comments Beasley made during an Aug. 16 'Women for Beasley' event. Campaign spokeswoman Dory MacMillan told the Daily Beast that Beasley 'believes a procedural rule shouldn't stand in the way of solutions that an overwhelming majority of North Carolinians support' and that 'given the grave threat to democracy she would support a carve out for legislation to support voting rights, and as she has said, would consider broader reforms to the filibuster.' Oct. 22: In a video forum with LGBTQ+ Dems, Beasley said this about filibuster reform: 'And so as you ask about the filibuster, the reality is we must be deeply concerned about a process where there's a procedure that contains a tool of gridlock that prohibits the passage of legislation the majority of Americans support. And the reality is the majority of Americans support the Equality Act and the Voting Rights Act - and so many other pieces of legislation that the Senate is not able to get passed. We must get past this, and we absolutely must have filibuster reform.' The 'misquoted' comment During her campaign event at Duke University, Beasley claimed she had been misquoted about her position. When we inquired with her campaign about what was misquoted, MacMillan said Beasley was referring to the headline of the Daily Beast story, which said, 'New footage shows NC Dem Senate candidate lauding filibuster.' Beasley merely noted how the filibuster had been used in the past, MacMillan said, and didn't 'laud' it as the Daily Beast headline suggested. The definition of 'laud' means to praise or extol, according to Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster. While Beasley highlighted how the filibuster has worked to benefit Democrats - something she would certainly be grateful for - footage reviewed by PolitiFact NC didn't show Beasley explicitly stating that the filibuster is a positive thing.
|
Our ruling Beasley said 'We need filibuster reform, and I've always been very clear about that.' Beasley's quote makes it seem like, prior to her October commitment to eliminate the filibuster, she had come out fully in favor of some kind of reform. From May through July, she said she'd 'take a look at' or 'think about' eliminating the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation. Based on the information PolitiFact NC has reviewed and Beasley's campaign has provided, it wasn't until September that Beasley's campaign explicitly said she would 'carve out' the filibuster to support voting rights and would 'consider' broader reforms. Her statement contains an element of truth - she has consistently said there should be no barriers to passing voting rights legislation. But it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression - she didn't specify her stance on filibuster reform until September. And only in October did she clearly state 'we absolutely must have filibuster reform.' We rate the claim that she has always been clear about that Mostly False.
|
[
"111581-proof-37-dafbec1d79bcd8e50efa4c2535af3b28.jpg"
] |
'Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict.
|
Contradiction
|
On May 19, Fox News published a story on its website with this headline: 'Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict.' By the end of the day, though, the headline had changed to say that 'Black Lives Matter 'stands in solidarity' with Palestinians, vows to fight for 'Palestinian liberation.'' But not before people took screenshots of the original headline and started to share it on social media. 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.) Black Lives Matter did not say that it supports Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that controls Gaza. On May 17, the group's verified Twitter account tweeted: 'Black Lives Matter stands in solidarity with Palestinians. We are a movement committed to ending settler colonialism in all forms and will continue to advocate for Palestinian liberation. (always have. And always will be).' In the May 19 edition of the CNN newsletter Reliable Sources, media reporter Oliver Darcy wrote that 'Fox stealth-edited the significant error out of its piece, and only attached a weak editor's note to the article after I reached out for comment on why it hadn't done so already.' The editor's note at the bottom of the story says that 'this report's headline was updated to more closely reflect the Black Lives Matter tweet.' We rate claims that the group said it stands with 'Hamas terrorists' False.
|
We rate claims that the group said it stands with 'Hamas terrorists' False.
|
[] |
'Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict.
|
Contradiction
|
On May 19, Fox News published a story on its website with this headline: 'Black Lives Matter says it stands with Hamas terrorists in Israeli conflict.' By the end of the day, though, the headline had changed to say that 'Black Lives Matter 'stands in solidarity' with Palestinians, vows to fight for 'Palestinian liberation.'' But not before people took screenshots of the original headline and started to share it on social media. 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.) Black Lives Matter did not say that it supports Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that controls Gaza. On May 17, the group's verified Twitter account tweeted: 'Black Lives Matter stands in solidarity with Palestinians. We are a movement committed to ending settler colonialism in all forms and will continue to advocate for Palestinian liberation. (always have. And always will be).' In the May 19 edition of the CNN newsletter Reliable Sources, media reporter Oliver Darcy wrote that 'Fox stealth-edited the significant error out of its piece, and only attached a weak editor's note to the article after I reached out for comment on why it hadn't done so already.' The editor's note at the bottom of the story says that 'this report's headline was updated to more closely reflect the Black Lives Matter tweet.' We rate claims that the group said it stands with 'Hamas terrorists' False.
|
We rate claims that the group said it stands with 'Hamas terrorists' False.
|
[] |
'Here is the fire drone video that Twitter, Google, and YouTube didn't want us to see.
|
Contradiction
|
A video shared on Twitter, Facebook and TikTok shows aerial footage of an aircraft-mounted flamethrower starting fires in a forest, and the posts imply that the wildfires ravaging the West Coast are being set intentionally. 'Here is the fire drone video that Twitter, Google, and YouTube didn't want us to see,' reads the caption. 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.) Lynne Tolmachoff, a spokesperson for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, analyzed the video for us and concluded that it depicts a flamethrower mounted on a helicopter, not a drone. She also determined that the helicopter was engaging in a standard firefighting tactic called a controlled burn. We also traced the video back through social media to find out where it originated. The video was first posted on Aug. 21, where it appeared with this caption: 'This is a tactic used to fight a brush fire, as well as other uses...#controlledburn.' Controlled burns lower the risk of high-intensity fires by burning through dry fuel collected on forest floors. Firefighting agencies have used both drones and helicopters for this purpose before. The tweet is similar to other posts falsely attributing the West Coast wildfires to arson by antifa. Police departments, sheriff's offices and forestry departments have all issued statements saying that these claims are inaccurate. In reality, heatwaves, dry soil and drought caused by climate change have made environments on the West Coast more flammable, and sparks and heavy winds have led to fast-spreading blazes throughout the region.
|
Our ruling A video shared on Twitter shows aerial footage of an aircraft-mounted flamethrower setting fires in a forest. The caption reads, 'Here is the fire drone video that Twitter, Google, and YouTube didn't want us to see.' A spokesperson for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection analyzed the video and determined that it depicts a helicopter engaging in a standard firefighting practice called a controlled burn. We rate this post False.
|
[] |
'39% of Americans ... 31% of independents ... 17% of Democrats believe the election was rigged.
|
Contradiction
|
As Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, challenged Arizona's presidential election results on the Senate floor, he claimed that it's not just Republicans who think the election was 'rigged.' A sizable percentage of independents and Democrats believed so, too, he claimed. 'Recent polling shows that 39% of Americans believe the election that just occurred was 'rigged.' You may not agree with that assessment, but it is nonetheless a reality for nearly half the country,' said Cruz. 'I would note it is not just Republicans who believe that. 31% of independents agree with that statement. 17% of Democrats believe the election was rigged.' President-elect Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump in the Nov. 3 election. State election officials and courts have said that allegations from Trump and his allies about fraud in the election are meritless. Congress met in a joint session Jan. 6 to affirm Biden's victory and count the Electoral College votes, but broke into separate discussions in the House and Senate chambers to consider objections to the tally from Arizona. Cruz's statement on the Senate floor came before a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, forcing a halt to the constitutional procedure. We checked Cruz's claim about the percentages of people who believe the election was 'rigged,' and found it misleading. Cruz made a similar claim in a Jan. 2 statement, citing Reuters/Ipsos polling. Reuters/Ipsos poll results The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted between Nov. 13-17. The online survey included a sample of 1,346 American adults. The sample included 598 Democrats, 496 Republicans and 149 independents. (Some respondents did not identify as any of the three.) The survey asked respondents to indicate: 'how much you agree or disagree' with the statement: 'I am concerned that the election is rigged.' Here are the results: All respondents: Strongly agree: 22% Somewhat agree: 17% Somewhat disagree: 17% Strongly disagree: 37% Not sure: 7% Independents: Strongly agree: 14% Somewhat agree: 17% Somewhat disagree: 21% Strongly disagree: 30% Not sure: 17% Democrats: Strongly agree: 7% Somewhat agree: 10% Somewhat disagree: 18% Strongly disagree: 62% Not sure: 3% Cruz's office said he arrived at the figures in his claim by adding the percentages for 'strongly agree' and 'somewhat agree.' But his overall claim is not the most accurate interpretation of the polling results, according to Ipsos. 'Our perspective is that question isn't a definitive statement that the election was in fact rigged. For that, we use a separate question in the same survey,' Chris Jackson, an Ipsos pollster, told PolitiFact. The survey also asked: 'What comes close to your view of the 2020 election?' The choices were 'legitimate and accurate,' 'the result of illegal voting or election rigging,' or 'don't know.' 'The result of illegal voting or election rigging' was chosen by 28% all respondents, 20% of independents, and 6% of Democrats. Those figures are much lower than what Cruz cited. For Cruz to back his point, the 'more accurate number to cite' would be the lower percentages, Jackson said on Twitter. 'And of that 28%, the large, large majority (79%) are Republicans. The plurality get their news from Fox (31%), other sources (18%) or don't follow news (24%), suggesting belief in rigging is a bit circular,' Jackson tweeted. It's also worth noting that the poll was done in mid-November, as legal challenges from Trump's campaign were still ongoing. Other polls about the election phrased their questions differently, but generally, they show that most Americans trusted the results and thought the 2020 election was free and fair. Republicans were less likely to trust the outcome. One poll from the Monmouth University Polling Institute found that 'confidence in the election's fairness went up among both independents (from 56% to 69%) and Democrats (from 68% to 90%) pre-election to post-election.'
|
Our ruling Cruz said 39% of Americans, 31% of independents, and 17% of Democrats 'believe the election was rigged.' Cruz's office said his claim is based on a specific poll and the total percentage of respondents who 'somewhat' or 'strongly' agreed with the statement: 'I am concerned that the election is rigged.' That doesn't necessarily mean they thought it was rigged. Another question in the survey asked people more directly about their view of the election. The percentage of people who said the election was 'the result of illegal voting or election rigging' was much lower than the numbers Cruz cited. Other polls show far greater confidence in the integrity of the election. Cruz's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. UPDATE, Jan. 6, 7:30 p.m.: This fact-check was updated to incorporate the response from Cruz's office.
|
[
"111615-proof-07-729ca4a14dcad342e1600db3ea4882f1.jpg"
] |
'39% of Americans ... 31% of independents ... 17% of Democrats believe the election was rigged.
|
Contradiction
|
As Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, challenged Arizona's presidential election results on the Senate floor, he claimed that it's not just Republicans who think the election was 'rigged.' A sizable percentage of independents and Democrats believed so, too, he claimed. 'Recent polling shows that 39% of Americans believe the election that just occurred was 'rigged.' You may not agree with that assessment, but it is nonetheless a reality for nearly half the country,' said Cruz. 'I would note it is not just Republicans who believe that. 31% of independents agree with that statement. 17% of Democrats believe the election was rigged.' President-elect Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump in the Nov. 3 election. State election officials and courts have said that allegations from Trump and his allies about fraud in the election are meritless. Congress met in a joint session Jan. 6 to affirm Biden's victory and count the Electoral College votes, but broke into separate discussions in the House and Senate chambers to consider objections to the tally from Arizona. Cruz's statement on the Senate floor came before a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, forcing a halt to the constitutional procedure. We checked Cruz's claim about the percentages of people who believe the election was 'rigged,' and found it misleading. Cruz made a similar claim in a Jan. 2 statement, citing Reuters/Ipsos polling. Reuters/Ipsos poll results The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted between Nov. 13-17. The online survey included a sample of 1,346 American adults. The sample included 598 Democrats, 496 Republicans and 149 independents. (Some respondents did not identify as any of the three.) The survey asked respondents to indicate: 'how much you agree or disagree' with the statement: 'I am concerned that the election is rigged.' Here are the results: All respondents: Strongly agree: 22% Somewhat agree: 17% Somewhat disagree: 17% Strongly disagree: 37% Not sure: 7% Independents: Strongly agree: 14% Somewhat agree: 17% Somewhat disagree: 21% Strongly disagree: 30% Not sure: 17% Democrats: Strongly agree: 7% Somewhat agree: 10% Somewhat disagree: 18% Strongly disagree: 62% Not sure: 3% Cruz's office said he arrived at the figures in his claim by adding the percentages for 'strongly agree' and 'somewhat agree.' But his overall claim is not the most accurate interpretation of the polling results, according to Ipsos. 'Our perspective is that question isn't a definitive statement that the election was in fact rigged. For that, we use a separate question in the same survey,' Chris Jackson, an Ipsos pollster, told PolitiFact. The survey also asked: 'What comes close to your view of the 2020 election?' The choices were 'legitimate and accurate,' 'the result of illegal voting or election rigging,' or 'don't know.' 'The result of illegal voting or election rigging' was chosen by 28% all respondents, 20% of independents, and 6% of Democrats. Those figures are much lower than what Cruz cited. For Cruz to back his point, the 'more accurate number to cite' would be the lower percentages, Jackson said on Twitter. 'And of that 28%, the large, large majority (79%) are Republicans. The plurality get their news from Fox (31%), other sources (18%) or don't follow news (24%), suggesting belief in rigging is a bit circular,' Jackson tweeted. It's also worth noting that the poll was done in mid-November, as legal challenges from Trump's campaign were still ongoing. Other polls about the election phrased their questions differently, but generally, they show that most Americans trusted the results and thought the 2020 election was free and fair. Republicans were less likely to trust the outcome. One poll from the Monmouth University Polling Institute found that 'confidence in the election's fairness went up among both independents (from 56% to 69%) and Democrats (from 68% to 90%) pre-election to post-election.'
|
Our ruling Cruz said 39% of Americans, 31% of independents, and 17% of Democrats 'believe the election was rigged.' Cruz's office said his claim is based on a specific poll and the total percentage of respondents who 'somewhat' or 'strongly' agreed with the statement: 'I am concerned that the election is rigged.' That doesn't necessarily mean they thought it was rigged. Another question in the survey asked people more directly about their view of the election. The percentage of people who said the election was 'the result of illegal voting or election rigging' was much lower than the numbers Cruz cited. Other polls show far greater confidence in the integrity of the election. Cruz's statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. UPDATE, Jan. 6, 7:30 p.m.: This fact-check was updated to incorporate the response from Cruz's office.
|
[
"111615-proof-07-729ca4a14dcad342e1600db3ea4882f1.jpg"
] |
Dr. Fauci says every American should be microchipped.
|
Contradiction
|
Over the course of the coronavirus outbreak, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has become a household name - and a frequent target of misinformation. PolitiFact has debunked several online claims about Fauci from people trying to discredit him, including the idea that he has a financial stake in a coronavirus vaccine and that he served on Microsoft's board of directors. A new claim says Fauci wants to 'microchip' Americans. 'Dr. Fauci says every American should be microchipped,' one Facebook post says. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence to support this claim, or any of several other claims that prominent people are pushing to implant or inject microchips into people as a response to COVID-19. PolitiFact previously fact-checked a claim that Democrats were pushing to implant microchips in humans and found it to be false. We found no evidence of proposals or legislation that promoted the use of implanted microchips to fight COVID-19. Other news outlets including FactCheck.org and Reuters have also debunked claims that philanthropist Bill Gates planned to use microchip implants to combat coronavirus. This claim about microchips may have originated from a misinterpretation of a statement Gates made about possibly using 'digital certificates' for health records on immunity. But he never said those certificates would be contained in microchips going into people. Gates's interest in digital certificates may have also triggered false claims that he was pushing tracking bracelets and 'invisible tattoos' to monitor Americans under lockdown. Fauci, too, has spoken about digital certificates of immunity. 'You know, that's possible,' Fauci told CNN when asked if he could imagine a time where Americans carried certificates of immunity. 'It's one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure that we know who the vulnerable people are and not. This is something that's being discussed. I think it might actually have some merit under certain circumstances.' However, PolitiFact could find nothing to support the claim that Fauci said he wants every American microchipped. We rate this claim False.
|
We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111627-proof-04-04047e2a8889677742b71ac2401a7ca7.jpg"
] |
Dr. Fauci says every American should be microchipped.
|
Contradiction
|
Over the course of the coronavirus outbreak, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has become a household name - and a frequent target of misinformation. PolitiFact has debunked several online claims about Fauci from people trying to discredit him, including the idea that he has a financial stake in a coronavirus vaccine and that he served on Microsoft's board of directors. A new claim says Fauci wants to 'microchip' Americans. 'Dr. Fauci says every American should be microchipped,' one Facebook post says. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence to support this claim, or any of several other claims that prominent people are pushing to implant or inject microchips into people as a response to COVID-19. PolitiFact previously fact-checked a claim that Democrats were pushing to implant microchips in humans and found it to be false. We found no evidence of proposals or legislation that promoted the use of implanted microchips to fight COVID-19. Other news outlets including FactCheck.org and Reuters have also debunked claims that philanthropist Bill Gates planned to use microchip implants to combat coronavirus. This claim about microchips may have originated from a misinterpretation of a statement Gates made about possibly using 'digital certificates' for health records on immunity. But he never said those certificates would be contained in microchips going into people. Gates's interest in digital certificates may have also triggered false claims that he was pushing tracking bracelets and 'invisible tattoos' to monitor Americans under lockdown. Fauci, too, has spoken about digital certificates of immunity. 'You know, that's possible,' Fauci told CNN when asked if he could imagine a time where Americans carried certificates of immunity. 'It's one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure that we know who the vulnerable people are and not. This is something that's being discussed. I think it might actually have some merit under certain circumstances.' However, PolitiFact could find nothing to support the claim that Fauci said he wants every American microchipped. We rate this claim False.
