claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|
A new bill will require police officers to call their supervisors before drawing their weapons. | Contradiction | On 12 March 2019, the entertainment website Blue News Network published an article claiming that the U.S. government was considering a new bill that would require law-enforcement officers to get permission from their supervisors before drawing their weapons: In a recent bill presented to the Senate, law enforcement officers would be required to request permission from their shift supervisor before utilizing their service weapon. The bill, titled 'A Second Chance', is geared towards 'preventing police atrocities.' As part of the bill, officers finding themselves in a life threatening situation would first need to call their supervisor and ask before introducing their service weapon into the scenario. Further, the supervisor would then in turn have to call a local civilian committee to discuss the matter so that a community backed decision can be made. These steps would be taken prior to drawing not only their firearm but any other weapon, including tasers, OC spray and batons. This is not a genuine news story. Blue News Network is a site that publishes satirical articles focused on law enforcement. A blurb about the author of this article, 'Mike The Cop,' notes he writes satirical content. The website also carries a disclaimer clearly explaining the nature of its content: If you haven't figured it out yet, this is a satirical news website. While some stuff may bear a strong resemblance to the truth, we assure you it is most decidedly bullshit. We are just a few bored cops who thought we would make sport of triggering people and having a little fun at the expense of rookies, dispatchers, and troopers. If you don't like what we are doing here, I am sorry to tell you that we do not care. Have a great life, and stress less about the things you cannot control, like what we write on this site. For the cops on the road, you have our respect, even if we tease you a little. Be careful, and come home safe. While the Blue News Network is clearly labeled as satire, some readers may have been fooled by this story as it was published while California was considering two bills concerning the use of lethal force by police officers. Neither of those genuine bills, however, would require officers to call their supervisors before drawing weapons: A fight over when police officers should be allowed to open fire on suspects has returned to the state Capitol after negotiations between civil liberties advocates and law enforcement groups hit an impasse. Despite months of discussions led by state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, intended to produce compromise legislation, the two sides announced competing bills this week. One, backed by police, emphasizes more training. The other raises the legal standard for deadly use of force, making it easier to prosecute officers. In short, some state lawmakers in the U.S. are considering new bills on police officers' use of weapons. But claims that a new bill would require officers to call their supervisors before drawing their weapons originated with a satirical post. | In short, some state lawmakers in the U.S. are considering new bills on police officers' use of weapons. But claims that a new bill would require officers to call their supervisors before drawing their weapons originated with a satirical post. | [
"13385-proof-03-GettyImages-125328990-e1552494855280.jpg"
]
|
A new bill will require police officers to call their supervisors before drawing their weapons. | Contradiction | On 12 March 2019, the entertainment website Blue News Network published an article claiming that the U.S. government was considering a new bill that would require law-enforcement officers to get permission from their supervisors before drawing their weapons: In a recent bill presented to the Senate, law enforcement officers would be required to request permission from their shift supervisor before utilizing their service weapon. The bill, titled 'A Second Chance', is geared towards 'preventing police atrocities.' As part of the bill, officers finding themselves in a life threatening situation would first need to call their supervisor and ask before introducing their service weapon into the scenario. Further, the supervisor would then in turn have to call a local civilian committee to discuss the matter so that a community backed decision can be made. These steps would be taken prior to drawing not only their firearm but any other weapon, including tasers, OC spray and batons. This is not a genuine news story. Blue News Network is a site that publishes satirical articles focused on law enforcement. A blurb about the author of this article, 'Mike The Cop,' notes he writes satirical content. The website also carries a disclaimer clearly explaining the nature of its content: If you haven't figured it out yet, this is a satirical news website. While some stuff may bear a strong resemblance to the truth, we assure you it is most decidedly bullshit. We are just a few bored cops who thought we would make sport of triggering people and having a little fun at the expense of rookies, dispatchers, and troopers. If you don't like what we are doing here, I am sorry to tell you that we do not care. Have a great life, and stress less about the things you cannot control, like what we write on this site. For the cops on the road, you have our respect, even if we tease you a little. Be careful, and come home safe. While the Blue News Network is clearly labeled as satire, some readers may have been fooled by this story as it was published while California was considering two bills concerning the use of lethal force by police officers. Neither of those genuine bills, however, would require officers to call their supervisors before drawing weapons: A fight over when police officers should be allowed to open fire on suspects has returned to the state Capitol after negotiations between civil liberties advocates and law enforcement groups hit an impasse. Despite months of discussions led by state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, intended to produce compromise legislation, the two sides announced competing bills this week. One, backed by police, emphasizes more training. The other raises the legal standard for deadly use of force, making it easier to prosecute officers. In short, some state lawmakers in the U.S. are considering new bills on police officers' use of weapons. But claims that a new bill would require officers to call their supervisors before drawing their weapons originated with a satirical post. | In short, some state lawmakers in the U.S. are considering new bills on police officers' use of weapons. But claims that a new bill would require officers to call their supervisors before drawing their weapons originated with a satirical post. | [
"13385-proof-03-GettyImages-125328990-e1552494855280.jpg"
]
|
On May 4, 2020, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wants the federal government's next economic relief bill during the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic to establish 'guaranteed minimum incomes' for 'illegal aliens. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. On May 4, 2020 - as federal leaders debated how to respond to an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic - a conservative provocateur tweeted that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wanted the country's next economic relief package to establish 'guaranteed minimum incomes' for 'illegal aliens.' Suggesting that only legal U.S. residents should benefit from federal stimulus packages, Charlie Kirk - who's the founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA and social media ally of U.S. President Donald Trump - said in the tweet to his roughly 1.7 million followers: To investigate the validity of his claim, we examined Pelosi's public statements and media appearances to determine if, or when, she used the phrased 'guaranteed income' - and under what circumstances. While Kirk provides no explanation for where or when or to whom Pelosi made the remarks in the above-displayed tweet - aside from the tweet's indication with the word 'BREAKING' that the House Speaker had made the comments shortly before he composed the post - we considered statements by Pelosi since the beginning of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak in early 2020 for our investigation. Within that timeframe, she used or referenced the phrase 'guaranteed income' in three public statements, two of which were televised interviews. First, the House Speaker spoke the words on HBO's 'Real Time with Bill Maher' on April 24. In light of the federal government's approval of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 (and stimulus bills totaling about $500 billion since then), Maher asked Pelosi if the federal government could afford similar economic relief packages for Americans should the pandemic keep businesses closed and systems locked down in the coming months. She responded: I think that it should be clear that this (COVID-19 stimulus spending so far) is not doing the job that it is set out to do completely, that we may have to consider some other options. Others have proposed a sovereign fund - profits of which go to these unemployed people - or guaranteed income, other things that may not even be as costly as continuing down this path. She provided no further details on the so-called proposals for 'guaranteed income,' which generally refers to a government-imposed system so that every citizen receives a minimum income - a central idea of the 2020 presidential campaign by former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Also in the conversation with Maher, Pelosi did not explicitly state that she wanted the system implemented via Congressional legislation. Three days later, however, the House Speaker again said the words 'guaranteed income' in a televised interview, this time with more specificity on her openness to the social welfare system. In the April 27 segment of MSNBC's 'Live with Stephanie Ruhle,' while explaining federal leaders' next steps to help small businesses survive the financial crisis, Pelosi said: As we go forward, let's see what works: what is operational and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income for - a guaranteed income for - people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so, because there are many more people than just in small business and hired by small business, as important as that is to the vitality of our economy. And other people who are not in the public sector, you know, meeting our needs in so many ways, that may need some assistance as well. Soon after she made the statement on live TV, news outlets including CBS News and CNBC published stories with headlines such as, 'Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery.' In a story by Business Insider about the televised comments, an aid to Pelosi said the House Speaker was referring to proposals that would guarantee worker paychecks - not a sweeping system for universal basic income. Then, on May 1, the House Speaker and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus made themselves available to journalists via a conference call to discuss provisions within the CARES Act that exclude immigrants without Social Security numbers from receiving one-time stimulus checks. In the call, Pelosi expressed support for legislation that would guarantee COVID-19 economic relief to not only people with Social Security numbers but also immigrants and their families who use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which the IRS assigns to workers without Social Security numbers, to pay annual taxes. According to the IRS, the federal agency issues the numbers 'regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code.' In other words, some immigrants who use the identification numbers (ITINs) - not social security numbers - to pay taxes may be 'undocumented.' According to a transcript of the May 1 call, at one point a reporter asked Pelosi: Pretty recently you said that Congress should consider adding some form of guaranteed monthly income into the next coronavirus relief package. So I was wondering if you would extend that form of guaranteed income to undocumented immigrants and non-citizens who file taxes with tax ID numbers, ITINs, instead of Social Security numbers? In her response, Pelosi reiterated that she thinks federal leaders should consider guaranteed income and that she would talk to chairs of House committees about exploring the idea further. Additionally, as they consider future economic benefits for Americans during the pandemic, she said: Any way we go down the path that [ITINs] should apply, whether it's direct payments, whether it's participation in PPP (the federal Paycheck Protection Plan loan program)... I said it [guaranteed income] should be considered. And, why it should be considered, in my view, is because there is a lot of money, federal taxpayer dollars, going out the door. Whether it's PPP, whether it's Unemployment Insurance, whether it's direct payments ... But, whatever we do, I think the tax number is an easy entrée to many more people who deserve it, who should get this, but are being cut out now, in whatever it is that we are putting out there. Given the nature of and circumstances surrounding the May 1 call, and considering the fact that Pelosi did not mention 'guaranteed income' in any other public statements after the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak and before Kirk's viral posting, we determined it to be the most likely source of inspiration for his May 4 tweet. However, though Pelosi said she wants people who use ITINs to receive economic relief from the federal government during the pandemic - a group that would include 'undocumented' immigrants - she did not say she wants the government to provide stimulus payments to all 'undocumented' immigrants. Additionally, the House Speaker said she wanted federal leaders to consider, not implement, 'guaranteed income' for Americans, unlike what Kirk's tweet implies. In sum, given those reasons - as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase 'guaranteed income,' the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers - we rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | In sum, given those reasons - as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase 'guaranteed income,' the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers - we rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | [
"13633-proof-03-GettyImages-1212111437-scaled-e1588977485112.jpg"
]
|
On May 4, 2020, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wants the federal government's next economic relief bill during the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic to establish 'guaranteed minimum incomes' for 'illegal aliens. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. On May 4, 2020 - as federal leaders debated how to respond to an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic - a conservative provocateur tweeted that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wanted the country's next economic relief package to establish 'guaranteed minimum incomes' for 'illegal aliens.' Suggesting that only legal U.S. residents should benefit from federal stimulus packages, Charlie Kirk - who's the founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA and social media ally of U.S. President Donald Trump - said in the tweet to his roughly 1.7 million followers: To investigate the validity of his claim, we examined Pelosi's public statements and media appearances to determine if, or when, she used the phrased 'guaranteed income' - and under what circumstances. While Kirk provides no explanation for where or when or to whom Pelosi made the remarks in the above-displayed tweet - aside from the tweet's indication with the word 'BREAKING' that the House Speaker had made the comments shortly before he composed the post - we considered statements by Pelosi since the beginning of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak in early 2020 for our investigation. Within that timeframe, she used or referenced the phrase 'guaranteed income' in three public statements, two of which were televised interviews. First, the House Speaker spoke the words on HBO's 'Real Time with Bill Maher' on April 24. In light of the federal government's approval of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 (and stimulus bills totaling about $500 billion since then), Maher asked Pelosi if the federal government could afford similar economic relief packages for Americans should the pandemic keep businesses closed and systems locked down in the coming months. She responded: I think that it should be clear that this (COVID-19 stimulus spending so far) is not doing the job that it is set out to do completely, that we may have to consider some other options. Others have proposed a sovereign fund - profits of which go to these unemployed people - or guaranteed income, other things that may not even be as costly as continuing down this path. She provided no further details on the so-called proposals for 'guaranteed income,' which generally refers to a government-imposed system so that every citizen receives a minimum income - a central idea of the 2020 presidential campaign by former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Also in the conversation with Maher, Pelosi did not explicitly state that she wanted the system implemented via Congressional legislation. Three days later, however, the House Speaker again said the words 'guaranteed income' in a televised interview, this time with more specificity on her openness to the social welfare system. In the April 27 segment of MSNBC's 'Live with Stephanie Ruhle,' while explaining federal leaders' next steps to help small businesses survive the financial crisis, Pelosi said: As we go forward, let's see what works: what is operational and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income for - a guaranteed income for - people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so, because there are many more people than just in small business and hired by small business, as important as that is to the vitality of our economy. And other people who are not in the public sector, you know, meeting our needs in so many ways, that may need some assistance as well. Soon after she made the statement on live TV, news outlets including CBS News and CNBC published stories with headlines such as, 'Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery.' In a story by Business Insider about the televised comments, an aid to Pelosi said the House Speaker was referring to proposals that would guarantee worker paychecks - not a sweeping system for universal basic income. Then, on May 1, the House Speaker and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus made themselves available to journalists via a conference call to discuss provisions within the CARES Act that exclude immigrants without Social Security numbers from receiving one-time stimulus checks. In the call, Pelosi expressed support for legislation that would guarantee COVID-19 economic relief to not only people with Social Security numbers but also immigrants and their families who use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which the IRS assigns to workers without Social Security numbers, to pay annual taxes. According to the IRS, the federal agency issues the numbers 'regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code.' In other words, some immigrants who use the identification numbers (ITINs) - not social security numbers - to pay taxes may be 'undocumented.' According to a transcript of the May 1 call, at one point a reporter asked Pelosi: Pretty recently you said that Congress should consider adding some form of guaranteed monthly income into the next coronavirus relief package. So I was wondering if you would extend that form of guaranteed income to undocumented immigrants and non-citizens who file taxes with tax ID numbers, ITINs, instead of Social Security numbers? In her response, Pelosi reiterated that she thinks federal leaders should consider guaranteed income and that she would talk to chairs of House committees about exploring the idea further. Additionally, as they consider future economic benefits for Americans during the pandemic, she said: Any way we go down the path that [ITINs] should apply, whether it's direct payments, whether it's participation in PPP (the federal Paycheck Protection Plan loan program)... I said it [guaranteed income] should be considered. And, why it should be considered, in my view, is because there is a lot of money, federal taxpayer dollars, going out the door. Whether it's PPP, whether it's Unemployment Insurance, whether it's direct payments ... But, whatever we do, I think the tax number is an easy entrée to many more people who deserve it, who should get this, but are being cut out now, in whatever it is that we are putting out there. Given the nature of and circumstances surrounding the May 1 call, and considering the fact that Pelosi did not mention 'guaranteed income' in any other public statements after the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak and before Kirk's viral posting, we determined it to be the most likely source of inspiration for his May 4 tweet. However, though Pelosi said she wants people who use ITINs to receive economic relief from the federal government during the pandemic - a group that would include 'undocumented' immigrants - she did not say she wants the government to provide stimulus payments to all 'undocumented' immigrants. Additionally, the House Speaker said she wanted federal leaders to consider, not implement, 'guaranteed income' for Americans, unlike what Kirk's tweet implies. In sum, given those reasons - as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase 'guaranteed income,' the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers - we rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | In sum, given those reasons - as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase 'guaranteed income,' the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers - we rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | [
"13633-proof-03-GettyImages-1212111437-scaled-e1588977485112.jpg"
]
|
On May 4, 2020, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wants the federal government's next economic relief bill during the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic to establish 'guaranteed minimum incomes' for 'illegal aliens. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. On May 4, 2020 - as federal leaders debated how to respond to an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic - a conservative provocateur tweeted that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wanted the country's next economic relief package to establish 'guaranteed minimum incomes' for 'illegal aliens.' Suggesting that only legal U.S. residents should benefit from federal stimulus packages, Charlie Kirk - who's the founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA and social media ally of U.S. President Donald Trump - said in the tweet to his roughly 1.7 million followers: To investigate the validity of his claim, we examined Pelosi's public statements and media appearances to determine if, or when, she used the phrased 'guaranteed income' - and under what circumstances. While Kirk provides no explanation for where or when or to whom Pelosi made the remarks in the above-displayed tweet - aside from the tweet's indication with the word 'BREAKING' that the House Speaker had made the comments shortly before he composed the post - we considered statements by Pelosi since the beginning of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak in early 2020 for our investigation. Within that timeframe, she used or referenced the phrase 'guaranteed income' in three public statements, two of which were televised interviews. First, the House Speaker spoke the words on HBO's 'Real Time with Bill Maher' on April 24. In light of the federal government's approval of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 (and stimulus bills totaling about $500 billion since then), Maher asked Pelosi if the federal government could afford similar economic relief packages for Americans should the pandemic keep businesses closed and systems locked down in the coming months. She responded: I think that it should be clear that this (COVID-19 stimulus spending so far) is not doing the job that it is set out to do completely, that we may have to consider some other options. Others have proposed a sovereign fund - profits of which go to these unemployed people - or guaranteed income, other things that may not even be as costly as continuing down this path. She provided no further details on the so-called proposals for 'guaranteed income,' which generally refers to a government-imposed system so that every citizen receives a minimum income - a central idea of the 2020 presidential campaign by former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Also in the conversation with Maher, Pelosi did not explicitly state that she wanted the system implemented via Congressional legislation. Three days later, however, the House Speaker again said the words 'guaranteed income' in a televised interview, this time with more specificity on her openness to the social welfare system. In the April 27 segment of MSNBC's 'Live with Stephanie Ruhle,' while explaining federal leaders' next steps to help small businesses survive the financial crisis, Pelosi said: As we go forward, let's see what works: what is operational and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income for - a guaranteed income for - people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so, because there are many more people than just in small business and hired by small business, as important as that is to the vitality of our economy. And other people who are not in the public sector, you know, meeting our needs in so many ways, that may need some assistance as well. Soon after she made the statement on live TV, news outlets including CBS News and CNBC published stories with headlines such as, 'Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery.' In a story by Business Insider about the televised comments, an aid to Pelosi said the House Speaker was referring to proposals that would guarantee worker paychecks - not a sweeping system for universal basic income. Then, on May 1, the House Speaker and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus made themselves available to journalists via a conference call to discuss provisions within the CARES Act that exclude immigrants without Social Security numbers from receiving one-time stimulus checks. In the call, Pelosi expressed support for legislation that would guarantee COVID-19 economic relief to not only people with Social Security numbers but also immigrants and their families who use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which the IRS assigns to workers without Social Security numbers, to pay annual taxes. According to the IRS, the federal agency issues the numbers 'regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code.' In other words, some immigrants who use the identification numbers (ITINs) - not social security numbers - to pay taxes may be 'undocumented.' According to a transcript of the May 1 call, at one point a reporter asked Pelosi: Pretty recently you said that Congress should consider adding some form of guaranteed monthly income into the next coronavirus relief package. So I was wondering if you would extend that form of guaranteed income to undocumented immigrants and non-citizens who file taxes with tax ID numbers, ITINs, instead of Social Security numbers? In her response, Pelosi reiterated that she thinks federal leaders should consider guaranteed income and that she would talk to chairs of House committees about exploring the idea further. Additionally, as they consider future economic benefits for Americans during the pandemic, she said: Any way we go down the path that [ITINs] should apply, whether it's direct payments, whether it's participation in PPP (the federal Paycheck Protection Plan loan program)... I said it [guaranteed income] should be considered. And, why it should be considered, in my view, is because there is a lot of money, federal taxpayer dollars, going out the door. Whether it's PPP, whether it's Unemployment Insurance, whether it's direct payments ... But, whatever we do, I think the tax number is an easy entrée to many more people who deserve it, who should get this, but are being cut out now, in whatever it is that we are putting out there. Given the nature of and circumstances surrounding the May 1 call, and considering the fact that Pelosi did not mention 'guaranteed income' in any other public statements after the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak and before Kirk's viral posting, we determined it to be the most likely source of inspiration for his May 4 tweet. However, though Pelosi said she wants people who use ITINs to receive economic relief from the federal government during the pandemic - a group that would include 'undocumented' immigrants - she did not say she wants the government to provide stimulus payments to all 'undocumented' immigrants. Additionally, the House Speaker said she wanted federal leaders to consider, not implement, 'guaranteed income' for Americans, unlike what Kirk's tweet implies. In sum, given those reasons - as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase 'guaranteed income,' the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers - we rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | In sum, given those reasons - as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase 'guaranteed income,' the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers - we rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | [
"13633-proof-03-GettyImages-1212111437-scaled-e1588977485112.jpg"
]
|
On May 4, 2020, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wants the federal government's next economic relief bill during the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic to establish 'guaranteed minimum incomes' for 'illegal aliens. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. On May 4, 2020 - as federal leaders debated how to respond to an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic - a conservative provocateur tweeted that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wanted the country's next economic relief package to establish 'guaranteed minimum incomes' for 'illegal aliens.' Suggesting that only legal U.S. residents should benefit from federal stimulus packages, Charlie Kirk - who's the founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA and social media ally of U.S. President Donald Trump - said in the tweet to his roughly 1.7 million followers: To investigate the validity of his claim, we examined Pelosi's public statements and media appearances to determine if, or when, she used the phrased 'guaranteed income' - and under what circumstances. While Kirk provides no explanation for where or when or to whom Pelosi made the remarks in the above-displayed tweet - aside from the tweet's indication with the word 'BREAKING' that the House Speaker had made the comments shortly before he composed the post - we considered statements by Pelosi since the beginning of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak in early 2020 for our investigation. Within that timeframe, she used or referenced the phrase 'guaranteed income' in three public statements, two of which were televised interviews. First, the House Speaker spoke the words on HBO's 'Real Time with Bill Maher' on April 24. In light of the federal government's approval of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 (and stimulus bills totaling about $500 billion since then), Maher asked Pelosi if the federal government could afford similar economic relief packages for Americans should the pandemic keep businesses closed and systems locked down in the coming months. She responded: I think that it should be clear that this (COVID-19 stimulus spending so far) is not doing the job that it is set out to do completely, that we may have to consider some other options. Others have proposed a sovereign fund - profits of which go to these unemployed people - or guaranteed income, other things that may not even be as costly as continuing down this path. She provided no further details on the so-called proposals for 'guaranteed income,' which generally refers to a government-imposed system so that every citizen receives a minimum income - a central idea of the 2020 presidential campaign by former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Also in the conversation with Maher, Pelosi did not explicitly state that she wanted the system implemented via Congressional legislation. Three days later, however, the House Speaker again said the words 'guaranteed income' in a televised interview, this time with more specificity on her openness to the social welfare system. In the April 27 segment of MSNBC's 'Live with Stephanie Ruhle,' while explaining federal leaders' next steps to help small businesses survive the financial crisis, Pelosi said: As we go forward, let's see what works: what is operational and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income for - a guaranteed income for - people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so, because there are many more people than just in small business and hired by small business, as important as that is to the vitality of our economy. And other people who are not in the public sector, you know, meeting our needs in so many ways, that may need some assistance as well. Soon after she made the statement on live TV, news outlets including CBS News and CNBC published stories with headlines such as, 'Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery.' In a story by Business Insider about the televised comments, an aid to Pelosi said the House Speaker was referring to proposals that would guarantee worker paychecks - not a sweeping system for universal basic income. Then, on May 1, the House Speaker and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus made themselves available to journalists via a conference call to discuss provisions within the CARES Act that exclude immigrants without Social Security numbers from receiving one-time stimulus checks. In the call, Pelosi expressed support for legislation that would guarantee COVID-19 economic relief to not only people with Social Security numbers but also immigrants and their families who use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which the IRS assigns to workers without Social Security numbers, to pay annual taxes. According to the IRS, the federal agency issues the numbers 'regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code.' In other words, some immigrants who use the identification numbers (ITINs) - not social security numbers - to pay taxes may be 'undocumented.' According to a transcript of the May 1 call, at one point a reporter asked Pelosi: Pretty recently you said that Congress should consider adding some form of guaranteed monthly income into the next coronavirus relief package. So I was wondering if you would extend that form of guaranteed income to undocumented immigrants and non-citizens who file taxes with tax ID numbers, ITINs, instead of Social Security numbers? In her response, Pelosi reiterated that she thinks federal leaders should consider guaranteed income and that she would talk to chairs of House committees about exploring the idea further. Additionally, as they consider future economic benefits for Americans during the pandemic, she said: Any way we go down the path that [ITINs] should apply, whether it's direct payments, whether it's participation in PPP (the federal Paycheck Protection Plan loan program)... I said it [guaranteed income] should be considered. And, why it should be considered, in my view, is because there is a lot of money, federal taxpayer dollars, going out the door. Whether it's PPP, whether it's Unemployment Insurance, whether it's direct payments ... But, whatever we do, I think the tax number is an easy entrée to many more people who deserve it, who should get this, but are being cut out now, in whatever it is that we are putting out there. Given the nature of and circumstances surrounding the May 1 call, and considering the fact that Pelosi did not mention 'guaranteed income' in any other public statements after the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak and before Kirk's viral posting, we determined it to be the most likely source of inspiration for his May 4 tweet. However, though Pelosi said she wants people who use ITINs to receive economic relief from the federal government during the pandemic - a group that would include 'undocumented' immigrants - she did not say she wants the government to provide stimulus payments to all 'undocumented' immigrants. Additionally, the House Speaker said she wanted federal leaders to consider, not implement, 'guaranteed income' for Americans, unlike what Kirk's tweet implies. In sum, given those reasons - as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase 'guaranteed income,' the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers - we rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | In sum, given those reasons - as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase 'guaranteed income,' the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers - we rate this claim as 'Mostly False.' | [
"13633-proof-03-GettyImages-1212111437-scaled-e1588977485112.jpg"
]
|
Harrison Ford endorsed Donald Trump via a photograph in which he held up a campaign sign. | Contradiction | On or around 14 March 2016, the above-reproduced photograph began circulating on Facebook, appearing to show actor Harrison Ford holding a Donald Trump campaign sign. The image is fake, and is easily disproved using a reverse search. Ford shared the original photograph as proof for a 13 April 2014 'Ask Me Anything' session on Reddit, and the image at the time was clearly different: The same photo has been digitally altered to show Ford's sign saying several different things: Photo and sign aside, any speculation on whether or not Ford might be endorsing Trump was put to rest by a representative for Ford on 15 March 2016: Ina Treciokas, Ford's representative, confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the photo was fake. 'He's not endorsing him for president,' she said. | On or around 14 March 2016, the above-reproduced photograph began circulating on Facebook, appearing to show actor Harrison Ford holding a Donald Trump campaign sign. The image is fake, and is easily disproved using a reverse search. Ford shared the original photograph as proof for a 13 April 2014 'Ask Me Anything' session on Reddit, and the image at the time was clearly different: The same photo has been digitally altered to show Ford's sign saying several different things: Photo and sign aside, any speculation on whether or not Ford might be endorsing Trump was put to rest by a representative for Ford on 15 March 2016: Ina Treciokas, Ford's representative, confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the photo was fake. 'He's not endorsing him for president,' she said. | []
|