|
We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111627-proof-04-04047e2a8889677742b71ac2401a7ca7.jpg"
] |
Dr. Fauci says every American should be microchipped.
|
Contradiction
|
Over the course of the coronavirus outbreak, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has become a household name - and a frequent target of misinformation. PolitiFact has debunked several online claims about Fauci from people trying to discredit him, including the idea that he has a financial stake in a coronavirus vaccine and that he served on Microsoft's board of directors. A new claim says Fauci wants to 'microchip' Americans. 'Dr. Fauci says every American should be microchipped,' one Facebook post says. This post was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) There is no evidence to support this claim, or any of several other claims that prominent people are pushing to implant or inject microchips into people as a response to COVID-19. PolitiFact previously fact-checked a claim that Democrats were pushing to implant microchips in humans and found it to be false. We found no evidence of proposals or legislation that promoted the use of implanted microchips to fight COVID-19. Other news outlets including FactCheck.org and Reuters have also debunked claims that philanthropist Bill Gates planned to use microchip implants to combat coronavirus. This claim about microchips may have originated from a misinterpretation of a statement Gates made about possibly using 'digital certificates' for health records on immunity. But he never said those certificates would be contained in microchips going into people. Gates's interest in digital certificates may have also triggered false claims that he was pushing tracking bracelets and 'invisible tattoos' to monitor Americans under lockdown. Fauci, too, has spoken about digital certificates of immunity. 'You know, that's possible,' Fauci told CNN when asked if he could imagine a time where Americans carried certificates of immunity. 'It's one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure that we know who the vulnerable people are and not. This is something that's being discussed. I think it might actually have some merit under certain circumstances.' However, PolitiFact could find nothing to support the claim that Fauci said he wants every American microchipped. We rate this claim False.
|
We rate this claim False.
|
[
"111627-proof-04-04047e2a8889677742b71ac2401a7ca7.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden 'abandoned Scranton.
|
Contradiction
|
Hours before Joe Biden accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, President Donald Trump held a campaign rally just outside Biden's childhood hometown and accused him of having 'abandoned' the place. Biden was 10 when his family moved away from Scranton. Speaking to supporters gathered in Old Forge, Pa., Trump said this about Biden and Scranton: 'He keeps talking about, 'I was born in Scranton. I lived in Scranton.' Yeah, for a few years, and then he left for another state. You know the state. But this Scranton stuff. That's why I figured I'd come here and explain to you one thing. But I think you people know it better than I do. He left! He abandoned Pennsylvania. He abandoned Scranton.' Biden's family did move to Delaware when he was a kid. But Trump's retelling is a distortion of Biden's enduring relationship with his hometown. Our research shows that Biden maintained close personal relationships and professional ties to Scranton in the more than six decades since he left. Trump and his campaign also say Biden abandoned the people of Scranton less literally by supporting free trade policies that decimated the city's manufacturing sector. We'll get to that one in a bit. Biden's Scranton roots trace back to 1851, when his paternal great-great-grandfather Patrick Blewitt left Ireland after the potato famine and immigrated to the city. He was an engineer who helped design the layout of Scranton's streets. Biden's maternal great-grandfather James Finnegan also came to Scranton after his father immigrated from Ireland in 1849. Biden's parents and both sets of grandparents met in Scranton. He lived in the city until 1953, when his father, who had been commuting to Wilmington to clean boilers for a heating and cooling company, decided to move the family there. But Biden continued to spend most of his summers and holidays with his mother's family in Green Ridge, the predominantly Irish Catholic Scranton neighborhood of his early childhood. In a 2010 interview with GQ, Biden said he visits Scranton often and quipped that he shows up 'anytime Scranton needs something.' 'I don't know how to say no to them. For real. I really don't,' Biden said. 'You know, it's still home.' He returned to Scranton at least half-a-dozen times in the 1970s after he became a U.S. senator from Delaware, Scranton Times-Tribune clips show. Biden spoke at the annual Friendly Sons of St. Patrick of Lackawanna County dinner in 1973, a few weeks after losing his first wife and his daughter in a deadly car accident and being sworn into office at his sons' hospital bedside. In 1976, he was the University of Scranton's undergraduate commencement speaker. And in 1978, he held a campaign fundraiser dubbed a 'Scranton Salute,' where then-Mayor Gene Hickey gave him a key to the city. Two Republicans, former Lackawanna County Commissioner Robert Pettinato and former Sheriff Joseph Wincovitch, helped host the fundraiser. Throughout his time in Congress, Biden was often called the state's 'third senator.' Biden's Scranton ties have even been satirized twice by Saturday Night Live. During his tenure as vice president and while campaigning, Biden visited the greater Scranton area at least 15 times, his official schedule shows, including in 2011 after flooding from Tropical Storm Lee caused hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage in Northeastern Pennsylvania. After touring the damage, Biden did what he often does when he visits Scranton on business: He caught up with childhood friends. The Times-Tribune reported that Biden met with friends from Green Ridge and their families at the Wilkes-Barre Scranton International Airport before boarding Air Force Two. One person who wasn't there that day in 2011 was Charlie Roth, whom Biden had described as his 'closest friend for 54 years' when he returned to Scranton to eulogize him in 2000. Another childhood friend of Biden's was Jimmy Kennedy, a former Scranton district magistrate whom he called 'the maestro of our little gang.' Kennedy's front porch overlooked the backyard of Biden's childhood home on North Washington Avenue. And when Biden entered national politics, his Scranton friends were there to support him. Kennedy chartered a bus to Wilmington with other Biden supporters from Scranton in 1988 when Biden launched his first bid for the presidency. A Times-Tribune photographer captured him holding a banner at the campaign kickoff there that read, 'Scranton, Pa. Claims Biden.' (Kennedy died last year.) Two other close friends, Larry Orr and Tom Bell, went to the same school, worshiped at the same parish, and played in the same little league. Both men still live in the greater Scranton area and were quoted in a recent Times-Tribune story remarking that it feels like Biden never left. 'We used to joke about it,' Bell, 77, a semi-retired insurance agency owner, told the Tribune. 'He was always here.' 'There's nothing phony about him,' Orr, 77, a retired union electrician, who was an usher at Joe and Neilia Biden's wedding in August 1966, told the Tribune. 'As far as our friendships, as far as Scranton, he's not just saying that, he's not just giving you lip service.' Bill Conaboy grew up in Scranton, too, and said he saw Biden's compassion first-hand when his 93-year-old father, a former federal judge, had a heart attack in 2018. Biden drove to Scranton that night and sat at the judge's hospital bedside with his family. Bill recalled how Biden kissed his father's forehead and knelt beside him. Former U.S. District Judge Richard P. Conaboy died the next day. 'For President Trump to suggest that Joe Biden has anything other than deep Scranton roots is just ridiculous,' said Conaboy, 62, who is president of a regional health care system in Northeastern and Central Pennsylvania. 'We're honored to know him and honored to consider him a friend.' There's another, less literal way to assess whether Biden 'abandoned' Scranton. Did the trade policies he supported harm the city's workers? Did Biden let other countries 'steal our jobs,' as Trump claimed in Old Forge? The answer to that question is more nuanced - and central to the economic debate between the two candidates. The North American Free Trade Agreement that Biden supported in 1993 had a direct impact on Scranton's manufacturing sector, said Iordanis Petsas cq, who leads the economics department at the University of Scranton. Almost 20,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared in the region between January 1994 when NAFTA took effect, and December 2016, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows. But economic policy is complex and multifaceted. Scranton's manufacturing sector was already in decline before NAFTA, losing 6,000 jobs between 1990 and 1994, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. And Petsas noted that Scranton's education and health sectors exploded over that same period, with 14,000 new jobs added. 'We lost a lot of manufacturing jobs while gaining in other areas,' Petsas said. 'That result doesn't mean it's bad trade policy.'
|
Our ruling Trump claimed Biden 'abandoned Scranton.' Biden's family moved from Scranton to Wilmington when he was 10, but he has remained deeply connected to his birthplace for more than six decades. He has returned for commencement speeches and little league games. He's come back for fundraisers and after floods. He went home to eulogize his childhood best friend and to comfort a mentor's family as the man lay dying. And while one sector, which was already on the decline, struggled in the wake of policies Biden supported, a leading local economist notes that other sectors have thrived. Trump's version of what happened after Biden moved away is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire.
|
[
"111645-proof-15-3cdd925be919b1d2161ad83621f637b5.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden 'abandoned Scranton.
|
Contradiction
|
Hours before Joe Biden accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, President Donald Trump held a campaign rally just outside Biden's childhood hometown and accused him of having 'abandoned' the place. Biden was 10 when his family moved away from Scranton. Speaking to supporters gathered in Old Forge, Pa., Trump said this about Biden and Scranton: 'He keeps talking about, 'I was born in Scranton. I lived in Scranton.' Yeah, for a few years, and then he left for another state. You know the state. But this Scranton stuff. That's why I figured I'd come here and explain to you one thing. But I think you people know it better than I do. He left! He abandoned Pennsylvania. He abandoned Scranton.' Biden's family did move to Delaware when he was a kid. But Trump's retelling is a distortion of Biden's enduring relationship with his hometown. Our research shows that Biden maintained close personal relationships and professional ties to Scranton in the more than six decades since he left. Trump and his campaign also say Biden abandoned the people of Scranton less literally by supporting free trade policies that decimated the city's manufacturing sector. We'll get to that one in a bit. Biden's Scranton roots trace back to 1851, when his paternal great-great-grandfather Patrick Blewitt left Ireland after the potato famine and immigrated to the city. He was an engineer who helped design the layout of Scranton's streets. Biden's maternal great-grandfather James Finnegan also came to Scranton after his father immigrated from Ireland in 1849. Biden's parents and both sets of grandparents met in Scranton. He lived in the city until 1953, when his father, who had been commuting to Wilmington to clean boilers for a heating and cooling company, decided to move the family there. But Biden continued to spend most of his summers and holidays with his mother's family in Green Ridge, the predominantly Irish Catholic Scranton neighborhood of his early childhood. In a 2010 interview with GQ, Biden said he visits Scranton often and quipped that he shows up 'anytime Scranton needs something.' 'I don't know how to say no to them. For real. I really don't,' Biden said. 'You know, it's still home.' He returned to Scranton at least half-a-dozen times in the 1970s after he became a U.S. senator from Delaware, Scranton Times-Tribune clips show. Biden spoke at the annual Friendly Sons of St. Patrick of Lackawanna County dinner in 1973, a few weeks after losing his first wife and his daughter in a deadly car accident and being sworn into office at his sons' hospital bedside. In 1976, he was the University of Scranton's undergraduate commencement speaker. And in 1978, he held a campaign fundraiser dubbed a 'Scranton Salute,' where then-Mayor Gene Hickey gave him a key to the city. Two Republicans, former Lackawanna County Commissioner Robert Pettinato and former Sheriff Joseph Wincovitch, helped host the fundraiser. Throughout his time in Congress, Biden was often called the state's 'third senator.' Biden's Scranton ties have even been satirized twice by Saturday Night Live. During his tenure as vice president and while campaigning, Biden visited the greater Scranton area at least 15 times, his official schedule shows, including in 2011 after flooding from Tropical Storm Lee caused hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage in Northeastern Pennsylvania. After touring the damage, Biden did what he often does when he visits Scranton on business: He caught up with childhood friends. The Times-Tribune reported that Biden met with friends from Green Ridge and their families at the Wilkes-Barre Scranton International Airport before boarding Air Force Two. One person who wasn't there that day in 2011 was Charlie Roth, whom Biden had described as his 'closest friend for 54 years' when he returned to Scranton to eulogize him in 2000. Another childhood friend of Biden's was Jimmy Kennedy, a former Scranton district magistrate whom he called 'the maestro of our little gang.' Kennedy's front porch overlooked the backyard of Biden's childhood home on North Washington Avenue. And when Biden entered national politics, his Scranton friends were there to support him. Kennedy chartered a bus to Wilmington with other Biden supporters from Scranton in 1988 when Biden launched his first bid for the presidency. A Times-Tribune photographer captured him holding a banner at the campaign kickoff there that read, 'Scranton, Pa. Claims Biden.' (Kennedy died last year.) Two other close friends, Larry Orr and Tom Bell, went to the same school, worshiped at the same parish, and played in the same little league. Both men still live in the greater Scranton area and were quoted in a recent Times-Tribune story remarking that it feels like Biden never left. 'We used to joke about it,' Bell, 77, a semi-retired insurance agency owner, told the Tribune. 'He was always here.' 'There's nothing phony about him,' Orr, 77, a retired union electrician, who was an usher at Joe and Neilia Biden's wedding in August 1966, told the Tribune. 'As far as our friendships, as far as Scranton, he's not just saying that, he's not just giving you lip service.' Bill Conaboy grew up in Scranton, too, and said he saw Biden's compassion first-hand when his 93-year-old father, a former federal judge, had a heart attack in 2018. Biden drove to Scranton that night and sat at the judge's hospital bedside with his family. Bill recalled how Biden kissed his father's forehead and knelt beside him. Former U.S. District Judge Richard P. Conaboy died the next day. 'For President Trump to suggest that Joe Biden has anything other than deep Scranton roots is just ridiculous,' said Conaboy, 62, who is president of a regional health care system in Northeastern and Central Pennsylvania. 'We're honored to know him and honored to consider him a friend.' There's another, less literal way to assess whether Biden 'abandoned' Scranton. Did the trade policies he supported harm the city's workers? Did Biden let other countries 'steal our jobs,' as Trump claimed in Old Forge? The answer to that question is more nuanced - and central to the economic debate between the two candidates. The North American Free Trade Agreement that Biden supported in 1993 had a direct impact on Scranton's manufacturing sector, said Iordanis Petsas cq, who leads the economics department at the University of Scranton. Almost 20,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared in the region between January 1994 when NAFTA took effect, and December 2016, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows. But economic policy is complex and multifaceted. Scranton's manufacturing sector was already in decline before NAFTA, losing 6,000 jobs between 1990 and 1994, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. And Petsas noted that Scranton's education and health sectors exploded over that same period, with 14,000 new jobs added. 'We lost a lot of manufacturing jobs while gaining in other areas,' Petsas said. 'That result doesn't mean it's bad trade policy.'
|
Our ruling Trump claimed Biden 'abandoned Scranton.' Biden's family moved from Scranton to Wilmington when he was 10, but he has remained deeply connected to his birthplace for more than six decades. He has returned for commencement speeches and little league games. He's come back for fundraisers and after floods. He went home to eulogize his childhood best friend and to comfort a mentor's family as the man lay dying. And while one sector, which was already on the decline, struggled in the wake of policies Biden supported, a leading local economist notes that other sectors have thrived. Trump's version of what happened after Biden moved away is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire.
|
[
"111645-proof-15-3cdd925be919b1d2161ad83621f637b5.jpg"
] |
Says Joe Biden 'abandoned Scranton.