A video shows a piece of popcorn being cooked by a blowtorch and levitated by a hairdryer before consumption. | Contradiction | In the 1800s, the most common method to make popcorn, according to 'John Russell Bartlett's Dictionary of Americanisms,' was to place the corn on a shovel and hold it over a fire until it started to pop. Since then, a number of more convenient ways have been conjured up to cook this popular snack food. In the 1840s, a man named Daniel Browne found the best way to make popcorn was in a frying pan with butter or lard. In the 1890s, Charles Cretors invented the first popcorn machine, and just under a century later, the first microwavable popcorn bag was introduced. While many popcorn-related innovations have focused on convenience, a viral video in December 2019 supposedly showed a new complicated (yet eloquent) method to pop popcorn with a blowtorch, a hairdryer, and a little patience: This is not genuine footage of a kernel of corn being popped by a blowtorch. This is a short film created by Zita Bernet and Rafael Sommerhalder of Crictor Films that employs a variety of creative editing, animating, and compositing techniques. Sommerhalder told us in an email that all of the elements seen in the above-displayed film are real, and that the film doesn't technically use any computer-generated images. However, these objects were not filmed together in concert. They filmed the individual elements and then edited them together to create this cinematic illusion. For example, the turbulent orange flame that appears when roasting the kernel actually comes from a piece of burning wood. More importantly, the piece of popcorn seen floating above the hairdryer was created by filming a piece of popcorn that was stuck to a spinning motor: Here's how we did it. All the elements were filmed for real: the hand(s) the dropping of the kernel the blow torch the hairdryer the (calm) blue flame the (turbulent) orange flame (by burning a bit of wood) the popcorn, stuck to a motor, spinning All these elements were combined and animated in Adobe After Effects. So strictly speaking there is no CGI involved (as in computer generated, 3D rendered elements) but a bit of editing, animation and compositing. We made this not to deceive but to create an enjoyable, entertaining little film (our New Years greeting card). It had to be believable enough to work, and maybe it's the little doubt that makes it really stick in peoples minds. Sommerhalder also shared a behind-the-scenes video that showed the floating piece of popcorn before any editing took place: In short, this viral video does not show a new ingenious way to pop popcorn. This is a short film that employs a variety of creative filmmaking techniques. | In short, this viral video does not show a new ingenious way to pop popcorn. This is a short film that employs a variety of creative filmmaking techniques. | []
|
The phrase 'I took an arrow in the knee' is old Norse slang for getting married. | Contradiction | 'I took an arrow in the knee,' says the prospective groom. Or does he? Pondering the reasons behind many of our familiar traditions whose original purposes have been long since lost in the mists of time is a favorite pastime of many. The subjects of marriage and weddings are a common target of such ruminations, as they're associated with many centuries-old rituals that are arcane to modern audiences. One such example is a popular meme that seemingly explains why marriage engagements traditionally begin with the one initiating the proposal's offering up a ring from a kneeling position: On this subject, however, the 'I took an arrow in the knee' meme is just a bit of humor. One searches in vain to find any references in Norse languages or mythology that links the phrase 'took an arrow in the knee' to the concept of marriage, or that ties any form of injury to the tradition of getting down upon bended knee to propose to a prospective spouse. The phrase 'I took an arrow in the knee' is actually of fairly recent vintage, a line popularized by the role-playing video game The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, as noted by the Know Your Meme web site: In The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, the town guard non-player characters (NPCs) have several stock lines they will repeat when the player walks near them, including a bewildered statement about 'curved swords', a patronizing statement about 'sweetroll' theft, and the melancholy reminiscing of the past 'I used to be an adventurer like you, then I took an arrow in the knee.' The repetition of this stock line throughout the game led the players to reference it in gaming forums and imageboards. Indeed, here is the 'I took an arrow in the knee' line as it is uttered multiple times in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Where did the tradition of getting down upon one's knee to propose marriage come from, then? No definitive historical explanation exists, but as many sources have posited, the practice is likely related to customs involving kneeling as a demonstrative act of both supplication and respect, two aspects that a spouse-to-be would likely do well to exhibit to a potential mate: During the Middle Ages, chivalry was not yet dead and formal courtship was the medieval version of modern-day dating. Kneeling was also the protocol for many ceremonial rituals and rites of passage, including those of the romantic kind. Medieval artwork and literature shows knights genuflecting before their feudal lord as a sign of honor and respect, or kneeling in front of a noblewoman to express their eternal servitude and admiration in a show of 'courtly love.' But medieval rituals aren't the only possible explanation; religion may play a role as well. Many faiths, like Christianity and Islam, have their worshippers kneel in prayer to express their devoted service and everlasting respect for their God. Today, kneeling has connotations of complete submission, giving yourself to the mercy of the other person who has the power to do whatever the heck they like. So when we propose in this way, we're showing that we truly trust our partner, and that we're completely committed to intertwining our life with theirs. It's also a respectful thing, which is nice, and shows that we're willing to break down our walls (as kneeling is placing yourself in a vulnerable position with all power to the person standing) and be truly intimate. In short, offering a ring upon bended knee to propose marriage is a symbolic manner of expressing a fervent desire for a positive response, and of demonstrating that your beloved is deserving of your honor, respect, and love - not because of an old arrow injury. | In short, offering a ring upon bended knee to propose marriage is a symbolic manner of expressing a fervent desire for a positive response, and of demonstrating that your beloved is deserving of your honor, respect, and love - not because of an old arrow injury. | [
"13809-proof-04-marriage_proposal.jpg"
]
|
The phrase 'I took an arrow in the knee' is old Norse slang for getting married. | Contradiction | 'I took an arrow in the knee,' says the prospective groom. Or does he? Pondering the reasons behind many of our familiar traditions whose original purposes have been long since lost in the mists of time is a favorite pastime of many. The subjects of marriage and weddings are a common target of such ruminations, as they're associated with many centuries-old rituals that are arcane to modern audiences. One such example is a popular meme that seemingly explains why marriage engagements traditionally begin with the one initiating the proposal's offering up a ring from a kneeling position: On this subject, however, the 'I took an arrow in the knee' meme is just a bit of humor. One searches in vain to find any references in Norse languages or mythology that links the phrase 'took an arrow in the knee' to the concept of marriage, or that ties any form of injury to the tradition of getting down upon bended knee to propose to a prospective spouse. The phrase 'I took an arrow in the knee' is actually of fairly recent vintage, a line popularized by the role-playing video game The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, as noted by the Know Your Meme web site: In The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, the town guard non-player characters (NPCs) have several stock lines they will repeat when the player walks near them, including a bewildered statement about 'curved swords', a patronizing statement about 'sweetroll' theft, and the melancholy reminiscing of the past 'I used to be an adventurer like you, then I took an arrow in the knee.' The repetition of this stock line throughout the game led the players to reference it in gaming forums and imageboards. Indeed, here is the 'I took an arrow in the knee' line as it is uttered multiple times in The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Where did the tradition of getting down upon one's knee to propose marriage come from, then? No definitive historical explanation exists, but as many sources have posited, the practice is likely related to customs involving kneeling as a demonstrative act of both supplication and respect, two aspects that a spouse-to-be would likely do well to exhibit to a potential mate: During the Middle Ages, chivalry was not yet dead and formal courtship was the medieval version of modern-day dating. Kneeling was also the protocol for many ceremonial rituals and rites of passage, including those of the romantic kind. Medieval artwork and literature shows knights genuflecting before their feudal lord as a sign of honor and respect, or kneeling in front of a noblewoman to express their eternal servitude and admiration in a show of 'courtly love.' But medieval rituals aren't the only possible explanation; religion may play a role as well. Many faiths, like Christianity and Islam, have their worshippers kneel in prayer to express their devoted service and everlasting respect for their God. Today, kneeling has connotations of complete submission, giving yourself to the mercy of the other person who has the power to do whatever the heck they like. So when we propose in this way, we're showing that we truly trust our partner, and that we're completely committed to intertwining our life with theirs. It's also a respectful thing, which is nice, and shows that we're willing to break down our walls (as kneeling is placing yourself in a vulnerable position with all power to the person standing) and be truly intimate. In short, offering a ring upon bended knee to propose marriage is a symbolic manner of expressing a fervent desire for a positive response, and of demonstrating that your beloved is deserving of your honor, respect, and love - not because of an old arrow injury. | In short, offering a ring upon bended knee to propose marriage is a symbolic manner of expressing a fervent desire for a positive response, and of demonstrating that your beloved is deserving of your honor, respect, and love - not because of an old arrow injury. | [
"13809-proof-04-marriage_proposal.jpg"
]
|
USPS 'Forever Stamps' are considered 'second-class mail,' and items sent with those stamps are processed more slowly. | Contradiction | On 12 April 2007 the United States Postal Service (USPS) introduced the 'Forever Stamps.' As described in a pre-launch 4 May 2006 Washington Post article, the concept behind Forever Stamps was that they could be purchased at the current rate for first-class postage, but they could be used to mail letters (without the need for additional postage) no matter how much postage rates might change in the future Postal officials pitched the idea of creating a 'forever stamp' that would be good for sending First-Class mail no matter how much - or how often - the cost of a postage stamp goes up. The announcement came on the same day that the Postal Service said it would seek to raise the price of a First-Class stamp for the second consecutive year. The forever stamp, which would cost the same as a First-Class stamp, would provide a hedge against future postal rate increases and end the search for 2- or 3-cent stamps that usually follows a price increase. That early news coverage explained that no matter when a Forever Stamp (also known as non-denominated postage) was purchased, it entitled the buyer to use it for first-class postage: If the cost of sending a First-Class letter is raised to 42 cents next year, for instance, the forever stamp would be sold for that amount. If the First-Class rate then increased by 2 cents a year or two later, forever stamps would sell for 44 cents. But forever stamps purchased at the 42-cent rate still would get a First-Class letter where it needs to go. 'If you buy it, it can be used forever on single-piece First-Class letters,' said Stephen Kearney, vice president for pricing at the Postal Service. Despite subsequent rumors that mail sent using Forever Stamps is somehow processed differently (and slower) than other mail, a USPS 'Forever Stamp Fact Sheet' released at the time of the Forever Stamps' introduction [PDF] made no mention of a separate classification or handling of letters mailed using Forever Stamp postage. A similar document found on the USPS's web site in March 2016 reiterated that the primary difference between Forever Stamps and denominated postage was a locked-in rate. All reporting has described Forever Stamps as identical to their denominated First-Class counterparts, save for built-in protections against postal rate hikes. One aspect of such rumors holds that items sent using Forever Stamps are considered 'second-class mail,' but that category (now called 'Periodicals') applied to newspapers and magazines that were handled with a lower priority than first-class mail, not to letters and other enveloped items. This rumor might stem from the fact that recent years have seen wide fluctuations in delivery times for first-class mail and slowdowns in the handling of all first-class mail. In December 2014 the USPS released a fact sheet [PDF] explaining that consolidation of mail processing facilities had led to longer transit times for first-class mail: In the past 10 years, total volume has declined by more than 56 billion pieces (or 26%), First-Class Mail volume has declined 34.5 billion pieces (or 35%), and single-piece First Class Mail (primarily letters bearing postage stamps) has declined 24.4 billion pieces (or more than 50%). In January 2015, the Postal Service changed its First-Class Mail service standards, affecting roughly 14 billion pieces of the total volume (or 9%) and up to 16% of First-Class Mail. The affected volume represents primarily single-piece First-Class Mail. The majority of this mail is being delivered in two days instead of one. Today, total First-Class Mail is delivered in an average of 2.1 days. Prior to the service standard change, First-Class Mail was delivered in an average of 1.8 days. On 1 February 2015, Wisconsin's Journal Times reported that many USPS customers were unaware of the adjusted first-class mail delivery projections despite the USPS's ongoing efforts to notify the public about them: Facing a dramatic decline in the mail volume, the agency announced in 2011 that it would be consolidating the processing and distribution facilities and making revisions to its First-Class Mail service standards. Those standard changes, which took place nationwide on Jan. 5, resulted in the average processing and delivery time for a piece of First-Class Mail, such as a birthday card or magazine, to increase from an average of 1-2 days to an average of 1-3 days, explained Sean Hargadon, spokesman for United States Postal Service. Despite efforts by the U.S. Postal Service to educate the public about the adjustments, Hargadon said it's likely that those who noticed the delays weren't aware the changes were coming. 'First-Class Mail has dropped by more than 50 percent in the last 10 years, so we have adjusted the standard to reflect that,' Hargadon said. 'With First-Class Mail, what people are used to is: 'If I drop it today my friend will get it tomorrow.' Well, not necessarily anymore.' An April 2015 Washington Post article also described a slower delivery times for first-class mail (partially attributed to inclement weather during the time period in question): In January [2015], the Postal Service eliminated overnight delivery for local first-class letters that used to arrive the next day. Anywhere from 20 percent to half of the rest of the first-class mail sent every day now takes an extra day of delivery time. National performance for single-piece first-class mail with 1-day, 2-day, and 3-5 day delivery standards declined throughout fiscal 2014 after a relatively good second quarter in fiscal 2013. Postal officials have said that severe winter storms had a significant impact on performance results for many service standards, slowing trucks from driving mail to post offices or airports, where it was flown out. In short, it is no secret that the USPS began adjusting the speed of first-class mail delivery as far back as 2011, as they restructured their processing procedures. But those adjustments were in no way linked to any purported lower priority for Forever Stamp-bearing letters, and the USPS has repeatedly explained that Forever Stamps are treated in every way as standard first-class postage. | In short, it is no secret that the USPS began adjusting the speed of first-class mail delivery as far back as 2011, as they restructured their processing procedures. But those adjustments were in no way linked to any purported lower priority for Forever Stamp-bearing letters, and the USPS has repeatedly explained that Forever Stamps are treated in every way as standard first-class postage. | [
"13884-proof-10-forever-stamps-slower.jpg"
]
|