|
Contradiction
|
Hours before Joe Biden accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, President Donald Trump held a campaign rally just outside Biden's childhood hometown and accused him of having 'abandoned' the place. Biden was 10 when his family moved away from Scranton. Speaking to supporters gathered in Old Forge, Pa., Trump said this about Biden and Scranton: 'He keeps talking about, 'I was born in Scranton. I lived in Scranton.' Yeah, for a few years, and then he left for another state. You know the state. But this Scranton stuff. That's why I figured I'd come here and explain to you one thing. But I think you people know it better than I do. He left! He abandoned Pennsylvania. He abandoned Scranton.' Biden's family did move to Delaware when he was a kid. But Trump's retelling is a distortion of Biden's enduring relationship with his hometown. Our research shows that Biden maintained close personal relationships and professional ties to Scranton in the more than six decades since he left. Trump and his campaign also say Biden abandoned the people of Scranton less literally by supporting free trade policies that decimated the city's manufacturing sector. We'll get to that one in a bit. Biden's Scranton roots trace back to 1851, when his paternal great-great-grandfather Patrick Blewitt left Ireland after the potato famine and immigrated to the city. He was an engineer who helped design the layout of Scranton's streets. Biden's maternal great-grandfather James Finnegan also came to Scranton after his father immigrated from Ireland in 1849. Biden's parents and both sets of grandparents met in Scranton. He lived in the city until 1953, when his father, who had been commuting to Wilmington to clean boilers for a heating and cooling company, decided to move the family there. But Biden continued to spend most of his summers and holidays with his mother's family in Green Ridge, the predominantly Irish Catholic Scranton neighborhood of his early childhood. In a 2010 interview with GQ, Biden said he visits Scranton often and quipped that he shows up 'anytime Scranton needs something.' 'I don't know how to say no to them. For real. I really don't,' Biden said. 'You know, it's still home.' He returned to Scranton at least half-a-dozen times in the 1970s after he became a U.S. senator from Delaware, Scranton Times-Tribune clips show. Biden spoke at the annual Friendly Sons of St. Patrick of Lackawanna County dinner in 1973, a few weeks after losing his first wife and his daughter in a deadly car accident and being sworn into office at his sons' hospital bedside. In 1976, he was the University of Scranton's undergraduate commencement speaker. And in 1978, he held a campaign fundraiser dubbed a 'Scranton Salute,' where then-Mayor Gene Hickey gave him a key to the city. Two Republicans, former Lackawanna County Commissioner Robert Pettinato and former Sheriff Joseph Wincovitch, helped host the fundraiser. Throughout his time in Congress, Biden was often called the state's 'third senator.' Biden's Scranton ties have even been satirized twice by Saturday Night Live. During his tenure as vice president and while campaigning, Biden visited the greater Scranton area at least 15 times, his official schedule shows, including in 2011 after flooding from Tropical Storm Lee caused hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage in Northeastern Pennsylvania. After touring the damage, Biden did what he often does when he visits Scranton on business: He caught up with childhood friends. The Times-Tribune reported that Biden met with friends from Green Ridge and their families at the Wilkes-Barre Scranton International Airport before boarding Air Force Two. One person who wasn't there that day in 2011 was Charlie Roth, whom Biden had described as his 'closest friend for 54 years' when he returned to Scranton to eulogize him in 2000. Another childhood friend of Biden's was Jimmy Kennedy, a former Scranton district magistrate whom he called 'the maestro of our little gang.' Kennedy's front porch overlooked the backyard of Biden's childhood home on North Washington Avenue. And when Biden entered national politics, his Scranton friends were there to support him. Kennedy chartered a bus to Wilmington with other Biden supporters from Scranton in 1988 when Biden launched his first bid for the presidency. A Times-Tribune photographer captured him holding a banner at the campaign kickoff there that read, 'Scranton, Pa. Claims Biden.' (Kennedy died last year.) Two other close friends, Larry Orr and Tom Bell, went to the same school, worshiped at the same parish, and played in the same little league. Both men still live in the greater Scranton area and were quoted in a recent Times-Tribune story remarking that it feels like Biden never left. 'We used to joke about it,' Bell, 77, a semi-retired insurance agency owner, told the Tribune. 'He was always here.' 'There's nothing phony about him,' Orr, 77, a retired union electrician, who was an usher at Joe and Neilia Biden's wedding in August 1966, told the Tribune. 'As far as our friendships, as far as Scranton, he's not just saying that, he's not just giving you lip service.' Bill Conaboy grew up in Scranton, too, and said he saw Biden's compassion first-hand when his 93-year-old father, a former federal judge, had a heart attack in 2018. Biden drove to Scranton that night and sat at the judge's hospital bedside with his family. Bill recalled how Biden kissed his father's forehead and knelt beside him. Former U.S. District Judge Richard P. Conaboy died the next day. 'For President Trump to suggest that Joe Biden has anything other than deep Scranton roots is just ridiculous,' said Conaboy, 62, who is president of a regional health care system in Northeastern and Central Pennsylvania. 'We're honored to know him and honored to consider him a friend.' There's another, less literal way to assess whether Biden 'abandoned' Scranton. Did the trade policies he supported harm the city's workers? Did Biden let other countries 'steal our jobs,' as Trump claimed in Old Forge? The answer to that question is more nuanced - and central to the economic debate between the two candidates. The North American Free Trade Agreement that Biden supported in 1993 had a direct impact on Scranton's manufacturing sector, said Iordanis Petsas cq, who leads the economics department at the University of Scranton. Almost 20,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared in the region between January 1994 when NAFTA took effect, and December 2016, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows. But economic policy is complex and multifaceted. Scranton's manufacturing sector was already in decline before NAFTA, losing 6,000 jobs between 1990 and 1994, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. And Petsas noted that Scranton's education and health sectors exploded over that same period, with 14,000 new jobs added. 'We lost a lot of manufacturing jobs while gaining in other areas,' Petsas said. 'That result doesn't mean it's bad trade policy.'
|
Our ruling Trump claimed Biden 'abandoned Scranton.' Biden's family moved from Scranton to Wilmington when he was 10, but he has remained deeply connected to his birthplace for more than six decades. He has returned for commencement speeches and little league games. He's come back for fundraisers and after floods. He went home to eulogize his childhood best friend and to comfort a mentor's family as the man lay dying. And while one sector, which was already on the decline, struggled in the wake of policies Biden supported, a leading local economist notes that other sectors have thrived. Trump's version of what happened after Biden moved away is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. We rate it Pants on Fire.
|
[
"111645-proof-15-3cdd925be919b1d2161ad83621f637b5.jpg"
] |
COVID-19 vaccines are creating the coronavirus variants.
|
Contradiction
|
This is a new one. Instead of the established understanding that vaccines help reduce the spread of COVID-19, and thereby decrease the likelihood that the virus will be able to mutate enough to create new variants, a new claim circulating online posits that it's the vaccines that are creating the variants. The claim comes from French virologist Luc Montagnier, a joint recipient of the Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering HIV. But Montagnier has been in the news since for sharing what some scientists characterize as pseudoscientific statements, most recently relating to misinformation about the coronavirus. Montagnier makes the claim in a 2-minute video spreading on Facebook that's spoken in French with English subtitles. It bears the watermark of the RAIR Foundation, which describes itself as a 'grassroots activist organization' that's working to 'combat the threats from Islamic supremacists, radical leftists and their allies.' In the video, Montagnier calls the vaccination program for COVID-19 'an unacceptable mistake' because, according to him, 'it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.' He adds: 'For the China virus there are antibodies created by the vaccine. What does the virus do? Does it die or find another solution? The new variants are a production and result from the vaccination.' 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.) First, it's important to note that we found no evidence that this video is doctored. Bethan John, a French speaker and social media journalist for the misinformation research organization First Draft, wrote up an analysis of the video and says the clip of Montagnier was posted on alternative video sharing platform Odysee by HOLD-UP Média, a group behind a viral French documentary-style video about the pandemic that's been debunked by fact-checkers. John reported that the video's misleading narrative that the vaccines create variants has been gaining traction in France for several weeks. Other First Draft researchers also found the video circulating in Spanish and Portugese and said the subtitles matched the claims Montagnier is seen making in the video, though there are a lot of sharp editing cuts throughout. But while the video appears legitimate, what Montagnier said in it is not. First, several of the variants that are circulating in the global population emerged before COVID-19 vaccines were widely available, like B.1.1.7, the variant that emerged in the United Kingdom in September 2020. Second, the vaccines help reduce the spread of the virus, therefore decreasing the likelihood that it will mutate and create new variants. The video's claim is a distortion of the factual premise that slow vaccine uptake in a population can lead to the development of variants. Viruses try to create variants in order to escape immunity - but that's any immunity - vaccine-induced or natural, which arises from being infected. The difference is that people who are vaccinated are better protected against such variants. 'The virus is always going to try to evolve to promote its own survival,' said Dr. Sarah Fortune, chair of the Immunology and Infectious Diseases department at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 'It doesn't mean people shouldn't get vaccinated. The virus is going to try to evolve to escape natural immunity, even if you choose not to get vaccinated.' She added: 'Either people are going to get sick and get COVID-19, and the virus tries to escape that immune selection, or people can be vaccinated and the virus is going to try to escape that immune selection. Avoiding vaccination is not going to limit the evolution of the virus.' Antibody-dependent enhancement In the video, Montagnier also discusses a phenomenon called 'antibody-dependent enhancement' as a concern with the COVID-19 vaccines. That's a phenomenon that happens when antibodies produced by an infection or a vaccine bind to the viral pathogen, but don't kill it. Sometimes called 'ADE,' it can cause people with antibodies to have more severe symptoms should they end up getting infected later. But the video fails to mention that this has not been observed with COVID-19 or any of the vaccines that have been developed to prevent it. ADE was initially a concern contemplated by scientists when they were creating COVID-19 vaccines. Animal studies were designed to specifically look for signs of ADE, and did not find any evidence of it. There has also been no sign of it happening in the real world rollout of the vaccines. 'With lots and lots of experience with use of antibodies therapeutically, we've seen no evidence of enhancement,' Dr. Stuart Ray, a professor at Johns Hopkins University's medical school, told the Associated Press in a related fact-check. 'We also worried about the possibility that people who were reinfected might have more severe infection, akin to the situation we've seen with dengue virus, and that also hasn't been borne out. So there's really no basis for the claim that's being ascribed to Dr. Montagnier.' Montagnier's pseudoscience claims Shortly after winning the Nobel Prize, Montagnier started to make headlines when he claimed that a 'good immune system' was enough to protect people against AIDS. He has also become known for being anti-vaccination and pro-homeopathy and believes that 'water has memory,' a theory that has been discredited by the scientific community. In 2017, in response to Montagnier's claims that vaccines are poisonous, over 100 academic scientists wrote an open letter that said, 'We, academics of medicine, cannot accept that one of our peers is using his Nobel Prize [status] to spread dangerous health messages outside of his field of knowledge,' according to the French news website Connexion.
|
Our ruling A video on Facebook shows French virologist Luc Montagnier claiming that the COVID-19 vaccines create the variants. The COVID-19 vaccines help reduce the spread of the virus, decreasing the likelihood that it will mutate and create new variants. Several coronavirus variants emerged before the vaccines were rolled out in late 2020. Slow vaccine uptake can cause more variants, since the virus continually looks to evolve and escape any immunity - natural or vaccine-induced. Public health experts say this doesn't mean that people shouldn't get vaccinated, but just the opposite, as faster uptake slows this from happening and will leave people better protected from the virus in the process. We rate this False. RELATED: No, French virologist Luc Montagnier didn't say COVID-19 vaccine recipients were going to die soon
|
[
"111655-proof-15-ee58bb147dcb05f8d4ee3df6897d33af.jpeg"
] |
COVID-19 vaccines are creating the coronavirus variants.
|
Contradiction
|
This is a new one. Instead of the established understanding that vaccines help reduce the spread of COVID-19, and thereby decrease the likelihood that the virus will be able to mutate enough to create new variants, a new claim circulating online posits that it's the vaccines that are creating the variants. The claim comes from French virologist Luc Montagnier, a joint recipient of the Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering HIV. But Montagnier has been in the news since for sharing what some scientists characterize as pseudoscientific statements, most recently relating to misinformation about the coronavirus. Montagnier makes the claim in a 2-minute video spreading on Facebook that's spoken in French with English subtitles. It bears the watermark of the RAIR Foundation, which describes itself as a 'grassroots activist organization' that's working to 'combat the threats from Islamic supremacists, radical leftists and their allies.' In the video, Montagnier calls the vaccination program for COVID-19 'an unacceptable mistake' because, according to him, 'it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.' He adds: 'For the China virus there are antibodies created by the vaccine. What does the virus do? Does it die or find another solution? The new variants are a production and result from the vaccination.' 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.) First, it's important to note that we found no evidence that this video is doctored. Bethan John, a French speaker and social media journalist for the misinformation research organization First Draft, wrote up an analysis of the video and says the clip of Montagnier was posted on alternative video sharing platform Odysee by HOLD-UP Média, a group behind a viral French documentary-style video about the pandemic that's been debunked by fact-checkers. John reported that the video's misleading narrative that the vaccines create variants has been gaining traction in France for several weeks. Other First Draft researchers also found the video circulating in Spanish and Portugese and said the subtitles matched the claims Montagnier is seen making in the video, though there are a lot of sharp editing cuts throughout. But while the video appears legitimate, what Montagnier said in it is not. First, several of the variants that are circulating in the global population emerged before COVID-19 vaccines were widely available, like B.1.1.7, the variant that emerged in the United Kingdom in September 2020. Second, the vaccines help reduce the spread of the virus, therefore decreasing the likelihood that it will mutate and create new variants. The video's claim is a distortion of the factual premise that slow vaccine uptake in a population can lead to the development of variants. Viruses try to create variants in order to escape immunity - but that's any immunity - vaccine-induced or natural, which arises from being infected. The difference is that people who are vaccinated are better protected against such variants. 'The virus is always going to try to evolve to promote its own survival,' said Dr. Sarah Fortune, chair of the Immunology and Infectious Diseases department at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 'It doesn't mean people shouldn't get vaccinated. The virus is going to try to evolve to escape natural immunity, even if you choose not to get vaccinated.' She added: 'Either people are going to get sick and get COVID-19, and the virus tries to escape that immune selection, or people can be vaccinated and the virus is going to try to escape that immune selection. Avoiding vaccination is not going to limit the evolution of the virus.' Antibody-dependent enhancement In the video, Montagnier also discusses a phenomenon called 'antibody-dependent enhancement' as a concern with the COVID-19 vaccines. That's a phenomenon that happens when antibodies produced by an infection or a vaccine bind to the viral pathogen, but don't kill it. Sometimes called 'ADE,' it can cause people with antibodies to have more severe symptoms should they end up getting infected later. But the video fails to mention that this has not been observed with COVID-19 or any of the vaccines that have been developed to prevent it. ADE was initially a concern contemplated by scientists when they were creating COVID-19 vaccines. Animal studies were designed to specifically look for signs of ADE, and did not find any evidence of it. There has also been no sign of it happening in the real world rollout of the vaccines. 'With lots and lots of experience with use of antibodies therapeutically, we've seen no evidence of enhancement,' Dr. Stuart Ray, a professor at Johns Hopkins University's medical school, told the Associated Press in a related fact-check. 'We also worried about the possibility that people who were reinfected might have more severe infection, akin to the situation we've seen with dengue virus, and that also hasn't been borne out. So there's really no basis for the claim that's being ascribed to Dr. Montagnier.' Montagnier's pseudoscience claims Shortly after winning the Nobel Prize, Montagnier started to make headlines when he claimed that a 'good immune system' was enough to protect people against AIDS. He has also become known for being anti-vaccination and pro-homeopathy and believes that 'water has memory,' a theory that has been discredited by the scientific community. In 2017, in response to Montagnier's claims that vaccines are poisonous, over 100 academic scientists wrote an open letter that said, 'We, academics of medicine, cannot accept that one of our peers is using his Nobel Prize [status] to spread dangerous health messages outside of his field of knowledge,' according to the French news website Connexion.
|
Our ruling A video on Facebook shows French virologist Luc Montagnier claiming that the COVID-19 vaccines create the variants. The COVID-19 vaccines help reduce the spread of the virus, decreasing the likelihood that it will mutate and create new variants. Several coronavirus variants emerged before the vaccines were rolled out in late 2020. Slow vaccine uptake can cause more variants, since the virus continually looks to evolve and escape any immunity - natural or vaccine-induced. Public health experts say this doesn't mean that people shouldn't get vaccinated, but just the opposite, as faster uptake slows this from happening and will leave people better protected from the virus in the process. We rate this False. RELATED: No, French virologist Luc Montagnier didn't say COVID-19 vaccine recipients were going to die soon
|
[
"111655-proof-15-ee58bb147dcb05f8d4ee3df6897d33af.jpeg"
] |
COVID-19 vaccines are creating the coronavirus variants.
|
Contradiction
|
This is a new one. Instead of the established understanding that vaccines help reduce the spread of COVID-19, and thereby decrease the likelihood that the virus will be able to mutate enough to create new variants, a new claim circulating online posits that it's the vaccines that are creating the variants. The claim comes from French virologist Luc Montagnier, a joint recipient of the Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering HIV. But Montagnier has been in the news since for sharing what some scientists characterize as pseudoscientific statements, most recently relating to misinformation about the coronavirus. Montagnier makes the claim in a 2-minute video spreading on Facebook that's spoken in French with English subtitles. It bears the watermark of the RAIR Foundation, which describes itself as a 'grassroots activist organization' that's working to 'combat the threats from Islamic supremacists, radical leftists and their allies.' In the video, Montagnier calls the vaccination program for COVID-19 'an unacceptable mistake' because, according to him, 'it is the vaccination that is creating the variants.' He adds: 'For the China virus there are antibodies created by the vaccine. What does the virus do? Does it die or find another solution? The new variants are a production and result from the vaccination.' 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.) First, it's important to note that we found no evidence that this video is doctored. Bethan John, a French speaker and social media journalist for the misinformation research organization First Draft, wrote up an analysis of the video and says the clip of Montagnier was posted on alternative video sharing platform Odysee by HOLD-UP Média, a group behind a viral French documentary-style video about the pandemic that's been debunked by fact-checkers. John reported that the video's misleading narrative that the vaccines create variants has been gaining traction in France for several weeks. Other First Draft researchers also found the video circulating in Spanish and Portugese and said the subtitles matched the claims Montagnier is seen making in the video, though there are a lot of sharp editing cuts throughout. But while the video appears legitimate, what Montagnier said in it is not. First, several of the variants that are circulating in the global population emerged before COVID-19 vaccines were widely available, like B.1.1.7, the variant that emerged in the United Kingdom in September 2020. Second, the vaccines help reduce the spread of the virus, therefore decreasing the likelihood that it will mutate and create new variants. The video's claim is a distortion of the factual premise that slow vaccine uptake in a population can lead to the development of variants. Viruses try to create variants in order to escape immunity - but that's any immunity - vaccine-induced or natural, which arises from being infected. The difference is that people who are vaccinated are better protected against such variants. 'The virus is always going to try to evolve to promote its own survival,' said Dr. Sarah Fortune, chair of the Immunology and Infectious Diseases department at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 'It doesn't mean people shouldn't get vaccinated. The virus is going to try to evolve to escape natural immunity, even if you choose not to get vaccinated.' She added: 'Either people are going to get sick and get COVID-19, and the virus tries to escape that immune selection, or people can be vaccinated and the virus is going to try to escape that immune selection. Avoiding vaccination is not going to limit the evolution of the virus.' Antibody-dependent enhancement In the video, Montagnier also discusses a phenomenon called 'antibody-dependent enhancement' as a concern with the COVID-19 vaccines. That's a phenomenon that happens when antibodies produced by an infection or a vaccine bind to the viral pathogen, but don't kill it. Sometimes called 'ADE,' it can cause people with antibodies to have more severe symptoms should they end up getting infected later. But the video fails to mention that this has not been observed with COVID-19 or any of the vaccines that have been developed to prevent it. ADE was initially a concern contemplated by scientists when they were creating COVID-19 vaccines. Animal studies were designed to specifically look for signs of ADE, and did not find any evidence of it. There has also been no sign of it happening in the real world rollout of the vaccines. 'With lots and lots of experience with use of antibodies therapeutically, we've seen no evidence of enhancement,' Dr. Stuart Ray, a professor at Johns Hopkins University's medical school, told the Associated Press in a related fact-check. 'We also worried about the possibility that people who were reinfected might have more severe infection, akin to the situation we've seen with dengue virus, and that also hasn't been borne out. So there's really no basis for the claim that's being ascribed to Dr. Montagnier.' Montagnier's pseudoscience claims Shortly after winning the Nobel Prize, Montagnier started to make headlines when he claimed that a 'good immune system' was enough to protect people against AIDS. He has also become known for being anti-vaccination and pro-homeopathy and believes that 'water has memory,' a theory that has been discredited by the scientific community. In 2017, in response to Montagnier's claims that vaccines are poisonous, over 100 academic scientists wrote an open letter that said, 'We, academics of medicine, cannot accept that one of our peers is using his Nobel Prize [status] to spread dangerous health messages outside of his field of knowledge,' according to the French news website Connexion.
|
Our ruling A video on Facebook shows French virologist Luc Montagnier claiming that the COVID-19 vaccines create the variants. The COVID-19 vaccines help reduce the spread of the virus, decreasing the likelihood that it will mutate and create new variants. Several coronavirus variants emerged before the vaccines were rolled out in late 2020. Slow vaccine uptake can cause more variants, since the virus continually looks to evolve and escape any immunity - natural or vaccine-induced. Public health experts say this doesn't mean that people shouldn't get vaccinated, but just the opposite, as faster uptake slows this from happening and will leave people better protected from the virus in the process. We rate this False. RELATED: No, French virologist Luc Montagnier didn't say COVID-19 vaccine recipients were going to die soon
|
[
"111655-proof-15-ee58bb147dcb05f8d4ee3df6897d33af.jpeg"
] |
'U.S. hospitals are preparing for 96 million coronavirus infections and nearly half a million deaths, leaked documents reveal.
|
Contradiction
|
In a U.S. population of 329 million, is it possible that 96 million of them will suffer COVID-19? Yes, according to an infectious diseases expert who presented a webinar to members of the American Hospitals Association. But a story being shared on social media ominously refers to 'leaked documents' and carries an alarmist headline that makes it sound as though hospitals are secretly preparing for an outbreak of that size: 'U.S. hospitals are preparing for 96 million coronavirus infections and nearly half a million deaths, leaked documents reveal,' reads a March 7, 2020, headline on an article from the Daily Mail, a British newspaper. 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.) One expert addressing an American Hospital Association webinar estimated there could be 96 million coronavirus cases and 480,000 deaths in the United States. But there isn't evidence to indicate that American hospitals are covertly preparing for an outbreak of this magnitude, as the original headline implies. What's been reported The Daily Mail says the 'leaked documents' were obtained by Business Insider. When we contacted the Daily Mail for this fact-check, a spokesman said the headline would be changed. The headline was changed to: 'US hospitals should prepare for 96 million coronavirus infections and nearly half a million deaths, leaked documents reveal.' That is, 'are preparing' was changed to 'should,' but the leaked documents reference remained. Business Insider, a U.S.-based news website, also used 'leaked' in the headline of its article, which requires a subscription to access. Business Insider reported that it obtained slides from a webinar on COVID-19, the disease caused by the current coronavirus, that was hosted by the American Hospital Association on Feb. 26, 2020. The article said one slide, presented by Dr. James Lawler, an infectious diseases expert and internal medicine professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. He is director of international programs and innovation at its Global Center for Health Security. Lawler, who has treated patients infected with the coronavirus who have been evacuated from China, estimated there could be as many 96 million coronavirus cases and 480,000 deaths in the United States. 'Overall, the slide points out that hospitals should prepare for an impact to the system that's 10 times a severe flu season,' the Business Insider story says. The hospital association confirmed to Business Insider that the slides it reported on were authentic. It said that the information represented the views of the experts who participated, not the association. The association told us the same thing. It did not respond to our questions about whether hospitals are preparing for coronavirus in the numbers estimated by Lawler. No other American mainstream news media have reported on the estimates, according to a Nexis search. Though clearly, with such guidance, hospitals are preparing for a large outbreak. A separate March 7, 2020, story about Lawler's estimates in another United Kingdom-based newspaper, The Independent, said Lawler 'advised hospitals to prepare' for an outbreak of this size. That's a different tone than is implied by the Daily Mail headline. 'I HOPE hospitals are preparing for this,' Lawler told PolitiFact by email. 'Word is percolating through groundswell of professional networks as people hear ground truth from Italy, but I am afraid official sources for information are way behind.'
|
Our ruling The original post said, 'U.S. hospitals are preparing for 96 million coronavirus infections and nearly half a million deaths, leaked documents reveal.' One expert estimated at an American Hospital Association webinar that there could be 96 million coronavirus cases and 480,000 deaths in the United States. But these supposedly 'leaked' documents were slides presented by one epidemiologist during a webinar to members of the American Hospital Association. They don't represent some official attempt to conceal information, as the original Daily Mail headline, later changed, suggests. They also don't provide evidence that hospitals are preparing for coronavirus cases in those numbers, though clearly this information is being used as guidance for hospitals' preparations. The statement is not accurate. We rate it False.
|
[] |
'U.S. hospitals are preparing for 96 million coronavirus infections and nearly half a million deaths, leaked documents reveal.
|
Contradiction
|
In a U.S. population of 329 million, is it possible that 96 million of them will suffer COVID-19? Yes, according to an infectious diseases expert who presented a webinar to members of the American Hospitals Association. But a story being shared on social media ominously refers to 'leaked documents' and carries an alarmist headline that makes it sound as though hospitals are secretly preparing for an outbreak of that size: 'U.S. hospitals are preparing for 96 million coronavirus infections and nearly half a million deaths, leaked documents reveal,' reads a March 7, 2020, headline on an article from the Daily Mail, a British newspaper. 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.) One expert addressing an American Hospital Association webinar estimated there could be 96 million coronavirus cases and 480,000 deaths in the United States. But there isn't evidence to indicate that American hospitals are covertly preparing for an outbreak of this magnitude, as the original headline implies. What's been reported The Daily Mail says the 'leaked documents' were obtained by Business Insider. When we contacted the Daily Mail for this fact-check, a spokesman said the headline would be changed. The headline was changed to: 'US hospitals should prepare for 96 million coronavirus infections and nearly half a million deaths, leaked documents reveal.' That is, 'are preparing' was changed to 'should,' but the leaked documents reference remained. Business Insider, a U.S.-based news website, also used 'leaked' in the headline of its article, which requires a subscription to access. Business Insider reported that it obtained slides from a webinar on COVID-19, the disease caused by the current coronavirus, that was hosted by the American Hospital Association on Feb. 26, 2020. The article said one slide, presented by Dr. James Lawler, an infectious diseases expert and internal medicine professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. He is director of international programs and innovation at its Global Center for Health Security. Lawler, who has treated patients infected with the coronavirus who have been evacuated from China, estimated there could be as many 96 million coronavirus cases and 480,000 deaths in the United States. 'Overall, the slide points out that hospitals should prepare for an impact to the system that's 10 times a severe flu season,' the Business Insider story says. The hospital association confirmed to Business Insider that the slides it reported on were authentic. It said that the information represented the views of the experts who participated, not the association. The association told us the same thing. It did not respond to our questions about whether hospitals are preparing for coronavirus in the numbers estimated by Lawler. No other American mainstream news media have reported on the estimates, according to a Nexis search. Though clearly, with such guidance, hospitals are preparing for a large outbreak. A separate March 7, 2020, story about Lawler's estimates in another United Kingdom-based newspaper, The Independent, said Lawler 'advised hospitals to prepare' for an outbreak of this size. That's a different tone than is implied by the Daily Mail headline. 'I HOPE hospitals are preparing for this,' Lawler told PolitiFact by email. 'Word is percolating through groundswell of professional networks as people hear ground truth from Italy, but I am afraid official sources for information are way behind.'
|
Our ruling The original post said, 'U.S. hospitals are preparing for 96 million coronavirus infections and nearly half a million deaths, leaked documents reveal.' One expert estimated at an American Hospital Association webinar that there could be 96 million coronavirus cases and 480,000 deaths in the United States. But these supposedly 'leaked' documents were slides presented by one epidemiologist during a webinar to members of the American Hospital Association. They don't represent some official attempt to conceal information, as the original Daily Mail headline, later changed, suggests. They also don't provide evidence that hospitals are preparing for coronavirus cases in those numbers, though clearly this information is being used as guidance for hospitals' preparations. The statement is not accurate. We rate it False.
|
[] |
'U.S. hospitals are preparing for 96 million coronavirus infections and nearly half a million deaths, leaked documents reveal.
|
Contradiction
|
In a U.S. population of 329 million, is it possible that 96 million of them will suffer COVID-19? Yes, according to an infectious diseases expert who presented a webinar to members of the American Hospitals Association. But a story being shared on social media ominously refers to 'leaked documents' and carries an alarmist headline that makes it sound as though hospitals are secretly preparing for an outbreak of that size: 'U.S. hospitals are preparing for 96 million coronavirus infections and nearly half a million deaths, leaked documents reveal,' reads a March 7, 2020, headline on an article from the Daily Mail, a British newspaper. 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.) One expert addressing an American Hospital Association webinar estimated there could be 96 million coronavirus cases and 480,000 deaths in the United States. But there isn't evidence to indicate that American hospitals are covertly preparing for an outbreak of this magnitude, as the original headline implies. What's been reported The Daily Mail says the 'leaked documents' were obtained by Business Insider. When we contacted the Daily Mail for this fact-check, a spokesman said the headline would be changed. The headline was changed to: 'US hospitals should prepare for 96 million coronavirus infections and nearly half a million deaths, leaked documents reveal.' That is, 'are preparing' was changed to 'should,' but the leaked documents reference remained. Business Insider, a U.S.-based news website, also used 'leaked' in the headline of its article, which requires a subscription to access. Business Insider reported that it obtained slides from a webinar on COVID-19, the disease caused by the current coronavirus, that was hosted by the American Hospital Association on Feb. 26, 2020. The article said one slide, presented by Dr. James Lawler, an infectious diseases expert and internal medicine professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. He is director of international programs and innovation at its Global Center for Health Security. Lawler, who has treated patients infected with the coronavirus who have been evacuated from China, estimated there could be as many 96 million coronavirus cases and 480,000 deaths in the United States. 'Overall, the slide points out that hospitals should prepare for an impact to the system that's 10 times a severe flu season,' the Business Insider story says. The hospital association confirmed to Business Insider that the slides it reported on were authentic. It said that the information represented the views of the experts who participated, not the association. The association told us the same thing. It did not respond to our questions about whether hospitals are preparing for coronavirus in the numbers estimated by Lawler. No other American mainstream news media have reported on the estimates, according to a Nexis search. Though clearly, with such guidance, hospitals are preparing for a large outbreak. A separate March 7, 2020, story about Lawler's estimates in another United Kingdom-based newspaper, The Independent, said Lawler 'advised hospitals to prepare' for an outbreak of this size. That's a different tone than is implied by the Daily Mail headline. 'I HOPE hospitals are preparing for this,' Lawler told PolitiFact by email. 'Word is percolating through groundswell of professional networks as people hear ground truth from Italy, but I am afraid official sources for information are way behind.'
|
Our ruling The original post said, 'U.S. hospitals are preparing for 96 million coronavirus infections and nearly half a million deaths, leaked documents reveal.' One expert estimated at an American Hospital Association webinar that there could be 96 million coronavirus cases and 480,000 deaths in the United States. But these supposedly 'leaked' documents were slides presented by one epidemiologist during a webinar to members of the American Hospital Association. They don't represent some official attempt to conceal information, as the original Daily Mail headline, later changed, suggests. They also don't provide evidence that hospitals are preparing for coronavirus cases in those numbers, though clearly this information is being used as guidance for hospitals' preparations. The statement is not accurate. We rate it False.
|
[] |
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris 'continuously questioned the vaccine during the campaign' but now 'they support vaccine cards and forced vaccinations.
|
Contradiction
|
One line of attack on President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris over COVID-19 holds that they went from opposing vaccines during the 2020 presidential campaign, while Donald Trump was in office, to mandating them now. 'Biden & Kamala continuously questioned the vaccine during the campaign. Yet now they apparently love it so much they support Vaccine Cards & Forced Vaccinations,' an Instagram post charges. 'Their position flipped flopped solely bc of who was in the White House, this is why we don't trust those in power!' 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 not correct that Biden and Harris questioned COVID-19 vaccines. They said they did not trust Trump, and whether he would roll out the vaccines safely. The Biden administration supports requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for certain people, such as members of the military. Vaccines: We rated False a claim that Biden and Harris distrusted COVID-19 vaccines. They said they trusted public health experts, but questioned Trump's trustworthiness, his ability to roll out the vaccines safely and the risk of political influence over vaccine development. Trump was publicly touting the promise of a rapidly developed COVID-19 vaccine as early as March 2020, when fears of a global pandemic were just beginning to flare, and said he was urging researchers working on the vaccine to 'speed it up.' Scientists and drug makers, meanwhile, were urging more caution on the timeline and said they were emphasizing safety and effectiveness over speed. Vaccine 'cards': Biden addressed the issue at a press conference Aug. 3. Asked whether more cities and states should follow New York City in requiring proof of vaccination to enter places such as restaurants and gyms, Biden replied: 'I do.' Biden was also asked: 'Do you think that they should institute a vaccine passport-type system or some sort of verification to use public spaces?' He replied: 'I don't think they need to do that. I think they just need to give the authority of those restaurants or businesses to say, 'In order to come in, you have to give proof that you've been vaccinated or you can't come in.'' Vaccinations: Biden is requiring federal workers and contractors to sign forms attesting that they have been vaccinated against COVID-19, or requiring them to submit to regular testing and other requirements. The Pentagon is requiring all members of the military to be vaccinated. The Department of Veterans Affairs is requiring 115,000 of its frontline health care workers to be vaccinated. On Aug. 18, Biden announced he will soon require employees in nursing homes that serve people who are on Medicare or Medicaid to be vaccinated, or the nursing homes will lose funding from those two programs. We rated False a claim that Biden promoted 'mandatory vaccines for everybody' in a March 11 speech. On July 30, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said there will be no nationwide mandate for Americans to get a COVID-19 vaccine. In his Aug. 18 remarks, Biden said: 'While I'm mindful that my authority at the federal level is limited, I'm going to continue to look for ways to keep people safe and increase vaccination rates.'
|
Our ruling An Instagram post claims that Biden and Harris 'continuously questioned the vaccine during the campaign,' but now 'they support vaccine cards and forced vaccinations.' Biden and Harris questioned whether Trump would roll out COVID-19 vaccines safely. They did not question the vaccines themselves. Biden says he supports requirements for showing proof of vaccination to enter certain places, but does not back vaccine passports. The Biden administration supports requiring some people, such as members of the military and VA hospital workers, to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The Instagram post contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"111712-proof-27-acaf12ec692c81628075bc3709d224cf.jpg"
] |
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris 'continuously questioned the vaccine during the campaign' but now 'they support vaccine cards and forced vaccinations.
|
Contradiction
|
One line of attack on President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris over COVID-19 holds that they went from opposing vaccines during the 2020 presidential campaign, while Donald Trump was in office, to mandating them now. 'Biden & Kamala continuously questioned the vaccine during the campaign. Yet now they apparently love it so much they support Vaccine Cards & Forced Vaccinations,' an Instagram post charges. 'Their position flipped flopped solely bc of who was in the White House, this is why we don't trust those in power!' 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 not correct that Biden and Harris questioned COVID-19 vaccines. They said they did not trust Trump, and whether he would roll out the vaccines safely. The Biden administration supports requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for certain people, such as members of the military. Vaccines: We rated False a claim that Biden and Harris distrusted COVID-19 vaccines. They said they trusted public health experts, but questioned Trump's trustworthiness, his ability to roll out the vaccines safely and the risk of political influence over vaccine development. Trump was publicly touting the promise of a rapidly developed COVID-19 vaccine as early as March 2020, when fears of a global pandemic were just beginning to flare, and said he was urging researchers working on the vaccine to 'speed it up.' Scientists and drug makers, meanwhile, were urging more caution on the timeline and said they were emphasizing safety and effectiveness over speed. Vaccine 'cards': Biden addressed the issue at a press conference Aug. 3. Asked whether more cities and states should follow New York City in requiring proof of vaccination to enter places such as restaurants and gyms, Biden replied: 'I do.' Biden was also asked: 'Do you think that they should institute a vaccine passport-type system or some sort of verification to use public spaces?' He replied: 'I don't think they need to do that. I think they just need to give the authority of those restaurants or businesses to say, 'In order to come in, you have to give proof that you've been vaccinated or you can't come in.'' Vaccinations: Biden is requiring federal workers and contractors to sign forms attesting that they have been vaccinated against COVID-19, or requiring them to submit to regular testing and other requirements. The Pentagon is requiring all members of the military to be vaccinated. The Department of Veterans Affairs is requiring 115,000 of its frontline health care workers to be vaccinated. On Aug. 18, Biden announced he will soon require employees in nursing homes that serve people who are on Medicare or Medicaid to be vaccinated, or the nursing homes will lose funding from those two programs. We rated False a claim that Biden promoted 'mandatory vaccines for everybody' in a March 11 speech. On July 30, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said there will be no nationwide mandate for Americans to get a COVID-19 vaccine. In his Aug. 18 remarks, Biden said: 'While I'm mindful that my authority at the federal level is limited, I'm going to continue to look for ways to keep people safe and increase vaccination rates.'