USPS 'Forever Stamps' are considered 'second-class mail,' and items sent with those stamps are processed more slowly. | Contradiction | On 12 April 2007 the United States Postal Service (USPS) introduced the 'Forever Stamps.' As described in a pre-launch 4 May 2006 Washington Post article, the concept behind Forever Stamps was that they could be purchased at the current rate for first-class postage, but they could be used to mail letters (without the need for additional postage) no matter how much postage rates might change in the future Postal officials pitched the idea of creating a 'forever stamp' that would be good for sending First-Class mail no matter how much - or how often - the cost of a postage stamp goes up. The announcement came on the same day that the Postal Service said it would seek to raise the price of a First-Class stamp for the second consecutive year. The forever stamp, which would cost the same as a First-Class stamp, would provide a hedge against future postal rate increases and end the search for 2- or 3-cent stamps that usually follows a price increase. That early news coverage explained that no matter when a Forever Stamp (also known as non-denominated postage) was purchased, it entitled the buyer to use it for first-class postage: If the cost of sending a First-Class letter is raised to 42 cents next year, for instance, the forever stamp would be sold for that amount. If the First-Class rate then increased by 2 cents a year or two later, forever stamps would sell for 44 cents. But forever stamps purchased at the 42-cent rate still would get a First-Class letter where it needs to go. 'If you buy it, it can be used forever on single-piece First-Class letters,' said Stephen Kearney, vice president for pricing at the Postal Service. Despite subsequent rumors that mail sent using Forever Stamps is somehow processed differently (and slower) than other mail, a USPS 'Forever Stamp Fact Sheet' released at the time of the Forever Stamps' introduction [PDF] made no mention of a separate classification or handling of letters mailed using Forever Stamp postage. A similar document found on the USPS's web site in March 2016 reiterated that the primary difference between Forever Stamps and denominated postage was a locked-in rate. All reporting has described Forever Stamps as identical to their denominated First-Class counterparts, save for built-in protections against postal rate hikes. One aspect of such rumors holds that items sent using Forever Stamps are considered 'second-class mail,' but that category (now called 'Periodicals') applied to newspapers and magazines that were handled with a lower priority than first-class mail, not to letters and other enveloped items. This rumor might stem from the fact that recent years have seen wide fluctuations in delivery times for first-class mail and slowdowns in the handling of all first-class mail. In December 2014 the USPS released a fact sheet [PDF] explaining that consolidation of mail processing facilities had led to longer transit times for first-class mail: In the past 10 years, total volume has declined by more than 56 billion pieces (or 26%), First-Class Mail volume has declined 34.5 billion pieces (or 35%), and single-piece First Class Mail (primarily letters bearing postage stamps) has declined 24.4 billion pieces (or more than 50%). In January 2015, the Postal Service changed its First-Class Mail service standards, affecting roughly 14 billion pieces of the total volume (or 9%) and up to 16% of First-Class Mail. The affected volume represents primarily single-piece First-Class Mail. The majority of this mail is being delivered in two days instead of one. Today, total First-Class Mail is delivered in an average of 2.1 days. Prior to the service standard change, First-Class Mail was delivered in an average of 1.8 days. On 1 February 2015, Wisconsin's Journal Times reported that many USPS customers were unaware of the adjusted first-class mail delivery projections despite the USPS's ongoing efforts to notify the public about them: Facing a dramatic decline in the mail volume, the agency announced in 2011 that it would be consolidating the processing and distribution facilities and making revisions to its First-Class Mail service standards. Those standard changes, which took place nationwide on Jan. 5, resulted in the average processing and delivery time for a piece of First-Class Mail, such as a birthday card or magazine, to increase from an average of 1-2 days to an average of 1-3 days, explained Sean Hargadon, spokesman for United States Postal Service. Despite efforts by the U.S. Postal Service to educate the public about the adjustments, Hargadon said it's likely that those who noticed the delays weren't aware the changes were coming. 'First-Class Mail has dropped by more than 50 percent in the last 10 years, so we have adjusted the standard to reflect that,' Hargadon said. 'With First-Class Mail, what people are used to is: 'If I drop it today my friend will get it tomorrow.' Well, not necessarily anymore.' An April 2015 Washington Post article also described a slower delivery times for first-class mail (partially attributed to inclement weather during the time period in question): In January [2015], the Postal Service eliminated overnight delivery for local first-class letters that used to arrive the next day. Anywhere from 20 percent to half of the rest of the first-class mail sent every day now takes an extra day of delivery time. National performance for single-piece first-class mail with 1-day, 2-day, and 3-5 day delivery standards declined throughout fiscal 2014 after a relatively good second quarter in fiscal 2013. Postal officials have said that severe winter storms had a significant impact on performance results for many service standards, slowing trucks from driving mail to post offices or airports, where it was flown out. In short, it is no secret that the USPS began adjusting the speed of first-class mail delivery as far back as 2011, as they restructured their processing procedures. But those adjustments were in no way linked to any purported lower priority for Forever Stamp-bearing letters, and the USPS has repeatedly explained that Forever Stamps are treated in every way as standard first-class postage. | In short, it is no secret that the USPS began adjusting the speed of first-class mail delivery as far back as 2011, as they restructured their processing procedures. But those adjustments were in no way linked to any purported lower priority for Forever Stamp-bearing letters, and the USPS has repeatedly explained that Forever Stamps are treated in every way as standard first-class postage. | [
"13884-proof-10-forever-stamps-slower.jpg"
]
|
USPS 'Forever Stamps' are considered 'second-class mail,' and items sent with those stamps are processed more slowly. | Contradiction | On 12 April 2007 the United States Postal Service (USPS) introduced the 'Forever Stamps.' As described in a pre-launch 4 May 2006 Washington Post article, the concept behind Forever Stamps was that they could be purchased at the current rate for first-class postage, but they could be used to mail letters (without the need for additional postage) no matter how much postage rates might change in the future Postal officials pitched the idea of creating a 'forever stamp' that would be good for sending First-Class mail no matter how much - or how often - the cost of a postage stamp goes up. The announcement came on the same day that the Postal Service said it would seek to raise the price of a First-Class stamp for the second consecutive year. The forever stamp, which would cost the same as a First-Class stamp, would provide a hedge against future postal rate increases and end the search for 2- or 3-cent stamps that usually follows a price increase. That early news coverage explained that no matter when a Forever Stamp (also known as non-denominated postage) was purchased, it entitled the buyer to use it for first-class postage: If the cost of sending a First-Class letter is raised to 42 cents next year, for instance, the forever stamp would be sold for that amount. If the First-Class rate then increased by 2 cents a year or two later, forever stamps would sell for 44 cents. But forever stamps purchased at the 42-cent rate still would get a First-Class letter where it needs to go. 'If you buy it, it can be used forever on single-piece First-Class letters,' said Stephen Kearney, vice president for pricing at the Postal Service. Despite subsequent rumors that mail sent using Forever Stamps is somehow processed differently (and slower) than other mail, a USPS 'Forever Stamp Fact Sheet' released at the time of the Forever Stamps' introduction [PDF] made no mention of a separate classification or handling of letters mailed using Forever Stamp postage. A similar document found on the USPS's web site in March 2016 reiterated that the primary difference between Forever Stamps and denominated postage was a locked-in rate. All reporting has described Forever Stamps as identical to their denominated First-Class counterparts, save for built-in protections against postal rate hikes. One aspect of such rumors holds that items sent using Forever Stamps are considered 'second-class mail,' but that category (now called 'Periodicals') applied to newspapers and magazines that were handled with a lower priority than first-class mail, not to letters and other enveloped items. This rumor might stem from the fact that recent years have seen wide fluctuations in delivery times for first-class mail and slowdowns in the handling of all first-class mail. In December 2014 the USPS released a fact sheet [PDF] explaining that consolidation of mail processing facilities had led to longer transit times for first-class mail: In the past 10 years, total volume has declined by more than 56 billion pieces (or 26%), First-Class Mail volume has declined 34.5 billion pieces (or 35%), and single-piece First Class Mail (primarily letters bearing postage stamps) has declined 24.4 billion pieces (or more than 50%). In January 2015, the Postal Service changed its First-Class Mail service standards, affecting roughly 14 billion pieces of the total volume (or 9%) and up to 16% of First-Class Mail. The affected volume represents primarily single-piece First-Class Mail. The majority of this mail is being delivered in two days instead of one. Today, total First-Class Mail is delivered in an average of 2.1 days. Prior to the service standard change, First-Class Mail was delivered in an average of 1.8 days. On 1 February 2015, Wisconsin's Journal Times reported that many USPS customers were unaware of the adjusted first-class mail delivery projections despite the USPS's ongoing efforts to notify the public about them: Facing a dramatic decline in the mail volume, the agency announced in 2011 that it would be consolidating the processing and distribution facilities and making revisions to its First-Class Mail service standards. Those standard changes, which took place nationwide on Jan. 5, resulted in the average processing and delivery time for a piece of First-Class Mail, such as a birthday card or magazine, to increase from an average of 1-2 days to an average of 1-3 days, explained Sean Hargadon, spokesman for United States Postal Service. Despite efforts by the U.S. Postal Service to educate the public about the adjustments, Hargadon said it's likely that those who noticed the delays weren't aware the changes were coming. 'First-Class Mail has dropped by more than 50 percent in the last 10 years, so we have adjusted the standard to reflect that,' Hargadon said. 'With First-Class Mail, what people are used to is: 'If I drop it today my friend will get it tomorrow.' Well, not necessarily anymore.' An April 2015 Washington Post article also described a slower delivery times for first-class mail (partially attributed to inclement weather during the time period in question): In January [2015], the Postal Service eliminated overnight delivery for local first-class letters that used to arrive the next day. Anywhere from 20 percent to half of the rest of the first-class mail sent every day now takes an extra day of delivery time. National performance for single-piece first-class mail with 1-day, 2-day, and 3-5 day delivery standards declined throughout fiscal 2014 after a relatively good second quarter in fiscal 2013. Postal officials have said that severe winter storms had a significant impact on performance results for many service standards, slowing trucks from driving mail to post offices or airports, where it was flown out. In short, it is no secret that the USPS began adjusting the speed of first-class mail delivery as far back as 2011, as they restructured their processing procedures. But those adjustments were in no way linked to any purported lower priority for Forever Stamp-bearing letters, and the USPS has repeatedly explained that Forever Stamps are treated in every way as standard first-class postage. | In short, it is no secret that the USPS began adjusting the speed of first-class mail delivery as far back as 2011, as they restructured their processing procedures. But those adjustments were in no way linked to any purported lower priority for Forever Stamp-bearing letters, and the USPS has repeatedly explained that Forever Stamps are treated in every way as standard first-class postage. | [
"13884-proof-10-forever-stamps-slower.jpg"
]
|
USPS 'Forever Stamps' are considered 'second-class mail,' and items sent with those stamps are processed more slowly. | Contradiction | On 12 April 2007 the United States Postal Service (USPS) introduced the 'Forever Stamps.' As described in a pre-launch 4 May 2006 Washington Post article, the concept behind Forever Stamps was that they could be purchased at the current rate for first-class postage, but they could be used to mail letters (without the need for additional postage) no matter how much postage rates might change in the future Postal officials pitched the idea of creating a 'forever stamp' that would be good for sending First-Class mail no matter how much - or how often - the cost of a postage stamp goes up. The announcement came on the same day that the Postal Service said it would seek to raise the price of a First-Class stamp for the second consecutive year. The forever stamp, which would cost the same as a First-Class stamp, would provide a hedge against future postal rate increases and end the search for 2- or 3-cent stamps that usually follows a price increase. That early news coverage explained that no matter when a Forever Stamp (also known as non-denominated postage) was purchased, it entitled the buyer to use it for first-class postage: If the cost of sending a First-Class letter is raised to 42 cents next year, for instance, the forever stamp would be sold for that amount. If the First-Class rate then increased by 2 cents a year or two later, forever stamps would sell for 44 cents. But forever stamps purchased at the 42-cent rate still would get a First-Class letter where it needs to go. 'If you buy it, it can be used forever on single-piece First-Class letters,' said Stephen Kearney, vice president for pricing at the Postal Service. Despite subsequent rumors that mail sent using Forever Stamps is somehow processed differently (and slower) than other mail, a USPS 'Forever Stamp Fact Sheet' released at the time of the Forever Stamps' introduction [PDF] made no mention of a separate classification or handling of letters mailed using Forever Stamp postage. A similar document found on the USPS's web site in March 2016 reiterated that the primary difference between Forever Stamps and denominated postage was a locked-in rate. All reporting has described Forever Stamps as identical to their denominated First-Class counterparts, save for built-in protections against postal rate hikes. One aspect of such rumors holds that items sent using Forever Stamps are considered 'second-class mail,' but that category (now called 'Periodicals') applied to newspapers and magazines that were handled with a lower priority than first-class mail, not to letters and other enveloped items. This rumor might stem from the fact that recent years have seen wide fluctuations in delivery times for first-class mail and slowdowns in the handling of all first-class mail. In December 2014 the USPS released a fact sheet [PDF] explaining that consolidation of mail processing facilities had led to longer transit times for first-class mail: In the past 10 years, total volume has declined by more than 56 billion pieces (or 26%), First-Class Mail volume has declined 34.5 billion pieces (or 35%), and single-piece First Class Mail (primarily letters bearing postage stamps) has declined 24.4 billion pieces (or more than 50%). In January 2015, the Postal Service changed its First-Class Mail service standards, affecting roughly 14 billion pieces of the total volume (or 9%) and up to 16% of First-Class Mail. The affected volume represents primarily single-piece First-Class Mail. The majority of this mail is being delivered in two days instead of one. Today, total First-Class Mail is delivered in an average of 2.1 days. Prior to the service standard change, First-Class Mail was delivered in an average of 1.8 days. On 1 February 2015, Wisconsin's Journal Times reported that many USPS customers were unaware of the adjusted first-class mail delivery projections despite the USPS's ongoing efforts to notify the public about them: Facing a dramatic decline in the mail volume, the agency announced in 2011 that it would be consolidating the processing and distribution facilities and making revisions to its First-Class Mail service standards. Those standard changes, which took place nationwide on Jan. 5, resulted in the average processing and delivery time for a piece of First-Class Mail, such as a birthday card or magazine, to increase from an average of 1-2 days to an average of 1-3 days, explained Sean Hargadon, spokesman for United States Postal Service. Despite efforts by the U.S. Postal Service to educate the public about the adjustments, Hargadon said it's likely that those who noticed the delays weren't aware the changes were coming. 'First-Class Mail has dropped by more than 50 percent in the last 10 years, so we have adjusted the standard to reflect that,' Hargadon said. 'With First-Class Mail, what people are used to is: 'If I drop it today my friend will get it tomorrow.' Well, not necessarily anymore.' An April 2015 Washington Post article also described a slower delivery times for first-class mail (partially attributed to inclement weather during the time period in question): In January [2015], the Postal Service eliminated overnight delivery for local first-class letters that used to arrive the next day. Anywhere from 20 percent to half of the rest of the first-class mail sent every day now takes an extra day of delivery time. National performance for single-piece first-class mail with 1-day, 2-day, and 3-5 day delivery standards declined throughout fiscal 2014 after a relatively good second quarter in fiscal 2013. Postal officials have said that severe winter storms had a significant impact on performance results for many service standards, slowing trucks from driving mail to post offices or airports, where it was flown out. In short, it is no secret that the USPS began adjusting the speed of first-class mail delivery as far back as 2011, as they restructured their processing procedures. But those adjustments were in no way linked to any purported lower priority for Forever Stamp-bearing letters, and the USPS has repeatedly explained that Forever Stamps are treated in every way as standard first-class postage. | In short, it is no secret that the USPS began adjusting the speed of first-class mail delivery as far back as 2011, as they restructured their processing procedures. But those adjustments were in no way linked to any purported lower priority for Forever Stamp-bearing letters, and the USPS has repeatedly explained that Forever Stamps are treated in every way as standard first-class postage. | [
"13884-proof-10-forever-stamps-slower.jpg"
]
|