|
Our ruling An Instagram post claims that Biden and Harris 'continuously questioned the vaccine during the campaign,' but now 'they support vaccine cards and forced vaccinations.' Biden and Harris questioned whether Trump would roll out COVID-19 vaccines safely. They did not question the vaccines themselves. Biden says he supports requirements for showing proof of vaccination to enter certain places, but does not back vaccine passports. The Biden administration supports requiring some people, such as members of the military and VA hospital workers, to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The Instagram post contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
|
[
"111712-proof-27-acaf12ec692c81628075bc3709d224cf.jpg"
] |
'The cost of an automobile, it's kind of back to what it was before the pandemic.
|
Contradiction
|
During a recent CNN town hall, a questioner pressed President Joe Biden about price increases during the economic recovery, including higher prices for cars. 'First of all, the good news is the economy is picking up significantly,' Biden said during the July 21 town hall in Cincinnati. 'It's rational, when you think about it. The cost of an automobile is kind of back to what it was before the pandemic.' That's not correct, by any metric we could find. A shortage in microchips has slowed new-car production, and a decreased supply of new cars has pushed more potential purchasers into the used car market. That, in turn, has prompted prices of used cars to skyrocket. Meanwhile, there's no immediate end in sight for the microchip shortage, so the higher prices could be with us for a while. The White House did not respond to an inquiry for this article. Federal data shows the comparison clearly. Every month, the federal government computes the increase in prices for a wide variety of consumer goods, including new and used cars. For new and used cars, prices were stable for years but began to increase in the summer of 2020. By June 2021, prices were up almost 21% over their level right before the pandemic hit. Most of this increase was driven by prices for used cars. New cars rose by 5.3% over that period, but used cars rose by 43.3%. This trend is echoed by data compiled by private-sector companies that track auto sales. Kelley Blue Book found that the average transaction price for a new light vehicle hit a record in June 2021, at $42,258. 'In June, for the first time in a decade, vehicle buyers were essentially paying sticker price - the manufacturer's suggested retail price - for new vehicles,' said Kayla Reynolds, an industry intelligence analyst at Cox Automotive, which owns Kelley Blue Book. Edmunds, which tracks automobile prices, found that even well-worn vehicles are flying off sales lots with big premiums. The average transaction price for vehicles with mileage between 100,000 and 110,000 climbed 31% to a record $16,489 in June 2021, compared with $12,626 a year earlier. And J.D. Power found that wholesale auction prices for used cars, which help determine the prices that consumers face downstream, are 39% above their level in December 2020. We should note that the chip shortage is not the only factor in the price rise. Consumer preferences - mainly for bigger, more tricked-out vehicles - have driven price increases for several years. Americans have been 'opting to purchase more expensive and larger vehicles, even during the pandemic,' said Talia James-Armand, an associate director for communications with Edmunds. She shared Edmunds data showing that passenger cars are relatively affordable, whereas SUVs and trucks are doing the most to push up average vehicle prices. In any case, none of the data shows that prices are headed down to where they were before the pandemic, as Biden said.
|
Our ruling Biden said that 'the cost of an automobile, it's kind of back to what it was before the pandemic.' It's not back to where it was, or even close. Federal and private-sector data agrees: New and used car prices are on an upward trajectory, smashing records along the way. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"111714-proof-00-4111f909019101c91e110af9abaeeacf.jpg"
] |
'The cost of an automobile, it's kind of back to what it was before the pandemic.
|
Contradiction
|
During a recent CNN town hall, a questioner pressed President Joe Biden about price increases during the economic recovery, including higher prices for cars. 'First of all, the good news is the economy is picking up significantly,' Biden said during the July 21 town hall in Cincinnati. 'It's rational, when you think about it. The cost of an automobile is kind of back to what it was before the pandemic.' That's not correct, by any metric we could find. A shortage in microchips has slowed new-car production, and a decreased supply of new cars has pushed more potential purchasers into the used car market. That, in turn, has prompted prices of used cars to skyrocket. Meanwhile, there's no immediate end in sight for the microchip shortage, so the higher prices could be with us for a while. The White House did not respond to an inquiry for this article. Federal data shows the comparison clearly. Every month, the federal government computes the increase in prices for a wide variety of consumer goods, including new and used cars. For new and used cars, prices were stable for years but began to increase in the summer of 2020. By June 2021, prices were up almost 21% over their level right before the pandemic hit. Most of this increase was driven by prices for used cars. New cars rose by 5.3% over that period, but used cars rose by 43.3%. This trend is echoed by data compiled by private-sector companies that track auto sales. Kelley Blue Book found that the average transaction price for a new light vehicle hit a record in June 2021, at $42,258. 'In June, for the first time in a decade, vehicle buyers were essentially paying sticker price - the manufacturer's suggested retail price - for new vehicles,' said Kayla Reynolds, an industry intelligence analyst at Cox Automotive, which owns Kelley Blue Book. Edmunds, which tracks automobile prices, found that even well-worn vehicles are flying off sales lots with big premiums. The average transaction price for vehicles with mileage between 100,000 and 110,000 climbed 31% to a record $16,489 in June 2021, compared with $12,626 a year earlier. And J.D. Power found that wholesale auction prices for used cars, which help determine the prices that consumers face downstream, are 39% above their level in December 2020. We should note that the chip shortage is not the only factor in the price rise. Consumer preferences - mainly for bigger, more tricked-out vehicles - have driven price increases for several years. Americans have been 'opting to purchase more expensive and larger vehicles, even during the pandemic,' said Talia James-Armand, an associate director for communications with Edmunds. She shared Edmunds data showing that passenger cars are relatively affordable, whereas SUVs and trucks are doing the most to push up average vehicle prices. In any case, none of the data shows that prices are headed down to where they were before the pandemic, as Biden said.
|
Our ruling Biden said that 'the cost of an automobile, it's kind of back to what it was before the pandemic.' It's not back to where it was, or even close. Federal and private-sector data agrees: New and used car prices are on an upward trajectory, smashing records along the way. We rate the statement False.
|
[
"111714-proof-00-4111f909019101c91e110af9abaeeacf.jpg"
] |
North Carolina's health department is 'telling hospitals that if they decide to do elective surgeries, they won't be eligible to receive (protective equipment) from the state.
|
Contradiction
|
A North Carolina legislator claims that the state health department threatened to withhold equipment from hospitals if they resumed elective procedures. But the health department has denied the claim, and PolitiFact could not confirm that the ultimatum was ever seriously considered or even communicated to hospitals. Mandy Cohen, secretary of North Carolina's Department of Health and Human Services, requested on March 23 that hospitals suspend non-urgent procedures. The goal was to prevent unnecessary human contact, ensure COVID-19 patients got the care they needed, and preserve the state's limited supply of protective equipment. At the same time, halting elective procedures meant hospitals lost out on revenue generated from those procedures. So it makes sense that they'd want to resume them. This is where state Senator Warren Daniel comes in. Daniel, a Republican from western North Carolina, tweeted on April 23 that hospitals might be punished if they choose to resume those procedures. 'It's being reported that NC DHHS is telling hospitals that if they decide to do elective surgeries, they won't be eligible to receive PPE from the state,' Daniel tweeted, referring to personal protective equipment. He suggested the alleged threat was contrived by Cohen. Aside from Gov. Roy Cooper, Cohen has been perhaps the state's most visible government official during the pandemic. Daniel referred to the decision as 'The heavy hand of government,' adding: 'I hope Secretary Cohen will reverse course.' When PolitiFact reached out to Daniel, he said he got the information from the N.C. Healthcare Association, which represents hospitals across the state. Conversation with a staffer Daniel said the association 'reported to legislators last week that DHHS told them if hospitals began offering elective surgeries again, then the state would not give them additional PPE.' He added: 'When I heard that I was shocked and thought it was something the public deserved to know.' We reached out to the NC Healthcare Association and were referred to Leah Burns, the group's senior director of government relations. 'I had a conversation with a staffer at DHHS where this notion was discussed that PPE would potentially be withheld from hospitals if hospitals began elective surgeries,' Burns said. She declined to identify the DHHS staffer she spoke with. 'After my conversation with the DHHS staffer, I spoke with a legislative staffer about it. Since then, this idea has not come to fruition, and I do not believe DHHS is withholding PPE from any hospitals in North Carolina,' Burns said. She declined to identify the legislative staffer she spoke with. Eight days after Daniel's tweet, on May 1, DHHS offered guidance to hospitals on how they could resume elective procedures. That letter mentions the lack of PPE across the state, stating: 'If appropriate PPE is unavailable to protect the health care worker or the supply of appropriate PPE is limited, then the non-time sensitive surgery or procedure should be cancelled.' But the letter doesn't say hospitals would be cut off from resources if they didn't obey the guidelines. What DHHS said When we asked DHHS about Daniel's tweet, spokeswoman Amy Ellis denied his claim. 'That is false. Secretary Cohen did not say that,' Ellis said in an email and referred us back to the hospital Association. When we relayed what Burns said, Ellis suggested someone got confused about the department's plans. 'Secretary Cohen has never indicated that,' she said. 'Conversations between staffers can easily be misunderstood.' Since Daniel posted his tweet, several North Carolina hospitals announced plans to resume some elective procedures. What hospitals said PolitiFact reached out to several hospital systems to see if DHHS threatened to withhold PPE. 'I'm told that's not true,' said Alan Wolf, spokesman for the UNC Health System. He added that UNC Health leaders and providers are growing concerned about further delays in care for some patients. UNC Health has been doing less than half its usual volume of procedures and will probably increase it to 65% to 75%, Linda Butler, the system's chief medical officer, recently told the News & Observer. Duke Health didn't receive any correspondence from DHHS indicating the department might withhold PPE, said Sarah Avery, director of Duke's Health News Office. 'Duke Health hospitals received a letter May 1 from the secretary of the state Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, notifying us that the elective and non-urgent procedures and surgeries can be resumed in accordance with guidance developed by the North Carolina Healthcare Association (NCHA),' Avery said. Novant and Wake Forest Baptist hospitals also plan to resume elective procedures, according to the Winston-Salem Journal. PolitiFact called and emailed those health systems, but neither responded to questions about Daniel's claim.
|
Our ruling Sen. Daniel tweeted: 'It's being reported that NC DHHS is telling hospitals that if they decide to do elective surgeries, they won't be eligible to receive PPE from the state.' Let's break that down. The only 'report' Daniel cited -- and the only report PolitiFact could track down -- was a conversation between a DHHS staffer and a representative for the North Carolina Healthcare Association. DHHS denied that the staffer said what the association's representative claimed, describing their conversation as a misunderstanding. Daniel said 'DHHS is telling hospitals' about the conditions for receiving PPE. But hospitals who spoke to PolitiFact said they were never given the alleged ultimatum. Daniel's tweet also tied the ultimatum to secretary Cohen. But, in her email to PolitiFact, the association's representative didn't tie the 'notion' to Cohen, and we couldn't find any other evidence that DHHS threatened to withhold PPE from hospitals that resumed elective surgeries. This leaves us with a he said-she said situation about a claim that never came to fruition. Given Daniel's claim lacks evidence, we rate it false.
|
[
"111726-proof-52-95babc1cc58c7b4dc78a5e1915c81991.jpg"
] |
North Carolina's health department is 'telling hospitals that if they decide to do elective surgeries, they won't be eligible to receive (protective equipment) from the state.
|
Contradiction
|
A North Carolina legislator claims that the state health department threatened to withhold equipment from hospitals if they resumed elective procedures. But the health department has denied the claim, and PolitiFact could not confirm that the ultimatum was ever seriously considered or even communicated to hospitals. Mandy Cohen, secretary of North Carolina's Department of Health and Human Services, requested on March 23 that hospitals suspend non-urgent procedures. The goal was to prevent unnecessary human contact, ensure COVID-19 patients got the care they needed, and preserve the state's limited supply of protective equipment. At the same time, halting elective procedures meant hospitals lost out on revenue generated from those procedures. So it makes sense that they'd want to resume them. This is where state Senator Warren Daniel comes in. Daniel, a Republican from western North Carolina, tweeted on April 23 that hospitals might be punished if they choose to resume those procedures. 'It's being reported that NC DHHS is telling hospitals that if they decide to do elective surgeries, they won't be eligible to receive PPE from the state,' Daniel tweeted, referring to personal protective equipment. He suggested the alleged threat was contrived by Cohen. Aside from Gov. Roy Cooper, Cohen has been perhaps the state's most visible government official during the pandemic. Daniel referred to the decision as 'The heavy hand of government,' adding: 'I hope Secretary Cohen will reverse course.' When PolitiFact reached out to Daniel, he said he got the information from the N.C. Healthcare Association, which represents hospitals across the state. Conversation with a staffer Daniel said the association 'reported to legislators last week that DHHS told them if hospitals began offering elective surgeries again, then the state would not give them additional PPE.' He added: 'When I heard that I was shocked and thought it was something the public deserved to know.' We reached out to the NC Healthcare Association and were referred to Leah Burns, the group's senior director of government relations. 'I had a conversation with a staffer at DHHS where this notion was discussed that PPE would potentially be withheld from hospitals if hospitals began elective surgeries,' Burns said. She declined to identify the DHHS staffer she spoke with. 'After my conversation with the DHHS staffer, I spoke with a legislative staffer about it. Since then, this idea has not come to fruition, and I do not believe DHHS is withholding PPE from any hospitals in North Carolina,' Burns said. She declined to identify the legislative staffer she spoke with. Eight days after Daniel's tweet, on May 1, DHHS offered guidance to hospitals on how they could resume elective procedures. That letter mentions the lack of PPE across the state, stating: 'If appropriate PPE is unavailable to protect the health care worker or the supply of appropriate PPE is limited, then the non-time sensitive surgery or procedure should be cancelled.' But the letter doesn't say hospitals would be cut off from resources if they didn't obey the guidelines. What DHHS said When we asked DHHS about Daniel's tweet, spokeswoman Amy Ellis denied his claim. 'That is false. Secretary Cohen did not say that,' Ellis said in an email and referred us back to the hospital Association. When we relayed what Burns said, Ellis suggested someone got confused about the department's plans. 'Secretary Cohen has never indicated that,' she said. 'Conversations between staffers can easily be misunderstood.' Since Daniel posted his tweet, several North Carolina hospitals announced plans to resume some elective procedures. What hospitals said PolitiFact reached out to several hospital systems to see if DHHS threatened to withhold PPE. 'I'm told that's not true,' said Alan Wolf, spokesman for the UNC Health System. He added that UNC Health leaders and providers are growing concerned about further delays in care for some patients. UNC Health has been doing less than half its usual volume of procedures and will probably increase it to 65% to 75%, Linda Butler, the system's chief medical officer, recently told the News & Observer. Duke Health didn't receive any correspondence from DHHS indicating the department might withhold PPE, said Sarah Avery, director of Duke's Health News Office. 'Duke Health hospitals received a letter May 1 from the secretary of the state Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, notifying us that the elective and non-urgent procedures and surgeries can be resumed in accordance with guidance developed by the North Carolina Healthcare Association (NCHA),' Avery said. Novant and Wake Forest Baptist hospitals also plan to resume elective procedures, according to the Winston-Salem Journal. PolitiFact called and emailed those health systems, but neither responded to questions about Daniel's claim.
|
Our ruling Sen. Daniel tweeted: 'It's being reported that NC DHHS is telling hospitals that if they decide to do elective surgeries, they won't be eligible to receive PPE from the state.' Let's break that down. The only 'report' Daniel cited -- and the only report PolitiFact could track down -- was a conversation between a DHHS staffer and a representative for the North Carolina Healthcare Association. DHHS denied that the staffer said what the association's representative claimed, describing their conversation as a misunderstanding. Daniel said 'DHHS is telling hospitals' about the conditions for receiving PPE. But hospitals who spoke to PolitiFact said they were never given the alleged ultimatum. Daniel's tweet also tied the ultimatum to secretary Cohen. But, in her email to PolitiFact, the association's representative didn't tie the 'notion' to Cohen, and we couldn't find any other evidence that DHHS threatened to withhold PPE from hospitals that resumed elective surgeries. This leaves us with a he said-she said situation about a claim that never came to fruition. Given Daniel's claim lacks evidence, we rate it false.
|
[
"111726-proof-52-95babc1cc58c7b4dc78a5e1915c81991.jpg"
] |
North Carolina's health department is 'telling hospitals that if they decide to do elective surgeries, they won't be eligible to receive (protective equipment) from the state.
|
Contradiction
|
A North Carolina legislator claims that the state health department threatened to withhold equipment from hospitals if they resumed elective procedures. But the health department has denied the claim, and PolitiFact could not confirm that the ultimatum was ever seriously considered or even communicated to hospitals. Mandy Cohen, secretary of North Carolina's Department of Health and Human Services, requested on March 23 that hospitals suspend non-urgent procedures. The goal was to prevent unnecessary human contact, ensure COVID-19 patients got the care they needed, and preserve the state's limited supply of protective equipment. At the same time, halting elective procedures meant hospitals lost out on revenue generated from those procedures. So it makes sense that they'd want to resume them. This is where state Senator Warren Daniel comes in. Daniel, a Republican from western North Carolina, tweeted on April 23 that hospitals might be punished if they choose to resume those procedures. 'It's being reported that NC DHHS is telling hospitals that if they decide to do elective surgeries, they won't be eligible to receive PPE from the state,' Daniel tweeted, referring to personal protective equipment. He suggested the alleged threat was contrived by Cohen. Aside from Gov. Roy Cooper, Cohen has been perhaps the state's most visible government official during the pandemic. Daniel referred to the decision as 'The heavy hand of government,' adding: 'I hope Secretary Cohen will reverse course.' When PolitiFact reached out to Daniel, he said he got the information from the N.C. Healthcare Association, which represents hospitals across the state. Conversation with a staffer Daniel said the association 'reported to legislators last week that DHHS told them if hospitals began offering elective surgeries again, then the state would not give them additional PPE.' He added: 'When I heard that I was shocked and thought it was something the public deserved to know.' We reached out to the NC Healthcare Association and were referred to Leah Burns, the group's senior director of government relations. 'I had a conversation with a staffer at DHHS where this notion was discussed that PPE would potentially be withheld from hospitals if hospitals began elective surgeries,' Burns said. She declined to identify the DHHS staffer she spoke with. 'After my conversation with the DHHS staffer, I spoke with a legislative staffer about it. Since then, this idea has not come to fruition, and I do not believe DHHS is withholding PPE from any hospitals in North Carolina,' Burns said. She declined to identify the legislative staffer she spoke with. Eight days after Daniel's tweet, on May 1, DHHS offered guidance to hospitals on how they could resume elective procedures. That letter mentions the lack of PPE across the state, stating: 'If appropriate PPE is unavailable to protect the health care worker or the supply of appropriate PPE is limited, then the non-time sensitive surgery or procedure should be cancelled.' But the letter doesn't say hospitals would be cut off from resources if they didn't obey the guidelines. What DHHS said When we asked DHHS about Daniel's tweet, spokeswoman Amy Ellis denied his claim. 'That is false. Secretary Cohen did not say that,' Ellis said in an email and referred us back to the hospital Association. When we relayed what Burns said, Ellis suggested someone got confused about the department's plans. 'Secretary Cohen has never indicated that,' she said. 'Conversations between staffers can easily be misunderstood.' Since Daniel posted his tweet, several North Carolina hospitals announced plans to resume some elective procedures. What hospitals said PolitiFact reached out to several hospital systems to see if DHHS threatened to withhold PPE. 'I'm told that's not true,' said Alan Wolf, spokesman for the UNC Health System. He added that UNC Health leaders and providers are growing concerned about further delays in care for some patients. UNC Health has been doing less than half its usual volume of procedures and will probably increase it to 65% to 75%, Linda Butler, the system's chief medical officer, recently told the News & Observer. Duke Health didn't receive any correspondence from DHHS indicating the department might withhold PPE, said Sarah Avery, director of Duke's Health News Office. 'Duke Health hospitals received a letter May 1 from the secretary of the state Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Mandy Cohen, notifying us that the elective and non-urgent procedures and surgeries can be resumed in accordance with guidance developed by the North Carolina Healthcare Association (NCHA),' Avery said. Novant and Wake Forest Baptist hospitals also plan to resume elective procedures, according to the Winston-Salem Journal. PolitiFact called and emailed those health systems, but neither responded to questions about Daniel's claim.
|
Our ruling Sen. Daniel tweeted: 'It's being reported that NC DHHS is telling hospitals that if they decide to do elective surgeries, they won't be eligible to receive PPE from the state.' Let's break that down. The only 'report' Daniel cited -- and the only report PolitiFact could track down -- was a conversation between a DHHS staffer and a representative for the North Carolina Healthcare Association. DHHS denied that the staffer said what the association's representative claimed, describing their conversation as a misunderstanding. Daniel said 'DHHS is telling hospitals' about the conditions for receiving PPE. But hospitals who spoke to PolitiFact said they were never given the alleged ultimatum. Daniel's tweet also tied the ultimatum to secretary Cohen. But, in her email to PolitiFact, the association's representative didn't tie the 'notion' to Cohen, and we couldn't find any other evidence that DHHS threatened to withhold PPE from hospitals that resumed elective surgeries. This leaves us with a he said-she said situation about a claim that never came to fruition. Given Daniel's claim lacks evidence, we rate it false.
|
[
"111726-proof-52-95babc1cc58c7b4dc78a5e1915c81991.jpg"
] |
'New evidence ties COVID-19 creation to research funded by Fauci'
|
Contradiction
|
Editor's note, May 17, 2021: When this fact-check was first published in February 2021, PolitiFact's sources included researchers who asserted the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated. That assertion is now more widely disputed. Read our May 2021 report for more on the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19. That dispute notwithstanding, the claim that COVID-19 was created with research funded by Dr. Anthony Fauci remains False. More than a year after the coronavirus first arrived in the U.S., conspiracy theories continue to spread about a virology lab in Wuhan, China, which has drawn scrutiny throughout the pandemic for research it conducted on bat viruses. One new claim about the lab comes from conservative news site WorldNetDaily, which tried to connect Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health, to the origin of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. 'New evidence ties COVID-19 creation to research funded by Fauci,' reads the headline. Despite its promise of 'new evidence,' the WorldNetDaily article largely resembled other conspiracy theories that we have fact-checked in the past. 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.) As evidence of its claims, the article cited an investigation by Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, who claims that the coronavirus was created at the Wuhan lab with NIH grant money. Although the NIH did fund a project at the Wuhan lab, there's no proof that the coronavirus was bioengineered. Both the WorldNetDaily article and Hilton's segment rely on a series of unsubstantiated allegations to spin a conspiracy theory about the virus being a lab creation. WorldNetDaily has since dialed back on many of its claims, issuing three separate corrections, all of which cite scientists pushing back on the notion that SARS-CoV-2 was manmade. It has also placed a question mark at the end of the original headline. However, the bulk of the article text has not been updated. The NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance In 2014, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, the part of the NIH headed by Fauci, awarded a $3.4 million grant to the New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, which aims to protect people from viruses that jump from species to species. The alliance has projects across 30 countries, including Thailand, Vietnam and China. The group hired the virology lab in Wuhan to conduct genetic analyses of bat coronaviruses collected in Yunnan province, about 800 miles southwest of Wuhan. EcoHealth Alliance paid the lab $598,500 over five years. The lab had secured approval from both the U.S. State Department and the NIH. That the NIAID funded the project is not in question. However, the WorldNetDaily article goes further than that, claiming that the grant covered 'gain of function' research on a bat coronavirus, which 'created' SARS-CoV-2. Gain-of-function research is a controversial form of study that involves boosting the infectivity and lethality of a pathogen. Proponents of gain-of-function say it helps researchers spot potential threats to human health and allows them to figure out ways to tackle a new virus. Fauci has advocated for gain-of-function research in the past. In a 2011 article he co-wrote for the Washington Post, he promoted it as a means to study influenza viruses. However, there's no hard proof to support the article's claims about gain-of-function research. The overwhelming consensus among public health experts is that the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 evolved naturally. All parties involved in the grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology have denied that it involved gain-of-function research. 'We have not ever participated in gain-of-function research. Nor have we ever been funded to participate in gain-of-function research,' Robert Kessler with the EcoHealth Alliance told PolitiFact last May. The NIH told us: 'The research supported under the grant to EcoHealth Alliance Inc. characterized the function of newly discovered bat spike proteins and naturally occurring pathogens and did not involve the enhancement of the pathogenicity or transmissibility of the viruses studied.' The grant was approved in May 2014. Five months later, on Oct. 17, the Obama administration announced it would not fund new projects that involved gain-of-function research, citing safety and security risks. The NIH told us that it reviewed the EcoHealth Alliance project after the funding pause and determined that it did not involve gain-of-function research. As a result, it was not affected by the White House's new policy. Hilton and WorldNetDaily do not provide evidence that the grant covered gain-of-function research. When we reached out to Fox News, a spokesperson pointed us to the transcript of Hilton's segment. Art Moore, the author of the WorldNetDaily article, did not respond to a request for comment. MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed a paper that appears to have been published with financial assistance from the grant. According to Esvelt, certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function research. But he told PolitiFact that 'the work reported in this specific paper definitely did NOT lead to the creation of SARS-CoV-2' because the genetic sequences of the virus studied in the paper differ from that of the new coronavirus. No evidence that the coronavirus was manmade The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and the NIH have all said that the virus was not derived from a lab. If the virus had been altered in a lab, its genomic data would show signs of tampering. Although scientists from around the world have publicly shared the virus' genetic makeup thousands of times, there's still no evidence that the virus was bioengineered. On Feb. 19, 2020, public health experts signed a public statement to 'strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.' 'Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes' of SARS-CoV-2 'and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,' the statement reads, citing nine scientific studies. A detailed computational analysis of the coronavirus conducted by five researchers in March found that its genetic makeup showed no signs of alteration. The ability of the virus to bind to human cells is most likely the result of natural selection in an animal host or in humans after the virus jumped from animals. 'Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,' the researchers wrote. There are unresolved concerns that a protective lapse at the lab could have allowed a natural virus to escape, but there is no hard proof of such a lapse.
|
Our ruling WorldNetDaily wrote that 'New evidence ties COVID-19 creation to research funded by Fauci.' Both the NIH and EcoHealth Alliance have denied that a grant to the Wuhan lab funded gain-of-function research, though a scientist told us that one paper published with assistance from the grant seems to describe techniques similar to gain-of-function. The CDC, the WHO, and the NIH have all said that the virus that causes COVID-19 evolved naturally. There is no evidence to support that claim that it was created by researchers. This claim is False.
|
[
"111733-proof-01-75927da4df1be203484c441fed4cfd57.jpeg"
] |
Says Ruth Bader Ginsburg tweeted, 'I have information that will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton.
|
Contradiction
|
The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not run a personal Twitter account. Keep that in mind when you see online posts of an alarming tweet from 'RBGOfficial' preceding her death. There's nothing official about it. One fake post shared the day after Ginsburg died evoked a well-worn conspiracy linking former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to various deaths of former staffers and associates. The Instagram post included a screenshot of a tweet from @RBGOfficial on 8 p.m. on Sept. 18 - the same evening she died. 'I have information that will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton,' the tweet says. The person who posted this added touches of flair to make the post look legitimate, adding a photo of Ginsburg as the avatar and a blue checkmark to indicate a verified Twitter account. But the claim is easily debunked. Whoever created @RBGOfficial in 2013 has zero followers and tweets. Ginsburg died of complications from metastatic pancreatic cancer in her Washington home. She was 87. We rate this post Pants on Fire.
|
We rate this post Pants on Fire.
|
[] |
Says withdrawing troops from Afghanistan could save the U.S. $50 billion.
|
Contradiction
|
After nearly 20 years of conflict in Afghanistan, the United States has pledged to withdraw its forces from the country. President Joe Biden announced a plan to have all U.S. troops out of the country by Sept. 11, 2021, but an accelerated pace of withdrawal could have troops completely out of the country by mid-July, according to a May 25, 2021 report from the New York Times. As America's longest war draws to a close, arguments have sprung up over what to do with the money the country is currently spending on the conflict -- and how much will actually be saved by pulling troops out of the unstable region. U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, claimed that withdrawing troops from Afghanistan could save the country $50 billion a year in a May 21, 2021 tweet -- money he argues could be cut from the Pentagon budget and put towards something else, such as ending homelessness. For the purpose of this fact check, we're going to focus on the first part of his claim. Can bringing home the troops in Afghanistan really save the country $50 billion? In short, not as a practical matter. Actual savings could vary depending on long-term plans When we reached out to Pocan's office seeking backup, communications director Usamah Andrabi said that the $50 billion had been widely reported, and shared a link to a report by The Balance, a nonpartisan financial advice and news site, based in New York City. The war started off in 2001, with 9,700 people on the ground in Afghanistan, at a cost of $23 billion, according to The Balance. That number has grown since then, hitting $107 billion in spending in 2011, with more than 94,000 people on the ground. Since then, yearly spending has dropped as the number of troops stationed in the country has declined. In 2018, that number dropped to $52 billion in spending, and remained the same for 2019, according to an estimate by The Balance. Spending for 2020 was not yet available. But even though the U.S. is currently spending about $50 billion a year on the war, that doesn't mean that pulling troops out will amount to that same figure in savings. Jonathan Bydlak, director of the Governance Program for the R Street Institute, a nonpartisan policy research organization, said estimating cost savings from shifts in ground troops and other foreign policy decisions isn't straightforward. There are three things that would need to be considered to reach an estimation of savings, he said: Bydlak estimated the U.S. could see about $4 billion to $6 billion in direct savings, about $1 billion to $2 billion in base budget savings and about $28 billion to $42 billion in long-term costs. That puts total savings somewhere between $33 billion and $50 billion a year. So, Pocan's claim is on the very high end of that range. But that savings could shrink if Biden opts to only withdraw a portion of the troops currently on the ground, leaving a small residual force. In that case, savings would only be about $7 billion to $10 billion. There are also other costs that could crop up, too, Bydlak said: If the U.S. decides to provide more aid to Afghanistan, to help encourage stability; if more money is spent by the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of withdrawal; or if the domestic cost of housing troops is greater than the cost of stationing them in Afghanistan, due to a higher cost of living. Others worry that any savings for the U.S. could be eaten up -- at least in the short term -- by the cost of pulling troops and supplies out of Afghanistan. Mackenzie Eaglen, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning public policy think tank, said in an April 26, 2021 report that spending in Afghanistan will still remain high without boots on the ground due to ongoing investments in counterterrorism and salaries and other expenses for the 3,000 members of the Afghan National Security Forces. Among other potential costs Eaglen included in her report: Breaking contracts with private entities for property, buildings and equipment and bringing home the equipment the U.S. brought with its troops. 'It will require more forces than are in the country now,' the article said. Bringing troops home isn't an end to the mission that started in 2001 in Afghanistan, it's a mission change, Eaglen wrote. 'If Congress is expecting a windfall of savings to result from the Afghanistan withdrawal, it is likely to be disappointed,' Eaglen wrote. 'Threats will still need to be managed -- just from slightly farther away. In the meantime, it will discover that leaving is hard, dangerous, and expensive.'
|
Our ruling Pocan claimed in a tweet that the country could save $50 billion a year by pulling troops out of Afghanistan. The U.S. could save up to $50 billion, or as little as $7 billion on withdrawing troops, according to one expert. But that just covers one side of the ledger. There are many other potential costs that must be accounted for, such as the possibility of a small residual force left on the ground in Afghanistan, mental and physical health care for veterans returning home, or even the higher cost of housing active troops as they return to the states. One expert suggests that leaving Afghanistan, at least in the short term, will likely cost the U.S. more than it saves, because of the need to continue funding counterterrorism infrastructure, end contracts with local entities and pay for removing equipment from the landlocked country. Our definition of Mostly False is a statement 'contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.' That fits here.
|
[
"111737-proof-33-1a9b772943fdc231453851de07ea4bdc.jpg"
] |
Says withdrawing troops from Afghanistan could save the U.S. $50 billion.
|
Contradiction
|
After nearly 20 years of conflict in Afghanistan, the United States has pledged to withdraw its forces from the country. President Joe Biden announced a plan to have all U.S. troops out of the country by Sept. 11, 2021, but an accelerated pace of withdrawal could have troops completely out of the country by mid-July, according to a May 25, 2021 report from the New York Times. As America's longest war draws to a close, arguments have sprung up over what to do with the money the country is currently spending on the conflict -- and how much will actually be saved by pulling troops out of the unstable region. U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, claimed that withdrawing troops from Afghanistan could save the country $50 billion a year in a May 21, 2021 tweet -- money he argues could be cut from the Pentagon budget and put towards something else, such as ending homelessness. For the purpose of this fact check, we're going to focus on the first part of his claim. Can bringing home the troops in Afghanistan really save the country $50 billion? In short, not as a practical matter. Actual savings could vary depending on long-term plans When we reached out to Pocan's office seeking backup, communications director Usamah Andrabi said that the $50 billion had been widely reported, and shared a link to a report by The Balance, a nonpartisan financial advice and news site, based in New York City. The war started off in 2001, with 9,700 people on the ground in Afghanistan, at a cost of $23 billion, according to The Balance. That number has grown since then, hitting $107 billion in spending in 2011, with more than 94,000 people on the ground. Since then, yearly spending has dropped as the number of troops stationed in the country has declined. In 2018, that number dropped to $52 billion in spending, and remained the same for 2019, according to an estimate by The Balance. Spending for 2020 was not yet available. But even though the U.S. is currently spending about $50 billion a year on the war, that doesn't mean that pulling troops out will amount to that same figure in savings. Jonathan Bydlak, director of the Governance Program for the R Street Institute, a nonpartisan policy research organization, said estimating cost savings from shifts in ground troops and other foreign policy decisions isn't straightforward. There are three things that would need to be considered to reach an estimation of savings, he said: Bydlak estimated the U.S. could see about $4 billion to $6 billion in direct savings, about $1 billion to $2 billion in base budget savings and about $28 billion to $42 billion in long-term costs. That puts total savings somewhere between $33 billion and $50 billion a year. So, Pocan's claim is on the very high end of that range. But that savings could shrink if Biden opts to only withdraw a portion of the troops currently on the ground, leaving a small residual force. In that case, savings would only be about $7 billion to $10 billion. There are also other costs that could crop up, too, Bydlak said: If the U.S. decides to provide more aid to Afghanistan, to help encourage stability; if more money is spent by the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of withdrawal; or if the domestic cost of housing troops is greater than the cost of stationing them in Afghanistan, due to a higher cost of living. Others worry that any savings for the U.S. could be eaten up -- at least in the short term -- by the cost of pulling troops and supplies out of Afghanistan. Mackenzie Eaglen, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning public policy think tank, said in an April 26, 2021 report that spending in Afghanistan will still remain high without boots on the ground due to ongoing investments in counterterrorism and salaries and other expenses for the 3,000 members of the Afghan National Security Forces. Among other potential costs Eaglen included in her report: Breaking contracts with private entities for property, buildings and equipment and bringing home the equipment the U.S. brought with its troops. 'It will require more forces than are in the country now,' the article said. Bringing troops home isn't an end to the mission that started in 2001 in Afghanistan, it's a mission change, Eaglen wrote. 'If Congress is expecting a windfall of savings to result from the Afghanistan withdrawal, it is likely to be disappointed,' Eaglen wrote. 'Threats will still need to be managed -- just from slightly farther away. In the meantime, it will discover that leaving is hard, dangerous, and expensive.'