USPS 'Forever Stamps' are considered 'second-class mail,' and items sent with those stamps are processed more slowly. | Contradiction | On 12 April 2007 the United States Postal Service (USPS) introduced the 'Forever Stamps.' As described in a pre-launch 4 May 2006 Washington Post article, the concept behind Forever Stamps was that they could be purchased at the current rate for first-class postage, but they could be used to mail letters (without the need for additional postage) no matter how much postage rates might change in the future Postal officials pitched the idea of creating a 'forever stamp' that would be good for sending First-Class mail no matter how much - or how often - the cost of a postage stamp goes up. The announcement came on the same day that the Postal Service said it would seek to raise the price of a First-Class stamp for the second consecutive year. The forever stamp, which would cost the same as a First-Class stamp, would provide a hedge against future postal rate increases and end the search for 2- or 3-cent stamps that usually follows a price increase. That early news coverage explained that no matter when a Forever Stamp (also known as non-denominated postage) was purchased, it entitled the buyer to use it for first-class postage: If the cost of sending a First-Class letter is raised to 42 cents next year, for instance, the forever stamp would be sold for that amount. If the First-Class rate then increased by 2 cents a year or two later, forever stamps would sell for 44 cents. But forever stamps purchased at the 42-cent rate still would get a First-Class letter where it needs to go. 'If you buy it, it can be used forever on single-piece First-Class letters,' said Stephen Kearney, vice president for pricing at the Postal Service. Despite subsequent rumors that mail sent using Forever Stamps is somehow processed differently (and slower) than other mail, a USPS 'Forever Stamp Fact Sheet' released at the time of the Forever Stamps' introduction [PDF] made no mention of a separate classification or handling of letters mailed using Forever Stamp postage. A similar document found on the USPS's web site in March 2016 reiterated that the primary difference between Forever Stamps and denominated postage was a locked-in rate. All reporting has described Forever Stamps as identical to their denominated First-Class counterparts, save for built-in protections against postal rate hikes. One aspect of such rumors holds that items sent using Forever Stamps are considered 'second-class mail,' but that category (now called 'Periodicals') applied to newspapers and magazines that were handled with a lower priority than first-class mail, not to letters and other enveloped items. This rumor might stem from the fact that recent years have seen wide fluctuations in delivery times for first-class mail and slowdowns in the handling of all first-class mail. In December 2014 the USPS released a fact sheet [PDF] explaining that consolidation of mail processing facilities had led to longer transit times for first-class mail: In the past 10 years, total volume has declined by more than 56 billion pieces (or 26%), First-Class Mail volume has declined 34.5 billion pieces (or 35%), and single-piece First Class Mail (primarily letters bearing postage stamps) has declined 24.4 billion pieces (or more than 50%). In January 2015, the Postal Service changed its First-Class Mail service standards, affecting roughly 14 billion pieces of the total volume (or 9%) and up to 16% of First-Class Mail. The affected volume represents primarily single-piece First-Class Mail. The majority of this mail is being delivered in two days instead of one. Today, total First-Class Mail is delivered in an average of 2.1 days. Prior to the service standard change, First-Class Mail was delivered in an average of 1.8 days. On 1 February 2015, Wisconsin's Journal Times reported that many USPS customers were unaware of the adjusted first-class mail delivery projections despite the USPS's ongoing efforts to notify the public about them: Facing a dramatic decline in the mail volume, the agency announced in 2011 that it would be consolidating the processing and distribution facilities and making revisions to its First-Class Mail service standards. Those standard changes, which took place nationwide on Jan. 5, resulted in the average processing and delivery time for a piece of First-Class Mail, such as a birthday card or magazine, to increase from an average of 1-2 days to an average of 1-3 days, explained Sean Hargadon, spokesman for United States Postal Service. Despite efforts by the U.S. Postal Service to educate the public about the adjustments, Hargadon said it's likely that those who noticed the delays weren't aware the changes were coming. 'First-Class Mail has dropped by more than 50 percent in the last 10 years, so we have adjusted the standard to reflect that,' Hargadon said. 'With First-Class Mail, what people are used to is: 'If I drop it today my friend will get it tomorrow.' Well, not necessarily anymore.' An April 2015 Washington Post article also described a slower delivery times for first-class mail (partially attributed to inclement weather during the time period in question): In January [2015], the Postal Service eliminated overnight delivery for local first-class letters that used to arrive the next day. Anywhere from 20 percent to half of the rest of the first-class mail sent every day now takes an extra day of delivery time. National performance for single-piece first-class mail with 1-day, 2-day, and 3-5 day delivery standards declined throughout fiscal 2014 after a relatively good second quarter in fiscal 2013. Postal officials have said that severe winter storms had a significant impact on performance results for many service standards, slowing trucks from driving mail to post offices or airports, where it was flown out. In short, it is no secret that the USPS began adjusting the speed of first-class mail delivery as far back as 2011, as they restructured their processing procedures. But those adjustments were in no way linked to any purported lower priority for Forever Stamp-bearing letters, and the USPS has repeatedly explained that Forever Stamps are treated in every way as standard first-class postage. | In short, it is no secret that the USPS began adjusting the speed of first-class mail delivery as far back as 2011, as they restructured their processing procedures. But those adjustments were in no way linked to any purported lower priority for Forever Stamp-bearing letters, and the USPS has repeatedly explained that Forever Stamps are treated in every way as standard first-class postage. | [
"13884-proof-10-forever-stamps-slower.jpg"
]
|
The ballot of an 118-year-old deceased man named William Bradley was counted in Michigan. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In the days following the Nov. 3, 2020, U.S. general election, widely distributed social media posts claimed that dead (or possibly dead) voters had received and returned absentee ballots in a number of states, implying that election fraud may have occurred at the voter level. One such allegation was the claim that a vote was recorded after having been cast by a Michigan man named William Bradley ... who had died in 1984 at the age of 82. Several versions of the same claim were shared across social media platforms. For example, President Donald Trump's son and campaign surrogate, Donald Trump, Jr., promoted a tweet posted by the account for the (unsuccessful) Republican U.S. Congressional candidate Anna Paulina Luna of Florida: For those who don't believe in voter fraud. This is nuts. William Bradley a 118 year old dead person apparently voted via absentee ballot in Wayne County Michigan. Bradley died in 1984. How long has this scam been going on? Similar allegations were presented and published by right-wing online activist Austin Fletcher, who uses the moniker 'Fleccas'; Ryan Fournier, the co-founder of the Students for Trump; and the British pro-Brexit campaign Leave.EU. Social media users insinuated that the error suggested more widespread voter fraud had occurred in multiple states: Here's a list of 10,000 people that are confirmed deceased (cross referenced with Social Security Death Index) that requested and returned absentee ballots in Wayne County. Are these all 'clerical errors' too? We're not even through the whole county yet!https://t.co/LZ78A6H3A5 https://t.co/X7yEAIjTRu - Essential Fleccas 🇺🇸 (@fleccas) November 7, 2020 On Twitter, the Michigan secretary of state responded directly to Fletcher's claim, stating simply that the allegation was 'misinformation': This is misinformation. Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. https://t.co/AG0Pj2rPsy - Michigan Department of State (@MichSoS) November 5, 2020 Snopes was first alerted to this rumor on Nov. 5, and in the days since then we have investigated the veracity of the claim at the urging of our readers. While it is true that a vote was recorded in the Michigan state election system by the now-deceased Bradley, election officials have publicly stated that it was done in error and was not a form of fraud. In short: The Bradley screenshots are real, but they were highly misleading due to being provided without full context. Many states such as Michigan have implemented online voting tracking systems which are available to the voters so that they may track their registration statuses and whether their ballots have been counted. A search in this system for 'William Bradley,' born in March 1902 residing in the postal code 48207, returned a response that read, 'Yes, you are registered!' and our search also indicated that Bradley's returned absentee ballot was received on Oct. 2: (A note on the website also stated that Bradley is on the permanent absentee voter list and will be sent an application for every election. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, vvote-by-mail applications were mailed to every registered voter in Michigan, although that still would not explain why Bradley's completed ballot was reportedly received in October.) A cross-reference with the U.S. Social Security Death Index showed a man by the same name with a birthdate of March 4, 1902, and residing in the same ZIP code area passed away in June 1984: A search for a Michigan resident in Wayne County under the name of William Bradley returned another Michigan resident registered at the same ZIP code, although he was born in 1959, not 1902. In an interview with PolitiFact, the younger Bradley told the fact-checking site that he had received an absentee ballot for both himself and his deceased father, but he threw the latter out. Daniel Baxter, a consultant for the Detroit Department of Elections, sent the publication a statement explaining that the son's ballot had been mistakenly logged as that of his dead father: No ballot for the 118-year-old Mr. Bradley was ever requested, received or counted. A man with a nearly identical name requested a ballot and voted properly in both the primary and general elections. When his ballot was initially logged, however, it was incorrectly attributed to the William Bradley born 118 years ago through a clerical error. This phenomenon occurs because identical names can sometimes be incorrectly recorded on voting rolls, both at the point of registration and throughout the ballot-recording process. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002 in an effort to reform the nation's voting process, including centralizing statewide voter lists. According to the Open Election Data Initiative, a nonpartisan government initiative to streamline election data, a voter list is a 'detailed record of every person who is registered and eligible to vote,' but these voter lists are not always accurate. Snopes spoke with John Fortier, a political scientist with expertise in mail-in voting at the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, who said that statewide voter lists are not perfect, though they are improving. During the 2000 general election, just seven states had statewide computerized voter databases. 'Truthfully, in many places, the voter registration lists were a local concern - one county might have their list on paper or in files, and this is because we started voting a long time before computers,' said Fortier. Following the passage of HAVA, states centralized county voter registration lists into a computerized database, and although regular checks are conducted for individuals who have moved out of state or have died, it remains possible that a person who died two decades before the system integration began could have been missed. Although Fortier said that the Bradley incident is 'surprising' and 'troubling,' it does not indicate that widespread voter or election fraud is taking place throughout the system. 'We don't have evidence that this is a widespread problem with lots of people falling into this category, but that doesn't mean we need to condone it,' said Fortier. 'Do we see lots of cases where we know dead people are voting? No. Could we improve? Yes.' But even in the event of such a clerical error, the Michigan Secretary of State wrote in a statement shared online, safeguards are in place to ensure that such illegitimate ballots are rejected: Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. On rare occasions, a ballot received for a living voter may be recorded in a way that makes it appear as if the voter is dead. This can be because of voters with similar names, where the ballot is accidentally recorded as voted by John Smith Sr when it was actually voted by John Smith Jr; or because of inaccurately recorded birth dates in the qualified voter file; for example, someone born in 1990 accidentally recorded as born in 1890. In such scenarios, no one ineligible has actually voted, and there is no impact on the outcome of the election. Local clerks can correct the issue when it is brought to their attention. While room for improvement may remain, occasional clerical errors do not mean that the system is a failure. For example, Michigan has a number of mechanisms in place to ensure election security, including its improved qualified voter file system. This custom-built system is used by election officials to 'efficiently and effectively maintain the state's registered voter list' with multifactor authentication and continuous monitoring. The system automatically registers all citizens who apply for driver's licenses or identification cards to help keep voter rolls up to date. | In short: The Bradley screenshots are real, but they were highly misleading due to being provided without full context. Many states such as Michigan have implemented online voting tracking systems which are available to the voters so that they may track their registration statuses and whether their ballots have been counted. A search in this system for 'William Bradley,' born in March 1902 residing in the postal code 48207, returned a response that read, 'Yes, you are registered!' and our search also indicated that Bradley's returned absentee ballot was received on Oct. 2: (A note on the website also stated that Bradley is on the permanent absentee voter list and will be sent an application for every election. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, vvote-by-mail applications were mailed to every registered voter in Michigan, although that still would not explain why Bradley's completed ballot was reportedly received in October.) A cross-reference with the U.S. Social Security Death Index showed a man by the same name with a birthdate of March 4, 1902, and residing in the same ZIP code area passed away in June 1984: A search for a Michigan resident in Wayne County under the name of William Bradley returned another Michigan resident registered at the same ZIP code, although he was born in 1959, not 1902. In an interview with PolitiFact, the younger Bradley told the fact-checking site that he had received an absentee ballot for both himself and his deceased father, but he threw the latter out. Daniel Baxter, a consultant for the Detroit Department of Elections, sent the publication a statement explaining that the son's ballot had been mistakenly logged as that of his dead father: No ballot for the 118-year-old Mr. Bradley was ever requested, received or counted. A man with a nearly identical name requested a ballot and voted properly in both the primary and general elections. When his ballot was initially logged, however, it was incorrectly attributed to the William Bradley born 118 years ago through a clerical error. This phenomenon occurs because identical names can sometimes be incorrectly recorded on voting rolls, both at the point of registration and throughout the ballot-recording process. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002 in an effort to reform the nation's voting process, including centralizing statewide voter lists. According to the Open Election Data Initiative, a nonpartisan government initiative to streamline election data, a voter list is a 'detailed record of every person who is registered and eligible to vote,' but these voter lists are not always accurate. Snopes spoke with John Fortier, a political scientist with expertise in mail-in voting at the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, who said that statewide voter lists are not perfect, though they are improving. During the 2000 general election, just seven states had statewide computerized voter databases. 'Truthfully, in many places, the voter registration lists were a local concern - one county might have their list on paper or in files, and this is because we started voting a long time before computers,' said Fortier. Following the passage of HAVA, states centralized county voter registration lists into a computerized database, and although regular checks are conducted for individuals who have moved out of state or have died, it remains possible that a person who died two decades before the system integration began could have been missed. Although Fortier said that the Bradley incident is 'surprising' and 'troubling,' it does not indicate that widespread voter or election fraud is taking place throughout the system. 'We don't have evidence that this is a widespread problem with lots of people falling into this category, but that doesn't mean we need to condone it,' said Fortier. 'Do we see lots of cases where we know dead people are voting? No. Could we improve? Yes.' But even in the event of such a clerical error, the Michigan Secretary of State wrote in a statement shared online, safeguards are in place to ensure that such illegitimate ballots are rejected: Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. On rare occasions, a ballot received for a living voter may be recorded in a way that makes it appear as if the voter is dead. This can be because of voters with similar names, where the ballot is accidentally recorded as voted by John Smith Sr when it was actually voted by John Smith Jr; or because of inaccurately recorded birth dates in the qualified voter file; for example, someone born in 1990 accidentally recorded as born in 1890. In such scenarios, no one ineligible has actually voted, and there is no impact on the outcome of the election. Local clerks can correct the issue when it is brought to their attention. While room for improvement may remain, occasional clerical errors do not mean that the system is a failure. For example, Michigan has a number of mechanisms in place to ensure election security, including its improved qualified voter file system. This custom-built system is used by election officials to 'efficiently and effectively maintain the state's registered voter list' with multifactor authentication and continuous monitoring. The system automatically registers all citizens who apply for driver's licenses or identification cards to help keep voter rolls up to date. | [
"13968-proof-02-GettyImages-1058146940.jpg"
]
|
The ballot of an 118-year-old deceased man named William Bradley was counted in Michigan. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In the days following the Nov. 3, 2020, U.S. general election, widely distributed social media posts claimed that dead (or possibly dead) voters had received and returned absentee ballots in a number of states, implying that election fraud may have occurred at the voter level. One such allegation was the claim that a vote was recorded after having been cast by a Michigan man named William Bradley ... who had died in 1984 at the age of 82. Several versions of the same claim were shared across social media platforms. For example, President Donald Trump's son and campaign surrogate, Donald Trump, Jr., promoted a tweet posted by the account for the (unsuccessful) Republican U.S. Congressional candidate Anna Paulina Luna of Florida: For those who don't believe in voter fraud. This is nuts. William Bradley a 118 year old dead person apparently voted via absentee ballot in Wayne County Michigan. Bradley died in 1984. How long has this scam been going on? Similar allegations were presented and published by right-wing online activist Austin Fletcher, who uses the moniker 'Fleccas'; Ryan Fournier, the co-founder of the Students for Trump; and the British pro-Brexit campaign Leave.EU. Social media users insinuated that the error suggested more widespread voter fraud had occurred in multiple states: Here's a list of 10,000 people that are confirmed deceased (cross referenced with Social Security Death Index) that requested and returned absentee ballots in Wayne County. Are these all 'clerical errors' too? We're not even through the whole county yet!https://t.co/LZ78A6H3A5 https://t.co/X7yEAIjTRu - Essential Fleccas 🇺🇸 (@fleccas) November 7, 2020 On Twitter, the Michigan secretary of state responded directly to Fletcher's claim, stating simply that the allegation was 'misinformation': This is misinformation. Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. https://t.co/AG0Pj2rPsy - Michigan Department of State (@MichSoS) November 5, 2020 Snopes was first alerted to this rumor on Nov. 5, and in the days since then we have investigated the veracity of the claim at the urging of our readers. While it is true that a vote was recorded in the Michigan state election system by the now-deceased Bradley, election officials have publicly stated that it was done in error and was not a form of fraud. In short: The Bradley screenshots are real, but they were highly misleading due to being provided without full context. Many states such as Michigan have implemented online voting tracking systems which are available to the voters so that they may track their registration statuses and whether their ballots have been counted. A search in this system for 'William Bradley,' born in March 1902 residing in the postal code 48207, returned a response that read, 'Yes, you are registered!' and our search also indicated that Bradley's returned absentee ballot was received on Oct. 2: (A note on the website also stated that Bradley is on the permanent absentee voter list and will be sent an application for every election. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, vvote-by-mail applications were mailed to every registered voter in Michigan, although that still would not explain why Bradley's completed ballot was reportedly received in October.) A cross-reference with the U.S. Social Security Death Index showed a man by the same name with a birthdate of March 4, 1902, and residing in the same ZIP code area passed away in June 1984: A search for a Michigan resident in Wayne County under the name of William Bradley returned another Michigan resident registered at the same ZIP code, although he was born in 1959, not 1902. In an interview with PolitiFact, the younger Bradley told the fact-checking site that he had received an absentee ballot for both himself and his deceased father, but he threw the latter out. Daniel Baxter, a consultant for the Detroit Department of Elections, sent the publication a statement explaining that the son's ballot had been mistakenly logged as that of his dead father: No ballot for the 118-year-old Mr. Bradley was ever requested, received or counted. A man with a nearly identical name requested a ballot and voted properly in both the primary and general elections. When his ballot was initially logged, however, it was incorrectly attributed to the William Bradley born 118 years ago through a clerical error. This phenomenon occurs because identical names can sometimes be incorrectly recorded on voting rolls, both at the point of registration and throughout the ballot-recording process. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002 in an effort to reform the nation's voting process, including centralizing statewide voter lists. According to the Open Election Data Initiative, a nonpartisan government initiative to streamline election data, a voter list is a 'detailed record of every person who is registered and eligible to vote,' but these voter lists are not always accurate. Snopes spoke with John Fortier, a political scientist with expertise in mail-in voting at the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, who said that statewide voter lists are not perfect, though they are improving. During the 2000 general election, just seven states had statewide computerized voter databases. 'Truthfully, in many places, the voter registration lists were a local concern - one county might have their list on paper or in files, and this is because we started voting a long time before computers,' said Fortier. Following the passage of HAVA, states centralized county voter registration lists into a computerized database, and although regular checks are conducted for individuals who have moved out of state or have died, it remains possible that a person who died two decades before the system integration began could have been missed. Although Fortier said that the Bradley incident is 'surprising' and 'troubling,' it does not indicate that widespread voter or election fraud is taking place throughout the system. 'We don't have evidence that this is a widespread problem with lots of people falling into this category, but that doesn't mean we need to condone it,' said Fortier. 'Do we see lots of cases where we know dead people are voting? No. Could we improve? Yes.' But even in the event of such a clerical error, the Michigan Secretary of State wrote in a statement shared online, safeguards are in place to ensure that such illegitimate ballots are rejected: Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. On rare occasions, a ballot received for a living voter may be recorded in a way that makes it appear as if the voter is dead. This can be because of voters with similar names, where the ballot is accidentally recorded as voted by John Smith Sr when it was actually voted by John Smith Jr; or because of inaccurately recorded birth dates in the qualified voter file; for example, someone born in 1990 accidentally recorded as born in 1890. In such scenarios, no one ineligible has actually voted, and there is no impact on the outcome of the election. Local clerks can correct the issue when it is brought to their attention. While room for improvement may remain, occasional clerical errors do not mean that the system is a failure. For example, Michigan has a number of mechanisms in place to ensure election security, including its improved qualified voter file system. This custom-built system is used by election officials to 'efficiently and effectively maintain the state's registered voter list' with multifactor authentication and continuous monitoring. The system automatically registers all citizens who apply for driver's licenses or identification cards to help keep voter rolls up to date. | In short: The Bradley screenshots are real, but they were highly misleading due to being provided without full context. Many states such as Michigan have implemented online voting tracking systems which are available to the voters so that they may track their registration statuses and whether their ballots have been counted. A search in this system for 'William Bradley,' born in March 1902 residing in the postal code 48207, returned a response that read, 'Yes, you are registered!' and our search also indicated that Bradley's returned absentee ballot was received on Oct. 2: (A note on the website also stated that Bradley is on the permanent absentee voter list and will be sent an application for every election. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, vvote-by-mail applications were mailed to every registered voter in Michigan, although that still would not explain why Bradley's completed ballot was reportedly received in October.) A cross-reference with the U.S. Social Security Death Index showed a man by the same name with a birthdate of March 4, 1902, and residing in the same ZIP code area passed away in June 1984: A search for a Michigan resident in Wayne County under the name of William Bradley returned another Michigan resident registered at the same ZIP code, although he was born in 1959, not 1902. In an interview with PolitiFact, the younger Bradley told the fact-checking site that he had received an absentee ballot for both himself and his deceased father, but he threw the latter out. Daniel Baxter, a consultant for the Detroit Department of Elections, sent the publication a statement explaining that the son's ballot had been mistakenly logged as that of his dead father: No ballot for the 118-year-old Mr. Bradley was ever requested, received or counted. A man with a nearly identical name requested a ballot and voted properly in both the primary and general elections. When his ballot was initially logged, however, it was incorrectly attributed to the William Bradley born 118 years ago through a clerical error. This phenomenon occurs because identical names can sometimes be incorrectly recorded on voting rolls, both at the point of registration and throughout the ballot-recording process. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002 in an effort to reform the nation's voting process, including centralizing statewide voter lists. According to the Open Election Data Initiative, a nonpartisan government initiative to streamline election data, a voter list is a 'detailed record of every person who is registered and eligible to vote,' but these voter lists are not always accurate. Snopes spoke with John Fortier, a political scientist with expertise in mail-in voting at the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, who said that statewide voter lists are not perfect, though they are improving. During the 2000 general election, just seven states had statewide computerized voter databases. 'Truthfully, in many places, the voter registration lists were a local concern - one county might have their list on paper or in files, and this is because we started voting a long time before computers,' said Fortier. Following the passage of HAVA, states centralized county voter registration lists into a computerized database, and although regular checks are conducted for individuals who have moved out of state or have died, it remains possible that a person who died two decades before the system integration began could have been missed. Although Fortier said that the Bradley incident is 'surprising' and 'troubling,' it does not indicate that widespread voter or election fraud is taking place throughout the system. 'We don't have evidence that this is a widespread problem with lots of people falling into this category, but that doesn't mean we need to condone it,' said Fortier. 'Do we see lots of cases where we know dead people are voting? No. Could we improve? Yes.' But even in the event of such a clerical error, the Michigan Secretary of State wrote in a statement shared online, safeguards are in place to ensure that such illegitimate ballots are rejected: Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. On rare occasions, a ballot received for a living voter may be recorded in a way that makes it appear as if the voter is dead. This can be because of voters with similar names, where the ballot is accidentally recorded as voted by John Smith Sr when it was actually voted by John Smith Jr; or because of inaccurately recorded birth dates in the qualified voter file; for example, someone born in 1990 accidentally recorded as born in 1890. In such scenarios, no one ineligible has actually voted, and there is no impact on the outcome of the election. Local clerks can correct the issue when it is brought to their attention. While room for improvement may remain, occasional clerical errors do not mean that the system is a failure. For example, Michigan has a number of mechanisms in place to ensure election security, including its improved qualified voter file system. This custom-built system is used by election officials to 'efficiently and effectively maintain the state's registered voter list' with multifactor authentication and continuous monitoring. The system automatically registers all citizens who apply for driver's licenses or identification cards to help keep voter rolls up to date. | [
"13968-proof-02-GettyImages-1058146940.jpg"
]
|
The ballot of an 118-year-old deceased man named William Bradley was counted in Michigan. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In the days following the Nov. 3, 2020, U.S. general election, widely distributed social media posts claimed that dead (or possibly dead) voters had received and returned absentee ballots in a number of states, implying that election fraud may have occurred at the voter level. One such allegation was the claim that a vote was recorded after having been cast by a Michigan man named William Bradley ... who had died in 1984 at the age of 82. Several versions of the same claim were shared across social media platforms. For example, President Donald Trump's son and campaign surrogate, Donald Trump, Jr., promoted a tweet posted by the account for the (unsuccessful) Republican U.S. Congressional candidate Anna Paulina Luna of Florida: For those who don't believe in voter fraud. This is nuts. William Bradley a 118 year old dead person apparently voted via absentee ballot in Wayne County Michigan. Bradley died in 1984. How long has this scam been going on? Similar allegations were presented and published by right-wing online activist Austin Fletcher, who uses the moniker 'Fleccas'; Ryan Fournier, the co-founder of the Students for Trump; and the British pro-Brexit campaign Leave.EU. Social media users insinuated that the error suggested more widespread voter fraud had occurred in multiple states: Here's a list of 10,000 people that are confirmed deceased (cross referenced with Social Security Death Index) that requested and returned absentee ballots in Wayne County. Are these all 'clerical errors' too? We're not even through the whole county yet!https://t.co/LZ78A6H3A5 https://t.co/X7yEAIjTRu - Essential Fleccas 🇺🇸 (@fleccas) November 7, 2020 On Twitter, the Michigan secretary of state responded directly to Fletcher's claim, stating simply that the allegation was 'misinformation': This is misinformation. Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. https://t.co/AG0Pj2rPsy - Michigan Department of State (@MichSoS) November 5, 2020 Snopes was first alerted to this rumor on Nov. 5, and in the days since then we have investigated the veracity of the claim at the urging of our readers. While it is true that a vote was recorded in the Michigan state election system by the now-deceased Bradley, election officials have publicly stated that it was done in error and was not a form of fraud. In short: The Bradley screenshots are real, but they were highly misleading due to being provided without full context. Many states such as Michigan have implemented online voting tracking systems which are available to the voters so that they may track their registration statuses and whether their ballots have been counted. A search in this system for 'William Bradley,' born in March 1902 residing in the postal code 48207, returned a response that read, 'Yes, you are registered!' and our search also indicated that Bradley's returned absentee ballot was received on Oct. 2: (A note on the website also stated that Bradley is on the permanent absentee voter list and will be sent an application for every election. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, vvote-by-mail applications were mailed to every registered voter in Michigan, although that still would not explain why Bradley's completed ballot was reportedly received in October.) A cross-reference with the U.S. Social Security Death Index showed a man by the same name with a birthdate of March 4, 1902, and residing in the same ZIP code area passed away in June 1984: A search for a Michigan resident in Wayne County under the name of William Bradley returned another Michigan resident registered at the same ZIP code, although he was born in 1959, not 1902. In an interview with PolitiFact, the younger Bradley told the fact-checking site that he had received an absentee ballot for both himself and his deceased father, but he threw the latter out. Daniel Baxter, a consultant for the Detroit Department of Elections, sent the publication a statement explaining that the son's ballot had been mistakenly logged as that of his dead father: No ballot for the 118-year-old Mr. Bradley was ever requested, received or counted. A man with a nearly identical name requested a ballot and voted properly in both the primary and general elections. When his ballot was initially logged, however, it was incorrectly attributed to the William Bradley born 118 years ago through a clerical error. This phenomenon occurs because identical names can sometimes be incorrectly recorded on voting rolls, both at the point of registration and throughout the ballot-recording process. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002 in an effort to reform the nation's voting process, including centralizing statewide voter lists. According to the Open Election Data Initiative, a nonpartisan government initiative to streamline election data, a voter list is a 'detailed record of every person who is registered and eligible to vote,' but these voter lists are not always accurate. Snopes spoke with John Fortier, a political scientist with expertise in mail-in voting at the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, who said that statewide voter lists are not perfect, though they are improving. During the 2000 general election, just seven states had statewide computerized voter databases. 'Truthfully, in many places, the voter registration lists were a local concern - one county might have their list on paper or in files, and this is because we started voting a long time before computers,' said Fortier. Following the passage of HAVA, states centralized county voter registration lists into a computerized database, and although regular checks are conducted for individuals who have moved out of state or have died, it remains possible that a person who died two decades before the system integration began could have been missed. Although Fortier said that the Bradley incident is 'surprising' and 'troubling,' it does not indicate that widespread voter or election fraud is taking place throughout the system. 'We don't have evidence that this is a widespread problem with lots of people falling into this category, but that doesn't mean we need to condone it,' said Fortier. 'Do we see lots of cases where we know dead people are voting? No. Could we improve? Yes.' But even in the event of such a clerical error, the Michigan Secretary of State wrote in a statement shared online, safeguards are in place to ensure that such illegitimate ballots are rejected: Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. On rare occasions, a ballot received for a living voter may be recorded in a way that makes it appear as if the voter is dead. This can be because of voters with similar names, where the ballot is accidentally recorded as voted by John Smith Sr when it was actually voted by John Smith Jr; or because of inaccurately recorded birth dates in the qualified voter file; for example, someone born in 1990 accidentally recorded as born in 1890. In such scenarios, no one ineligible has actually voted, and there is no impact on the outcome of the election. Local clerks can correct the issue when it is brought to their attention. While room for improvement may remain, occasional clerical errors do not mean that the system is a failure. For example, Michigan has a number of mechanisms in place to ensure election security, including its improved qualified voter file system. This custom-built system is used by election officials to 'efficiently and effectively maintain the state's registered voter list' with multifactor authentication and continuous monitoring. The system automatically registers all citizens who apply for driver's licenses or identification cards to help keep voter rolls up to date. | In short: The Bradley screenshots are real, but they were highly misleading due to being provided without full context. Many states such as Michigan have implemented online voting tracking systems which are available to the voters so that they may track their registration statuses and whether their ballots have been counted. A search in this system for 'William Bradley,' born in March 1902 residing in the postal code 48207, returned a response that read, 'Yes, you are registered!' and our search also indicated that Bradley's returned absentee ballot was received on Oct. 2: (A note on the website also stated that Bradley is on the permanent absentee voter list and will be sent an application for every election. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, vvote-by-mail applications were mailed to every registered voter in Michigan, although that still would not explain why Bradley's completed ballot was reportedly received in October.) A cross-reference with the U.S. Social Security Death Index showed a man by the same name with a birthdate of March 4, 1902, and residing in the same ZIP code area passed away in June 1984: A search for a Michigan resident in Wayne County under the name of William Bradley returned another Michigan resident registered at the same ZIP code, although he was born in 1959, not 1902. In an interview with PolitiFact, the younger Bradley told the fact-checking site that he had received an absentee ballot for both himself and his deceased father, but he threw the latter out. Daniel Baxter, a consultant for the Detroit Department of Elections, sent the publication a statement explaining that the son's ballot had been mistakenly logged as that of his dead father: No ballot for the 118-year-old Mr. Bradley was ever requested, received or counted. A man with a nearly identical name requested a ballot and voted properly in both the primary and general elections. When his ballot was initially logged, however, it was incorrectly attributed to the William Bradley born 118 years ago through a clerical error. This phenomenon occurs because identical names can sometimes be incorrectly recorded on voting rolls, both at the point of registration and throughout the ballot-recording process. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002 in an effort to reform the nation's voting process, including centralizing statewide voter lists. According to the Open Election Data Initiative, a nonpartisan government initiative to streamline election data, a voter list is a 'detailed record of every person who is registered and eligible to vote,' but these voter lists are not always accurate. Snopes spoke with John Fortier, a political scientist with expertise in mail-in voting at the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, who said that statewide voter lists are not perfect, though they are improving. During the 2000 general election, just seven states had statewide computerized voter databases. 'Truthfully, in many places, the voter registration lists were a local concern - one county might have their list on paper or in files, and this is because we started voting a long time before computers,' said Fortier. Following the passage of HAVA, states centralized county voter registration lists into a computerized database, and although regular checks are conducted for individuals who have moved out of state or have died, it remains possible that a person who died two decades before the system integration began could have been missed. Although Fortier said that the Bradley incident is 'surprising' and 'troubling,' it does not indicate that widespread voter or election fraud is taking place throughout the system. 'We don't have evidence that this is a widespread problem with lots of people falling into this category, but that doesn't mean we need to condone it,' said Fortier. 'Do we see lots of cases where we know dead people are voting? No. Could we improve? Yes.' But even in the event of such a clerical error, the Michigan Secretary of State wrote in a statement shared online, safeguards are in place to ensure that such illegitimate ballots are rejected: Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. On rare occasions, a ballot received for a living voter may be recorded in a way that makes it appear as if the voter is dead. This can be because of voters with similar names, where the ballot is accidentally recorded as voted by John Smith Sr when it was actually voted by John Smith Jr; or because of inaccurately recorded birth dates in the qualified voter file; for example, someone born in 1990 accidentally recorded as born in 1890. In such scenarios, no one ineligible has actually voted, and there is no impact on the outcome of the election. Local clerks can correct the issue when it is brought to their attention. While room for improvement may remain, occasional clerical errors do not mean that the system is a failure. For example, Michigan has a number of mechanisms in place to ensure election security, including its improved qualified voter file system. This custom-built system is used by election officials to 'efficiently and effectively maintain the state's registered voter list' with multifactor authentication and continuous monitoring. The system automatically registers all citizens who apply for driver's licenses or identification cards to help keep voter rolls up to date. | [
"13968-proof-02-GettyImages-1058146940.jpg"
]
|
The ballot of an 118-year-old deceased man named William Bradley was counted in Michigan. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In the days following the Nov. 3, 2020, U.S. general election, widely distributed social media posts claimed that dead (or possibly dead) voters had received and returned absentee ballots in a number of states, implying that election fraud may have occurred at the voter level. One such allegation was the claim that a vote was recorded after having been cast by a Michigan man named William Bradley ... who had died in 1984 at the age of 82. Several versions of the same claim were shared across social media platforms. For example, President Donald Trump's son and campaign surrogate, Donald Trump, Jr., promoted a tweet posted by the account for the (unsuccessful) Republican U.S. Congressional candidate Anna Paulina Luna of Florida: For those who don't believe in voter fraud. This is nuts. William Bradley a 118 year old dead person apparently voted via absentee ballot in Wayne County Michigan. Bradley died in 1984. How long has this scam been going on? Similar allegations were presented and published by right-wing online activist Austin Fletcher, who uses the moniker 'Fleccas'; Ryan Fournier, the co-founder of the Students for Trump; and the British pro-Brexit campaign Leave.EU. Social media users insinuated that the error suggested more widespread voter fraud had occurred in multiple states: Here's a list of 10,000 people that are confirmed deceased (cross referenced with Social Security Death Index) that requested and returned absentee ballots in Wayne County. Are these all 'clerical errors' too? We're not even through the whole county yet!https://t.co/LZ78A6H3A5 https://t.co/X7yEAIjTRu - Essential Fleccas 🇺🇸 (@fleccas) November 7, 2020 On Twitter, the Michigan secretary of state responded directly to Fletcher's claim, stating simply that the allegation was 'misinformation': This is misinformation. Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. https://t.co/AG0Pj2rPsy - Michigan Department of State (@MichSoS) November 5, 2020 Snopes was first alerted to this rumor on Nov. 5, and in the days since then we have investigated the veracity of the claim at the urging of our readers. While it is true that a vote was recorded in the Michigan state election system by the now-deceased Bradley, election officials have publicly stated that it was done in error and was not a form of fraud. In short: The Bradley screenshots are real, but they were highly misleading due to being provided without full context. Many states such as Michigan have implemented online voting tracking systems which are available to the voters so that they may track their registration statuses and whether their ballots have been counted. A search in this system for 'William Bradley,' born in March 1902 residing in the postal code 48207, returned a response that read, 'Yes, you are registered!' and our search also indicated that Bradley's returned absentee ballot was received on Oct. 2: (A note on the website also stated that Bradley is on the permanent absentee voter list and will be sent an application for every election. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, vvote-by-mail applications were mailed to every registered voter in Michigan, although that still would not explain why Bradley's completed ballot was reportedly received in October.) A cross-reference with the U.S. Social Security Death Index showed a man by the same name with a birthdate of March 4, 1902, and residing in the same ZIP code area passed away in June 1984: A search for a Michigan resident in Wayne County under the name of William Bradley returned another Michigan resident registered at the same ZIP code, although he was born in 1959, not 1902. In an interview with PolitiFact, the younger Bradley told the fact-checking site that he had received an absentee ballot for both himself and his deceased father, but he threw the latter out. Daniel Baxter, a consultant for the Detroit Department of Elections, sent the publication a statement explaining that the son's ballot had been mistakenly logged as that of his dead father: No ballot for the 118-year-old Mr. Bradley was ever requested, received or counted. A man with a nearly identical name requested a ballot and voted properly in both the primary and general elections. When his ballot was initially logged, however, it was incorrectly attributed to the William Bradley born 118 years ago through a clerical error. This phenomenon occurs because identical names can sometimes be incorrectly recorded on voting rolls, both at the point of registration and throughout the ballot-recording process. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002 in an effort to reform the nation's voting process, including centralizing statewide voter lists. According to the Open Election Data Initiative, a nonpartisan government initiative to streamline election data, a voter list is a 'detailed record of every person who is registered and eligible to vote,' but these voter lists are not always accurate. Snopes spoke with John Fortier, a political scientist with expertise in mail-in voting at the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, who said that statewide voter lists are not perfect, though they are improving. During the 2000 general election, just seven states had statewide computerized voter databases. 'Truthfully, in many places, the voter registration lists were a local concern - one county might have their list on paper or in files, and this is because we started voting a long time before computers,' said Fortier. Following the passage of HAVA, states centralized county voter registration lists into a computerized database, and although regular checks are conducted for individuals who have moved out of state or have died, it remains possible that a person who died two decades before the system integration began could have been missed. Although Fortier said that the Bradley incident is 'surprising' and 'troubling,' it does not indicate that widespread voter or election fraud is taking place throughout the system. 'We don't have evidence that this is a widespread problem with lots of people falling into this category, but that doesn't mean we need to condone it,' said Fortier. 'Do we see lots of cases where we know dead people are voting? No. Could we improve? Yes.' But even in the event of such a clerical error, the Michigan Secretary of State wrote in a statement shared online, safeguards are in place to ensure that such illegitimate ballots are rejected: Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. On rare occasions, a ballot received for a living voter may be recorded in a way that makes it appear as if the voter is dead. This can be because of voters with similar names, where the ballot is accidentally recorded as voted by John Smith Sr when it was actually voted by John Smith Jr; or because of inaccurately recorded birth dates in the qualified voter file; for example, someone born in 1990 accidentally recorded as born in 1890. In such scenarios, no one ineligible has actually voted, and there is no impact on the outcome of the election. Local clerks can correct the issue when it is brought to their attention. While room for improvement may remain, occasional clerical errors do not mean that the system is a failure. For example, Michigan has a number of mechanisms in place to ensure election security, including its improved qualified voter file system. This custom-built system is used by election officials to 'efficiently and effectively maintain the state's registered voter list' with multifactor authentication and continuous monitoring. The system automatically registers all citizens who apply for driver's licenses or identification cards to help keep voter rolls up to date. | In short: The Bradley screenshots are real, but they were highly misleading due to being provided without full context. Many states such as Michigan have implemented online voting tracking systems which are available to the voters so that they may track their registration statuses and whether their ballots have been counted. A search in this system for 'William Bradley,' born in March 1902 residing in the postal code 48207, returned a response that read, 'Yes, you are registered!' and our search also indicated that Bradley's returned absentee ballot was received on Oct. 2: (A note on the website also stated that Bradley is on the permanent absentee voter list and will be sent an application for every election. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, vvote-by-mail applications were mailed to every registered voter in Michigan, although that still would not explain why Bradley's completed ballot was reportedly received in October.) A cross-reference with the U.S. Social Security Death Index showed a man by the same name with a birthdate of March 4, 1902, and residing in the same ZIP code area passed away in June 1984: A search for a Michigan resident in Wayne County under the name of William Bradley returned another Michigan resident registered at the same ZIP code, although he was born in 1959, not 1902. In an interview with PolitiFact, the younger Bradley told the fact-checking site that he had received an absentee ballot for both himself and his deceased father, but he threw the latter out. Daniel Baxter, a consultant for the Detroit Department of Elections, sent the publication a statement explaining that the son's ballot had been mistakenly logged as that of his dead father: No ballot for the 118-year-old Mr. Bradley was ever requested, received or counted. A man with a nearly identical name requested a ballot and voted properly in both the primary and general elections. When his ballot was initially logged, however, it was incorrectly attributed to the William Bradley born 118 years ago through a clerical error. This phenomenon occurs because identical names can sometimes be incorrectly recorded on voting rolls, both at the point of registration and throughout the ballot-recording process. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002 in an effort to reform the nation's voting process, including centralizing statewide voter lists. According to the Open Election Data Initiative, a nonpartisan government initiative to streamline election data, a voter list is a 'detailed record of every person who is registered and eligible to vote,' but these voter lists are not always accurate. Snopes spoke with John Fortier, a political scientist with expertise in mail-in voting at the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, who said that statewide voter lists are not perfect, though they are improving. During the 2000 general election, just seven states had statewide computerized voter databases. 'Truthfully, in many places, the voter registration lists were a local concern - one county might have their list on paper or in files, and this is because we started voting a long time before computers,' said Fortier. Following the passage of HAVA, states centralized county voter registration lists into a computerized database, and although regular checks are conducted for individuals who have moved out of state or have died, it remains possible that a person who died two decades before the system integration began could have been missed. Although Fortier said that the Bradley incident is 'surprising' and 'troubling,' it does not indicate that widespread voter or election fraud is taking place throughout the system. 'We don't have evidence that this is a widespread problem with lots of people falling into this category, but that doesn't mean we need to condone it,' said Fortier. 'Do we see lots of cases where we know dead people are voting? No. Could we improve? Yes.' But even in the event of such a clerical error, the Michigan Secretary of State wrote in a statement shared online, safeguards are in place to ensure that such illegitimate ballots are rejected: Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. On rare occasions, a ballot received for a living voter may be recorded in a way that makes it appear as if the voter is dead. This can be because of voters with similar names, where the ballot is accidentally recorded as voted by John Smith Sr when it was actually voted by John Smith Jr; or because of inaccurately recorded birth dates in the qualified voter file; for example, someone born in 1990 accidentally recorded as born in 1890. In such scenarios, no one ineligible has actually voted, and there is no impact on the outcome of the election. Local clerks can correct the issue when it is brought to their attention. While room for improvement may remain, occasional clerical errors do not mean that the system is a failure. For example, Michigan has a number of mechanisms in place to ensure election security, including its improved qualified voter file system. This custom-built system is used by election officials to 'efficiently and effectively maintain the state's registered voter list' with multifactor authentication and continuous monitoring. The system automatically registers all citizens who apply for driver's licenses or identification cards to help keep voter rolls up to date. | [
"13968-proof-02-GettyImages-1058146940.jpg"
]
|