|
Our ruling Pocan claimed in a tweet that the country could save $50 billion a year by pulling troops out of Afghanistan. The U.S. could save up to $50 billion, or as little as $7 billion on withdrawing troops, according to one expert. But that just covers one side of the ledger. There are many other potential costs that must be accounted for, such as the possibility of a small residual force left on the ground in Afghanistan, mental and physical health care for veterans returning home, or even the higher cost of housing active troops as they return to the states. One expert suggests that leaving Afghanistan, at least in the short term, will likely cost the U.S. more than it saves, because of the need to continue funding counterterrorism infrastructure, end contracts with local entities and pay for removing equipment from the landlocked country. Our definition of Mostly False is a statement 'contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.' That fits here.
|
[
"111737-proof-33-1a9b772943fdc231453851de07ea4bdc.jpg"
] |
Says withdrawing troops from Afghanistan could save the U.S. $50 billion.
|
Contradiction
|
After nearly 20 years of conflict in Afghanistan, the United States has pledged to withdraw its forces from the country. President Joe Biden announced a plan to have all U.S. troops out of the country by Sept. 11, 2021, but an accelerated pace of withdrawal could have troops completely out of the country by mid-July, according to a May 25, 2021 report from the New York Times. As America's longest war draws to a close, arguments have sprung up over what to do with the money the country is currently spending on the conflict -- and how much will actually be saved by pulling troops out of the unstable region. U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, claimed that withdrawing troops from Afghanistan could save the country $50 billion a year in a May 21, 2021 tweet -- money he argues could be cut from the Pentagon budget and put towards something else, such as ending homelessness. For the purpose of this fact check, we're going to focus on the first part of his claim. Can bringing home the troops in Afghanistan really save the country $50 billion? In short, not as a practical matter. Actual savings could vary depending on long-term plans When we reached out to Pocan's office seeking backup, communications director Usamah Andrabi said that the $50 billion had been widely reported, and shared a link to a report by The Balance, a nonpartisan financial advice and news site, based in New York City. The war started off in 2001, with 9,700 people on the ground in Afghanistan, at a cost of $23 billion, according to The Balance. That number has grown since then, hitting $107 billion in spending in 2011, with more than 94,000 people on the ground. Since then, yearly spending has dropped as the number of troops stationed in the country has declined. In 2018, that number dropped to $52 billion in spending, and remained the same for 2019, according to an estimate by The Balance. Spending for 2020 was not yet available. But even though the U.S. is currently spending about $50 billion a year on the war, that doesn't mean that pulling troops out will amount to that same figure in savings. Jonathan Bydlak, director of the Governance Program for the R Street Institute, a nonpartisan policy research organization, said estimating cost savings from shifts in ground troops and other foreign policy decisions isn't straightforward. There are three things that would need to be considered to reach an estimation of savings, he said: Bydlak estimated the U.S. could see about $4 billion to $6 billion in direct savings, about $1 billion to $2 billion in base budget savings and about $28 billion to $42 billion in long-term costs. That puts total savings somewhere between $33 billion and $50 billion a year. So, Pocan's claim is on the very high end of that range. But that savings could shrink if Biden opts to only withdraw a portion of the troops currently on the ground, leaving a small residual force. In that case, savings would only be about $7 billion to $10 billion. There are also other costs that could crop up, too, Bydlak said: If the U.S. decides to provide more aid to Afghanistan, to help encourage stability; if more money is spent by the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of withdrawal; or if the domestic cost of housing troops is greater than the cost of stationing them in Afghanistan, due to a higher cost of living. Others worry that any savings for the U.S. could be eaten up -- at least in the short term -- by the cost of pulling troops and supplies out of Afghanistan. Mackenzie Eaglen, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning public policy think tank, said in an April 26, 2021 report that spending in Afghanistan will still remain high without boots on the ground due to ongoing investments in counterterrorism and salaries and other expenses for the 3,000 members of the Afghan National Security Forces. Among other potential costs Eaglen included in her report: Breaking contracts with private entities for property, buildings and equipment and bringing home the equipment the U.S. brought with its troops. 'It will require more forces than are in the country now,' the article said. Bringing troops home isn't an end to the mission that started in 2001 in Afghanistan, it's a mission change, Eaglen wrote. 'If Congress is expecting a windfall of savings to result from the Afghanistan withdrawal, it is likely to be disappointed,' Eaglen wrote. 'Threats will still need to be managed -- just from slightly farther away. In the meantime, it will discover that leaving is hard, dangerous, and expensive.'
|
Our ruling Pocan claimed in a tweet that the country could save $50 billion a year by pulling troops out of Afghanistan. The U.S. could save up to $50 billion, or as little as $7 billion on withdrawing troops, according to one expert. But that just covers one side of the ledger. There are many other potential costs that must be accounted for, such as the possibility of a small residual force left on the ground in Afghanistan, mental and physical health care for veterans returning home, or even the higher cost of housing active troops as they return to the states. One expert suggests that leaving Afghanistan, at least in the short term, will likely cost the U.S. more than it saves, because of the need to continue funding counterterrorism infrastructure, end contracts with local entities and pay for removing equipment from the landlocked country. Our definition of Mostly False is a statement 'contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.' That fits here.
|
[
"111737-proof-33-1a9b772943fdc231453851de07ea4bdc.jpg"
] |
'Airlines begin to ban vaccinated people after Pilots die due to vaccine'
|
Contradiction
|
A social media post twisted a real-life story about the deaths of four British Airways pilots by making an unfounded connection to COVID-19 vaccines. A June 21 Facebook post, now deleted, claimed, 'Airlines begin to ban vaccinated people after pilots die due to vaccine.' The comment under the post said, '4 jabbed British Airways pilots die in one week. However, the airline denies any link to the jab.' A similar Instagram post claimed that in a single week, four British Airways pilots and one Delta pilot died and a Canadian pilot became unconscious on the runway. It also claims that these events were linked to the vaccine. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) The claim about the British Airways pilots has been debunked by Snopes, Lead Stories and Reuters. The pilots did die, but not all in one week, and not because of the vaccine. British Airways dismissed a link to COVID-19 vaccinations. 'Sadly four members of our pilot community passed away recently. Our thoughts are with their family and friends,' the airline wrote on Twitter on June 17. 'However, there is no truth whatsoever in the claims speculating that the four deaths are linked.' The airline did not disclose the pilots' names. Three of the pilots were identified by Snopes and other outlets: Capt. Nicholas Synnott, Senior First Officer Edward Brice-Bennett, and Senior First Officer Grant Mercer. PolitiFact was unable to learn the name of the fourth pilot. None of the news coverage about those pilots mentions vaccines. Synnott died in June. He contracted COVID-19 in March 2020 while working in Texas, and he spent eight months receiving care at UT Health and Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center in Houston. His return to England in December 2020 generated several news stories. Brice-Bennett died on June 2. A local newspaper, the New Valley News, said he was found unconscious in a mountain-biking bike park in Tidworth in southern England. Forty-five minutes later, the newspaper reported, paramedics pronounced him dead. An autopsy found that he had internal abdominal bleeding, the paper's website said. Mercer died on May 4. Snopes reported that his death has no connection to a COVID-19 vaccine. His memorial page was raising money for 'the send-off he deserves.' The page said it would donate any money received over the fundraising goal to a suicide prevention organization. The International Air Transport Association, the airline industry's trade group, said it is not aware of any airlines banning vaccinated passengers or considering it. This echoes what we found in another fact-check of a similar claim. 'We advocate that people who have been vaccinated should be free to travel without restriction,' the association told PolitiFact.
|
Our ruling A Facebook user claimed that four British Airways pilots' deaths were linked to the COVID-19 vaccine and suggested that airlines are banning vaccinated people from traveling. British Airways said the deaths were not linked to the COVID-19 vaccines. Also, airlines are not considering banning vaccinated people. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'Airlines begin to ban vaccinated people after Pilots die due to vaccine'
|
Contradiction
|
A social media post twisted a real-life story about the deaths of four British Airways pilots by making an unfounded connection to COVID-19 vaccines. A June 21 Facebook post, now deleted, claimed, 'Airlines begin to ban vaccinated people after pilots die due to vaccine.' The comment under the post said, '4 jabbed British Airways pilots die in one week. However, the airline denies any link to the jab.' A similar Instagram post claimed that in a single week, four British Airways pilots and one Delta pilot died and a Canadian pilot became unconscious on the runway. It also claims that these events were linked to the vaccine. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) The claim about the British Airways pilots has been debunked by Snopes, Lead Stories and Reuters. The pilots did die, but not all in one week, and not because of the vaccine. British Airways dismissed a link to COVID-19 vaccinations. 'Sadly four members of our pilot community passed away recently. Our thoughts are with their family and friends,' the airline wrote on Twitter on June 17. 'However, there is no truth whatsoever in the claims speculating that the four deaths are linked.' The airline did not disclose the pilots' names. Three of the pilots were identified by Snopes and other outlets: Capt. Nicholas Synnott, Senior First Officer Edward Brice-Bennett, and Senior First Officer Grant Mercer. PolitiFact was unable to learn the name of the fourth pilot. None of the news coverage about those pilots mentions vaccines. Synnott died in June. He contracted COVID-19 in March 2020 while working in Texas, and he spent eight months receiving care at UT Health and Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center in Houston. His return to England in December 2020 generated several news stories. Brice-Bennett died on June 2. A local newspaper, the New Valley News, said he was found unconscious in a mountain-biking bike park in Tidworth in southern England. Forty-five minutes later, the newspaper reported, paramedics pronounced him dead. An autopsy found that he had internal abdominal bleeding, the paper's website said. Mercer died on May 4. Snopes reported that his death has no connection to a COVID-19 vaccine. His memorial page was raising money for 'the send-off he deserves.' The page said it would donate any money received over the fundraising goal to a suicide prevention organization. The International Air Transport Association, the airline industry's trade group, said it is not aware of any airlines banning vaccinated passengers or considering it. This echoes what we found in another fact-check of a similar claim. 'We advocate that people who have been vaccinated should be free to travel without restriction,' the association told PolitiFact.
|
Our ruling A Facebook user claimed that four British Airways pilots' deaths were linked to the COVID-19 vaccine and suggested that airlines are banning vaccinated people from traveling. British Airways said the deaths were not linked to the COVID-19 vaccines. Also, airlines are not considering banning vaccinated people. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'Airlines begin to ban vaccinated people after Pilots die due to vaccine'
|
Contradiction
|
A social media post twisted a real-life story about the deaths of four British Airways pilots by making an unfounded connection to COVID-19 vaccines. A June 21 Facebook post, now deleted, claimed, 'Airlines begin to ban vaccinated people after pilots die due to vaccine.' The comment under the post said, '4 jabbed British Airways pilots die in one week. However, the airline denies any link to the jab.' A similar Instagram post claimed that in a single week, four British Airways pilots and one Delta pilot died and a Canadian pilot became unconscious on the runway. It also claims that these events were linked to the vaccine. The posts were flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its news feed. (Read more about PolitiFact's partnership with Facebook.) The claim about the British Airways pilots has been debunked by Snopes, Lead Stories and Reuters. The pilots did die, but not all in one week, and not because of the vaccine. British Airways dismissed a link to COVID-19 vaccinations. 'Sadly four members of our pilot community passed away recently. Our thoughts are with their family and friends,' the airline wrote on Twitter on June 17. 'However, there is no truth whatsoever in the claims speculating that the four deaths are linked.' The airline did not disclose the pilots' names. Three of the pilots were identified by Snopes and other outlets: Capt. Nicholas Synnott, Senior First Officer Edward Brice-Bennett, and Senior First Officer Grant Mercer. PolitiFact was unable to learn the name of the fourth pilot. None of the news coverage about those pilots mentions vaccines. Synnott died in June. He contracted COVID-19 in March 2020 while working in Texas, and he spent eight months receiving care at UT Health and Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center in Houston. His return to England in December 2020 generated several news stories. Brice-Bennett died on June 2. A local newspaper, the New Valley News, said he was found unconscious in a mountain-biking bike park in Tidworth in southern England. Forty-five minutes later, the newspaper reported, paramedics pronounced him dead. An autopsy found that he had internal abdominal bleeding, the paper's website said. Mercer died on May 4. Snopes reported that his death has no connection to a COVID-19 vaccine. His memorial page was raising money for 'the send-off he deserves.' The page said it would donate any money received over the fundraising goal to a suicide prevention organization. The International Air Transport Association, the airline industry's trade group, said it is not aware of any airlines banning vaccinated passengers or considering it. This echoes what we found in another fact-check of a similar claim. 'We advocate that people who have been vaccinated should be free to travel without restriction,' the association told PolitiFact.
|
Our ruling A Facebook user claimed that four British Airways pilots' deaths were linked to the COVID-19 vaccine and suggested that airlines are banning vaccinated people from traveling. British Airways said the deaths were not linked to the COVID-19 vaccines. Also, airlines are not considering banning vaccinated people. We rate this claim False.
|
[] |
'Jamaica has not recorded any case of the coronavirus.
|
Contradiction
|
A photo of rapper and cannabis enthusiast Snoop Dogg smoking is being shared on social media with this text: 'JAMAICA has not recorded any case of the CORONAVIRUS. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?' 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.) According to Johns Hopkins University of Medicine and the World Health Organization, Jamaica has had more than 35,300 reported COVID-19 cases and more than 530 deaths because of the disease. The website for Jamaica's Ministry of Health & Wellness reports fewer total cases and deaths, but the page was last updated on Feb. 25. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has flagged the country for having a 'very high level of COVID-19' and advises people to avoid travel to Jamaica. While some researchers are investigating the potential benefits and risks of cannabis in preventing or treating COVID-19, the science is inconclusive. But health officials have discouraged smoking marijauna, as COVID-19 attacks the lungs. What's clearly not true: that Jamaica has no reported COVID-19 cases thanks to cannabis. We rate this post Pants on Fire!
|
We rate this post Pants on Fire!
|
[] |
'The Democrats are pushing for an implanted microchip in humans, and everyone to be vaccinated.
|
Contradiction
|
Is the coronavirus pandemic going to force Americans to undergo microchip implants? What about mandatory vaccinations? That's what a Facebook post says. 'The Democrats are pushing for an implanted microchip in humans, and everyone to be vaccinated.' says a Facebook post with text on a plain background. 'These are words of war to me!' It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim is unsupported. Microchips We found no evidence of proposals or legislation, Democratic or otherwise, to promote implanting microchips to counter the coronavirus. Not that this would even make sense as a solution to coronavirus. Even the smallest microchips 'are rather large, such that none would ever fit into a vaccine needle - these are very small-bore needles,' Wilbur Chen, an infectious-disease scientist at the University of Maryland's Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, previously told PolitiFact. Other fact-checkers have traced the assertion in the Facebook post to an inaccurate interpretation of comments made by Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist who has focused his efforts on global health. On March 18, Gates took part in a forum on Reddit in which he was asked, 'What changes are we going to have to make to how businesses operate to maintain our economy while providing social distancing?' Gates responded, 'The question of which businesses should keep going is tricky. Certainly, food supply and the health system. We still need water, electricity and the internet. Supply chains for critical things need to be maintained. Countries are still figuring out what to keep running. Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.' The website Biohackinfo.com soon posted a story on Gates' comments headlined, 'Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus.' It included the line that by ''digital certificates,' Gates was referring to implantable 'QUANTUM-DOT TATTOOS.'' This misinterpretation was amplified on April 13, when Roger Stone, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, told radio host Joe Piscopo, 'Whether Bill Gates played some role in the creation and spread of this virus is open for vigorous debate. I have conservative friends who say it's ridiculous, and others say absolutely.' But, Stone added, Gates 'and other globalists are using it for mandatory vaccinations and microchipping people so we know if they've been tested. Over my dead body. Mandatory vaccinations? No way, Jose!' This conversation was spread further by coverage in the New York Post and the Russian news service RT, according to BuzzFeed. None of this is correct. 'Digital certificates' are electronic information used to securely communicate over the internet, and Gates never mentioned microchips. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation told FactCheck.org that Gates was referring to digital certificates as part of an effort to create a system of home-based, self-administered testing for COVID-19 that would involve a secure connection with health officials. Meanwhile, unrelated research funded by the Gates Foundation proposed recording vaccination history on a patient's skin using an invisible dye that could be read by a smartphone and last up to five years. Kevin McHugh, a Rice University bioengineering professor who worked on the study, told Reuters, 'The quantum dot dye technology is not a microchip or human-implantable capsule, and to my knowledge there are no plans to use this for coronavirus.' There are legitimate concerns about privacy in some of the contact-tracing methods being considered to prevent the spread of coronavirus, experts say. However, 'the fear of insertion of tracking chips and other things like that into our bodies has been a longstanding bogeyman,' said Mark Fenster, a law professor at the University of Florida who has written extensively about conspiracy theories. 'There is a lot of tracking that goes on, but the suggestion that it's being used in this manner and this way seems absurd.' Mandatory vaccinations This part of the claim isn't as far-fetched. Many Democrats and some Republicans do support narrowing exemptions to mandatory vaccinations based on personal beliefs. States have had the authority to require vaccinations for more than a century, and they use that authority all the time, with certain exceptions allowed. In the 1905 case Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a mandatory-vaccination law was a legitimate exercise of state power to protect public health and safety. Since that decision, every state has instituted a variety of vaccine requirements, usually for school-age children. All but five states have exceptions for non-medical reasons. Some are for religious exemptions, some are for 'personal beliefs,' and some are for both. (The National Conference of State Legislatures has the full list.) In the past several years, certain states, led in many cases by Democratic lawmakers but often with some bipartisan support, have moved to limit the religious- or personal-belief exemptions to vaccinations. This came amid concerns about outbreaks of measles and other diseases that were believed to stem from growing opposition to vaccination. Ultimately, several states narrowed exemptions in 2019, including California, Maine, New York and Washington. They did so over the opposition of groups on the right and left who are skeptical of the value of vaccinations, a perspective the medical community strongly opposes. (Read our analysis of complaints about the safety of vaccines.) The precedent set by Jacobson vs. Massachusetts continues to be cited, three academic experts at Boston University - Wendy K. Mariner, George J. Annas, and Leonard H. Glantz - have written in the American Journal of Public Health. 'A law that authorizes mandatory vaccination during an epidemic of a lethal disease, with refusal punishable by a monetary penalty, like the one at issue in Jacobson, would undoubtedly be found constitutional under the low constitutional test of 'rationality review,'' the co-authors wrote, as long as regulators determined the vaccine was safe and effective. Even without an ongoing epidemic, they added, such a requirement 'would probably be upheld' as long as the disease was still spreading to some degree and as long as the vaccine was safe. The federal government could theoretically impose stronger mandates, but it has not done so, Richard Hughes IV, a vaccine specialist at Avalere Health, wrote in the journal Health Affairs. The federal government could do this through a law pre-empting state policies or by using federal funding as leverage against the states, Hughes wrote. But Mariner said she's doubtful about this scenario, and there is no evidence of legislation of this type for now.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says, 'The Democrats are pushing for an implanted microchip in humans, and everyone to be vaccinated.' On microchips, there's no evidence that implanted microchips are being contemplated in a serious way to fight the coronavirus. This appears to stem from a warped translation of comments by Gates. As for mandatory vaccinations, the idea that Democrats are pushing for this power is exaggerated, because the Supreme Court long ago decided that the government has that power. This authority is now used in all 50 states. A minority that includes some Democrats and some Republicans oppose efforts to limit religious or personal exemptions. We rate the statement False.
|
[] |
'The Democrats are pushing for an implanted microchip in humans, and everyone to be vaccinated.
|
Contradiction
|
Is the coronavirus pandemic going to force Americans to undergo microchip implants? What about mandatory vaccinations? That's what a Facebook post says. 'The Democrats are pushing for an implanted microchip in humans, and everyone to be vaccinated.' says a Facebook post with text on a plain background. 'These are words of war to me!' It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim is unsupported. Microchips We found no evidence of proposals or legislation, Democratic or otherwise, to promote implanting microchips to counter the coronavirus. Not that this would even make sense as a solution to coronavirus. Even the smallest microchips 'are rather large, such that none would ever fit into a vaccine needle - these are very small-bore needles,' Wilbur Chen, an infectious-disease scientist at the University of Maryland's Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, previously told PolitiFact. Other fact-checkers have traced the assertion in the Facebook post to an inaccurate interpretation of comments made by Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist who has focused his efforts on global health. On March 18, Gates took part in a forum on Reddit in which he was asked, 'What changes are we going to have to make to how businesses operate to maintain our economy while providing social distancing?' Gates responded, 'The question of which businesses should keep going is tricky. Certainly, food supply and the health system. We still need water, electricity and the internet. Supply chains for critical things need to be maintained. Countries are still figuring out what to keep running. Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.' The website Biohackinfo.com soon posted a story on Gates' comments headlined, 'Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus.' It included the line that by ''digital certificates,' Gates was referring to implantable 'QUANTUM-DOT TATTOOS.'' This misinterpretation was amplified on April 13, when Roger Stone, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, told radio host Joe Piscopo, 'Whether Bill Gates played some role in the creation and spread of this virus is open for vigorous debate. I have conservative friends who say it's ridiculous, and others say absolutely.' But, Stone added, Gates 'and other globalists are using it for mandatory vaccinations and microchipping people so we know if they've been tested. Over my dead body. Mandatory vaccinations? No way, Jose!' This conversation was spread further by coverage in the New York Post and the Russian news service RT, according to BuzzFeed. None of this is correct. 'Digital certificates' are electronic information used to securely communicate over the internet, and Gates never mentioned microchips. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation told FactCheck.org that Gates was referring to digital certificates as part of an effort to create a system of home-based, self-administered testing for COVID-19 that would involve a secure connection with health officials. Meanwhile, unrelated research funded by the Gates Foundation proposed recording vaccination history on a patient's skin using an invisible dye that could be read by a smartphone and last up to five years. Kevin McHugh, a Rice University bioengineering professor who worked on the study, told Reuters, 'The quantum dot dye technology is not a microchip or human-implantable capsule, and to my knowledge there are no plans to use this for coronavirus.' There are legitimate concerns about privacy in some of the contact-tracing methods being considered to prevent the spread of coronavirus, experts say. However, 'the fear of insertion of tracking chips and other things like that into our bodies has been a longstanding bogeyman,' said Mark Fenster, a law professor at the University of Florida who has written extensively about conspiracy theories. 'There is a lot of tracking that goes on, but the suggestion that it's being used in this manner and this way seems absurd.' Mandatory vaccinations This part of the claim isn't as far-fetched. Many Democrats and some Republicans do support narrowing exemptions to mandatory vaccinations based on personal beliefs. States have had the authority to require vaccinations for more than a century, and they use that authority all the time, with certain exceptions allowed. In the 1905 case Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a mandatory-vaccination law was a legitimate exercise of state power to protect public health and safety. Since that decision, every state has instituted a variety of vaccine requirements, usually for school-age children. All but five states have exceptions for non-medical reasons. Some are for religious exemptions, some are for 'personal beliefs,' and some are for both. (The National Conference of State Legislatures has the full list.) In the past several years, certain states, led in many cases by Democratic lawmakers but often with some bipartisan support, have moved to limit the religious- or personal-belief exemptions to vaccinations. This came amid concerns about outbreaks of measles and other diseases that were believed to stem from growing opposition to vaccination. Ultimately, several states narrowed exemptions in 2019, including California, Maine, New York and Washington. They did so over the opposition of groups on the right and left who are skeptical of the value of vaccinations, a perspective the medical community strongly opposes. (Read our analysis of complaints about the safety of vaccines.) The precedent set by Jacobson vs. Massachusetts continues to be cited, three academic experts at Boston University - Wendy K. Mariner, George J. Annas, and Leonard H. Glantz - have written in the American Journal of Public Health. 'A law that authorizes mandatory vaccination during an epidemic of a lethal disease, with refusal punishable by a monetary penalty, like the one at issue in Jacobson, would undoubtedly be found constitutional under the low constitutional test of 'rationality review,'' the co-authors wrote, as long as regulators determined the vaccine was safe and effective. Even without an ongoing epidemic, they added, such a requirement 'would probably be upheld' as long as the disease was still spreading to some degree and as long as the vaccine was safe. The federal government could theoretically impose stronger mandates, but it has not done so, Richard Hughes IV, a vaccine specialist at Avalere Health, wrote in the journal Health Affairs. The federal government could do this through a law pre-empting state policies or by using federal funding as leverage against the states, Hughes wrote. But Mariner said she's doubtful about this scenario, and there is no evidence of legislation of this type for now.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says, 'The Democrats are pushing for an implanted microchip in humans, and everyone to be vaccinated.' On microchips, there's no evidence that implanted microchips are being contemplated in a serious way to fight the coronavirus. This appears to stem from a warped translation of comments by Gates. As for mandatory vaccinations, the idea that Democrats are pushing for this power is exaggerated, because the Supreme Court long ago decided that the government has that power. This authority is now used in all 50 states. A minority that includes some Democrats and some Republicans oppose efforts to limit religious or personal exemptions. We rate the statement False.
|
[] |
'The Democrats are pushing for an implanted microchip in humans, and everyone to be vaccinated.
|
Contradiction
|
Is the coronavirus pandemic going to force Americans to undergo microchip implants? What about mandatory vaccinations? That's what a Facebook post says. 'The Democrats are pushing for an implanted microchip in humans, and everyone to be vaccinated.' says a Facebook post with text on a plain background. 'These are words of war to me!' It was flagged as part of Facebook's efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The claim is unsupported. Microchips We found no evidence of proposals or legislation, Democratic or otherwise, to promote implanting microchips to counter the coronavirus. Not that this would even make sense as a solution to coronavirus. Even the smallest microchips 'are rather large, such that none would ever fit into a vaccine needle - these are very small-bore needles,' Wilbur Chen, an infectious-disease scientist at the University of Maryland's Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, previously told PolitiFact. Other fact-checkers have traced the assertion in the Facebook post to an inaccurate interpretation of comments made by Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist who has focused his efforts on global health. On March 18, Gates took part in a forum on Reddit in which he was asked, 'What changes are we going to have to make to how businesses operate to maintain our economy while providing social distancing?' Gates responded, 'The question of which businesses should keep going is tricky. Certainly, food supply and the health system. We still need water, electricity and the internet. Supply chains for critical things need to be maintained. Countries are still figuring out what to keep running. Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.' The website Biohackinfo.com soon posted a story on Gates' comments headlined, 'Bill Gates will use microchip implants to fight coronavirus.' It included the line that by ''digital certificates,' Gates was referring to implantable 'QUANTUM-DOT TATTOOS.'' This misinterpretation was amplified on April 13, when Roger Stone, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, told radio host Joe Piscopo, 'Whether Bill Gates played some role in the creation and spread of this virus is open for vigorous debate. I have conservative friends who say it's ridiculous, and others say absolutely.' But, Stone added, Gates 'and other globalists are using it for mandatory vaccinations and microchipping people so we know if they've been tested. Over my dead body. Mandatory vaccinations? No way, Jose!' This conversation was spread further by coverage in the New York Post and the Russian news service RT, according to BuzzFeed. None of this is correct. 'Digital certificates' are electronic information used to securely communicate over the internet, and Gates never mentioned microchips. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation told FactCheck.org that Gates was referring to digital certificates as part of an effort to create a system of home-based, self-administered testing for COVID-19 that would involve a secure connection with health officials. Meanwhile, unrelated research funded by the Gates Foundation proposed recording vaccination history on a patient's skin using an invisible dye that could be read by a smartphone and last up to five years. Kevin McHugh, a Rice University bioengineering professor who worked on the study, told Reuters, 'The quantum dot dye technology is not a microchip or human-implantable capsule, and to my knowledge there are no plans to use this for coronavirus.' There are legitimate concerns about privacy in some of the contact-tracing methods being considered to prevent the spread of coronavirus, experts say. However, 'the fear of insertion of tracking chips and other things like that into our bodies has been a longstanding bogeyman,' said Mark Fenster, a law professor at the University of Florida who has written extensively about conspiracy theories. 'There is a lot of tracking that goes on, but the suggestion that it's being used in this manner and this way seems absurd.' Mandatory vaccinations This part of the claim isn't as far-fetched. Many Democrats and some Republicans do support narrowing exemptions to mandatory vaccinations based on personal beliefs. States have had the authority to require vaccinations for more than a century, and they use that authority all the time, with certain exceptions allowed. In the 1905 case Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a mandatory-vaccination law was a legitimate exercise of state power to protect public health and safety. Since that decision, every state has instituted a variety of vaccine requirements, usually for school-age children. All but five states have exceptions for non-medical reasons. Some are for religious exemptions, some are for 'personal beliefs,' and some are for both. (The National Conference of State Legislatures has the full list.) In the past several years, certain states, led in many cases by Democratic lawmakers but often with some bipartisan support, have moved to limit the religious- or personal-belief exemptions to vaccinations. This came amid concerns about outbreaks of measles and other diseases that were believed to stem from growing opposition to vaccination. Ultimately, several states narrowed exemptions in 2019, including California, Maine, New York and Washington. They did so over the opposition of groups on the right and left who are skeptical of the value of vaccinations, a perspective the medical community strongly opposes. (Read our analysis of complaints about the safety of vaccines.) The precedent set by Jacobson vs. Massachusetts continues to be cited, three academic experts at Boston University - Wendy K. Mariner, George J. Annas, and Leonard H. Glantz - have written in the American Journal of Public Health. 'A law that authorizes mandatory vaccination during an epidemic of a lethal disease, with refusal punishable by a monetary penalty, like the one at issue in Jacobson, would undoubtedly be found constitutional under the low constitutional test of 'rationality review,'' the co-authors wrote, as long as regulators determined the vaccine was safe and effective. Even without an ongoing epidemic, they added, such a requirement 'would probably be upheld' as long as the disease was still spreading to some degree and as long as the vaccine was safe. The federal government could theoretically impose stronger mandates, but it has not done so, Richard Hughes IV, a vaccine specialist at Avalere Health, wrote in the journal Health Affairs. The federal government could do this through a law pre-empting state policies or by using federal funding as leverage against the states, Hughes wrote. But Mariner said she's doubtful about this scenario, and there is no evidence of legislation of this type for now.
|
Our ruling A Facebook post says, 'The Democrats are pushing for an implanted microchip in humans, and everyone to be vaccinated.' On microchips, there's no evidence that implanted microchips are being contemplated in a serious way to fight the coronavirus. This appears to stem from a warped translation of comments by Gates. As for mandatory vaccinations, the idea that Democrats are pushing for this power is exaggerated, because the Supreme Court long ago decided that the government has that power. This authority is now used in all 50 states. A minority that includes some Democrats and some Republicans oppose efforts to limit religious or personal exemptions. We rate the statement False.
|
[] |
Says H.R. 1 gives immigrants illegally in the country 'the right to vote.
|
Contradiction
|
Some social media users are spreading a misleading claim about a Democratic proposal to expand voting rights. They claim that the bill, H.R. 1, gives immigrants illegally in the country the right to vote. 'For all of you who can't think for yourself on the left ... you cry endlessly about 'foreign interference' yet you're totally ok with allowing ILLEGALS the right to vote by backing H.R. 1,' reads an Instagram post. 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 bill's goal is to make it easier for eligible American citizens to register to vote. It doesn't change federal law that bars noncitizens from voting in federal elections. 'Nothing in the proposed statute would make it legal for noncitizens to register and/or vote,' said Rebecca Green, professor and co-director of the Election Law Program at William & Mary Law School. 'There are federal and state criminal sanctions prohibiting noncitizens from registering and voting, which H.R. 1 does nothing to disturb.' No change to citizenship requirement to vote The Instagram post doesn't include any evidence for its assertions. But claims that the legislation would allow noncitizens to vote have often revolved around its provisions about automatic voter registration. Under the bill, people interacting with government offices - such as a motor-vehicle or public-assistance agency - will have their information forwarded to election officials for registration purposes, unless they opt out. But nothing about this automatic registration allows noncitizens to vote or register to vote. The bill specifically says that only 'eligible citizens' will be registered under this provision. If a person's citizenship status isn't on file at the government office, that person will have to fill out a registration form attesting to their citizenship. Noncitizens who falsify their citizenship status on one of these applications would be risking criminal sanction, Green said. Those who violate the law by voting or registering to vote can face incarceration, deportation or fines. Nearly 20 states and the District of Columbia have already either passed or implemented automatic voter registration, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. There is no evidence that these options have led to significant numbers of noncitizens becoming registered to vote, Danielle Lang, a voting expert at the Campaign Legal Center, previously told PolitiFact. Opponents of H.R. 1 have pointed to a glitch in California's automatic voter registration program in 2018, which erroneously registered thousands of people to vote, including at least one noncitizen. Officials said that the error resulted from a programming flaw, and that they canceled the registrations and fixed the system. Any mail-in ballots sent to people who were mistakenly registered weren't counted on Election Day. H.R. 1 also contains a provision stating that ineligible immigrants registered in error like the noncitizen in California can't be prosecuted for their immigration status. But anybody who lies during registration or intentionally misleads officials could still face prosecution.
|
Our ruling An Instagram post says that H.R. 1 would give immigrants illegally in the country the right to vote. The bill doesn't do that. H.R. 1 keeps in place federal and state criminal laws that prohibit noncitizens from voting or registering to vote. This claim is False.
|
[] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.