The ballot of an 118-year-old deceased man named William Bradley was counted in Michigan. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In the days following the Nov. 3, 2020, U.S. general election, widely distributed social media posts claimed that dead (or possibly dead) voters had received and returned absentee ballots in a number of states, implying that election fraud may have occurred at the voter level. One such allegation was the claim that a vote was recorded after having been cast by a Michigan man named William Bradley ... who had died in 1984 at the age of 82. Several versions of the same claim were shared across social media platforms. For example, President Donald Trump's son and campaign surrogate, Donald Trump, Jr., promoted a tweet posted by the account for the (unsuccessful) Republican U.S. Congressional candidate Anna Paulina Luna of Florida: For those who don't believe in voter fraud. This is nuts. William Bradley a 118 year old dead person apparently voted via absentee ballot in Wayne County Michigan. Bradley died in 1984. How long has this scam been going on? Similar allegations were presented and published by right-wing online activist Austin Fletcher, who uses the moniker 'Fleccas'; Ryan Fournier, the co-founder of the Students for Trump; and the British pro-Brexit campaign Leave.EU. Social media users insinuated that the error suggested more widespread voter fraud had occurred in multiple states: Here's a list of 10,000 people that are confirmed deceased (cross referenced with Social Security Death Index) that requested and returned absentee ballots in Wayne County. Are these all 'clerical errors' too? We're not even through the whole county yet!https://t.co/LZ78A6H3A5 https://t.co/X7yEAIjTRu - Essential Fleccas 🇺🇸 (@fleccas) November 7, 2020 On Twitter, the Michigan secretary of state responded directly to Fletcher's claim, stating simply that the allegation was 'misinformation': This is misinformation. Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. https://t.co/AG0Pj2rPsy - Michigan Department of State (@MichSoS) November 5, 2020 Snopes was first alerted to this rumor on Nov. 5, and in the days since then we have investigated the veracity of the claim at the urging of our readers. While it is true that a vote was recorded in the Michigan state election system by the now-deceased Bradley, election officials have publicly stated that it was done in error and was not a form of fraud. In short: The Bradley screenshots are real, but they were highly misleading due to being provided without full context. Many states such as Michigan have implemented online voting tracking systems which are available to the voters so that they may track their registration statuses and whether their ballots have been counted. A search in this system for 'William Bradley,' born in March 1902 residing in the postal code 48207, returned a response that read, 'Yes, you are registered!' and our search also indicated that Bradley's returned absentee ballot was received on Oct. 2: (A note on the website also stated that Bradley is on the permanent absentee voter list and will be sent an application for every election. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, vvote-by-mail applications were mailed to every registered voter in Michigan, although that still would not explain why Bradley's completed ballot was reportedly received in October.) A cross-reference with the U.S. Social Security Death Index showed a man by the same name with a birthdate of March 4, 1902, and residing in the same ZIP code area passed away in June 1984: A search for a Michigan resident in Wayne County under the name of William Bradley returned another Michigan resident registered at the same ZIP code, although he was born in 1959, not 1902. In an interview with PolitiFact, the younger Bradley told the fact-checking site that he had received an absentee ballot for both himself and his deceased father, but he threw the latter out. Daniel Baxter, a consultant for the Detroit Department of Elections, sent the publication a statement explaining that the son's ballot had been mistakenly logged as that of his dead father: No ballot for the 118-year-old Mr. Bradley was ever requested, received or counted. A man with a nearly identical name requested a ballot and voted properly in both the primary and general elections. When his ballot was initially logged, however, it was incorrectly attributed to the William Bradley born 118 years ago through a clerical error. This phenomenon occurs because identical names can sometimes be incorrectly recorded on voting rolls, both at the point of registration and throughout the ballot-recording process. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002 in an effort to reform the nation's voting process, including centralizing statewide voter lists. According to the Open Election Data Initiative, a nonpartisan government initiative to streamline election data, a voter list is a 'detailed record of every person who is registered and eligible to vote,' but these voter lists are not always accurate. Snopes spoke with John Fortier, a political scientist with expertise in mail-in voting at the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, who said that statewide voter lists are not perfect, though they are improving. During the 2000 general election, just seven states had statewide computerized voter databases. 'Truthfully, in many places, the voter registration lists were a local concern - one county might have their list on paper or in files, and this is because we started voting a long time before computers,' said Fortier. Following the passage of HAVA, states centralized county voter registration lists into a computerized database, and although regular checks are conducted for individuals who have moved out of state or have died, it remains possible that a person who died two decades before the system integration began could have been missed. Although Fortier said that the Bradley incident is 'surprising' and 'troubling,' it does not indicate that widespread voter or election fraud is taking place throughout the system. 'We don't have evidence that this is a widespread problem with lots of people falling into this category, but that doesn't mean we need to condone it,' said Fortier. 'Do we see lots of cases where we know dead people are voting? No. Could we improve? Yes.' But even in the event of such a clerical error, the Michigan Secretary of State wrote in a statement shared online, safeguards are in place to ensure that such illegitimate ballots are rejected: Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. On rare occasions, a ballot received for a living voter may be recorded in a way that makes it appear as if the voter is dead. This can be because of voters with similar names, where the ballot is accidentally recorded as voted by John Smith Sr when it was actually voted by John Smith Jr; or because of inaccurately recorded birth dates in the qualified voter file; for example, someone born in 1990 accidentally recorded as born in 1890. In such scenarios, no one ineligible has actually voted, and there is no impact on the outcome of the election. Local clerks can correct the issue when it is brought to their attention. While room for improvement may remain, occasional clerical errors do not mean that the system is a failure. For example, Michigan has a number of mechanisms in place to ensure election security, including its improved qualified voter file system. This custom-built system is used by election officials to 'efficiently and effectively maintain the state's registered voter list' with multifactor authentication and continuous monitoring. The system automatically registers all citizens who apply for driver's licenses or identification cards to help keep voter rolls up to date. | In short: The Bradley screenshots are real, but they were highly misleading due to being provided without full context. Many states such as Michigan have implemented online voting tracking systems which are available to the voters so that they may track their registration statuses and whether their ballots have been counted. A search in this system for 'William Bradley,' born in March 1902 residing in the postal code 48207, returned a response that read, 'Yes, you are registered!' and our search also indicated that Bradley's returned absentee ballot was received on Oct. 2: (A note on the website also stated that Bradley is on the permanent absentee voter list and will be sent an application for every election. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, vvote-by-mail applications were mailed to every registered voter in Michigan, although that still would not explain why Bradley's completed ballot was reportedly received in October.) A cross-reference with the U.S. Social Security Death Index showed a man by the same name with a birthdate of March 4, 1902, and residing in the same ZIP code area passed away in June 1984: A search for a Michigan resident in Wayne County under the name of William Bradley returned another Michigan resident registered at the same ZIP code, although he was born in 1959, not 1902. In an interview with PolitiFact, the younger Bradley told the fact-checking site that he had received an absentee ballot for both himself and his deceased father, but he threw the latter out. Daniel Baxter, a consultant for the Detroit Department of Elections, sent the publication a statement explaining that the son's ballot had been mistakenly logged as that of his dead father: No ballot for the 118-year-old Mr. Bradley was ever requested, received or counted. A man with a nearly identical name requested a ballot and voted properly in both the primary and general elections. When his ballot was initially logged, however, it was incorrectly attributed to the William Bradley born 118 years ago through a clerical error. This phenomenon occurs because identical names can sometimes be incorrectly recorded on voting rolls, both at the point of registration and throughout the ballot-recording process. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002 in an effort to reform the nation's voting process, including centralizing statewide voter lists. According to the Open Election Data Initiative, a nonpartisan government initiative to streamline election data, a voter list is a 'detailed record of every person who is registered and eligible to vote,' but these voter lists are not always accurate. Snopes spoke with John Fortier, a political scientist with expertise in mail-in voting at the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, who said that statewide voter lists are not perfect, though they are improving. During the 2000 general election, just seven states had statewide computerized voter databases. 'Truthfully, in many places, the voter registration lists were a local concern - one county might have their list on paper or in files, and this is because we started voting a long time before computers,' said Fortier. Following the passage of HAVA, states centralized county voter registration lists into a computerized database, and although regular checks are conducted for individuals who have moved out of state or have died, it remains possible that a person who died two decades before the system integration began could have been missed. Although Fortier said that the Bradley incident is 'surprising' and 'troubling,' it does not indicate that widespread voter or election fraud is taking place throughout the system. 'We don't have evidence that this is a widespread problem with lots of people falling into this category, but that doesn't mean we need to condone it,' said Fortier. 'Do we see lots of cases where we know dead people are voting? No. Could we improve? Yes.' But even in the event of such a clerical error, the Michigan Secretary of State wrote in a statement shared online, safeguards are in place to ensure that such illegitimate ballots are rejected: Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. On rare occasions, a ballot received for a living voter may be recorded in a way that makes it appear as if the voter is dead. This can be because of voters with similar names, where the ballot is accidentally recorded as voted by John Smith Sr when it was actually voted by John Smith Jr; or because of inaccurately recorded birth dates in the qualified voter file; for example, someone born in 1990 accidentally recorded as born in 1890. In such scenarios, no one ineligible has actually voted, and there is no impact on the outcome of the election. Local clerks can correct the issue when it is brought to their attention. While room for improvement may remain, occasional clerical errors do not mean that the system is a failure. For example, Michigan has a number of mechanisms in place to ensure election security, including its improved qualified voter file system. This custom-built system is used by election officials to 'efficiently and effectively maintain the state's registered voter list' with multifactor authentication and continuous monitoring. The system automatically registers all citizens who apply for driver's licenses or identification cards to help keep voter rolls up to date. | [
"13968-proof-02-GettyImages-1058146940.jpg"
]
|
Former U.S. first lady Melania Trump had her own private bedroom on Air Force One. | Contradiction | Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. U.S. President Joe Biden was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 2021. More than a week later, some online advertisements were still being displayed as if President Donald Trump were still in office. They appeared to claim that former first lady Melania Trump had her own private bedroom on Air Force One. The ads read: 'Take a Look at Melania's Bedroom inside Air Force One.' The ads led to websites Livestly and The Delite. Both had lengthy slideshow stories lasting a total of more than 70 pages. However, neither revealed anything about a separate bedroom for Melania Trump. On Sept. 11, 2001, White House photographer Eric Draper captured a picture inside the president's private suite on Air Force One. The room was located in the nose of the plane. In the photograph, President George W. Bush and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card were shown standing in the suite while discussing the U.S. terrorist attacks: pic.twitter.com/m8J5I9p2QF - Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) September 11, 2020 'Technically, 'Air Force One' is used to designate any Air Force aircraft carrying the President,' a page on the White House website explained. 'But it is now standard practice to use the term to refer to specific planes that are equipped to transport the Commander-in-Chief.' The 'Air Force One' name 'refers to one of two highly customized Boeing 747-200B series aircraft.' In 2018, reports suggested that President Trump had requested a bigger bed be brought on board for his private suite. A 2019 book also purportedly revealed that Melania Trump had her own bedroom in the White House. The misleading advertisement and article from the Livestly website appeared to contain a number of inaccuracies. For example, it claimed that there were 'two massive kitchens' on board and that 'each kitchen holds up to 100 people.' It's true that Air Force One has two food-prep areas. However, they're referred to as galleys, not kitchens. An ABC News video from 2015 showed the size of one of the galleys. They appeared to be very small. It would likely be quite difficult to fit even 10 people in one of the galleys, much less 100. The video was reposted by an unofficial Air Force One Facebook fan page: ABC News also reported that 'a team of chefs prepares the meals to be served on Air Force One.' The food is prepared on the ground 'inside a secure kitchen facility at Joint Base Andrews in Camp Spring, Md.' High quality food is a top priority of the flight attendants aboard Air Force One. A team of five prepares the trays served to the roughly 100 guests on board. 'They make sure everything is perfect, the steaks are in position, the green beans are exactly where they need to be for every single plate,' said Technical Sergeant Brenda Rodriguez, who leads the team in the forward galley. In sum, at least two clickbait ads promised a look at former first lady Melania Trump's private bedroom on Air Force One. Neither article showed any such bedroom, because it did not exist. Other claims in the stories were also misleading. | In sum, at least two clickbait ads promised a look at former first lady Melania Trump's private bedroom on Air Force One. Neither article showed any such bedroom, because it did not exist. Other claims in the stories were also misleading. | []
|
Former U.S. first lady Melania Trump had her own private bedroom on Air Force One. | Contradiction | Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. U.S. President Joe Biden was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 2021. More than a week later, some online advertisements were still being displayed as if President Donald Trump were still in office. They appeared to claim that former first lady Melania Trump had her own private bedroom on Air Force One. The ads read: 'Take a Look at Melania's Bedroom inside Air Force One.' The ads led to websites Livestly and The Delite. Both had lengthy slideshow stories lasting a total of more than 70 pages. However, neither revealed anything about a separate bedroom for Melania Trump. On Sept. 11, 2001, White House photographer Eric Draper captured a picture inside the president's private suite on Air Force One. The room was located in the nose of the plane. In the photograph, President George W. Bush and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card were shown standing in the suite while discussing the U.S. terrorist attacks: pic.twitter.com/m8J5I9p2QF - Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) September 11, 2020 'Technically, 'Air Force One' is used to designate any Air Force aircraft carrying the President,' a page on the White House website explained. 'But it is now standard practice to use the term to refer to specific planes that are equipped to transport the Commander-in-Chief.' The 'Air Force One' name 'refers to one of two highly customized Boeing 747-200B series aircraft.' In 2018, reports suggested that President Trump had requested a bigger bed be brought on board for his private suite. A 2019 book also purportedly revealed that Melania Trump had her own bedroom in the White House. The misleading advertisement and article from the Livestly website appeared to contain a number of inaccuracies. For example, it claimed that there were 'two massive kitchens' on board and that 'each kitchen holds up to 100 people.' It's true that Air Force One has two food-prep areas. However, they're referred to as galleys, not kitchens. An ABC News video from 2015 showed the size of one of the galleys. They appeared to be very small. It would likely be quite difficult to fit even 10 people in one of the galleys, much less 100. The video was reposted by an unofficial Air Force One Facebook fan page: ABC News also reported that 'a team of chefs prepares the meals to be served on Air Force One.' The food is prepared on the ground 'inside a secure kitchen facility at Joint Base Andrews in Camp Spring, Md.' High quality food is a top priority of the flight attendants aboard Air Force One. A team of five prepares the trays served to the roughly 100 guests on board. 'They make sure everything is perfect, the steaks are in position, the green beans are exactly where they need to be for every single plate,' said Technical Sergeant Brenda Rodriguez, who leads the team in the forward galley. In sum, at least two clickbait ads promised a look at former first lady Melania Trump's private bedroom on Air Force One. Neither article showed any such bedroom, because it did not exist. Other claims in the stories were also misleading. | In sum, at least two clickbait ads promised a look at former first lady Melania Trump's private bedroom on Air Force One. Neither article showed any such bedroom, because it did not exist. Other claims in the stories were also misleading. | []
|
The Burger King fast food chain 'admitted it has been selling burgers that contain horsemeat. | Contradiction | On 5 September 2015, the notoriously unreliable web site Before It's News published an article stating that the Burger King fast food chain had 'now admitted after continuous denial that it has actually been selling UK customers both burgers and Whoppers that contain horsemeat': In a piece of highly disturbing news, Burger King has now admitted after continuous denial that it has actually been selling UK customers both burgers and Whoppers that contain horsemeat. This admission comes just after The Guardian reports that Burger King reps offered a round of 'absolute assurances' to customers that it did not ever use horsemeat in its products. A series of tests done on the burger products now reveal that Burger King has been issuing completely phony statements, with burgers made for the fast food chain from the Irish company Silvercrest containing measurable levels of horsemeat. It's important to note this is the same company that processes meat for Tesco, Asda, and the Co-op. The managers at Silvercrest have been revealed to be utilizing non-approved ingredients within their burger assortment - even for 'household brands'. The Before It's News piece misleadingly linked to a nearly three-year-old article from the UK newspaper The Guardian referencing a controversy that began in late 2012 when subsidiaries of the ABP Food Group (including Silvercrest Foods and Dalepak Hambleton) were discovered to have been inadvertently been supplying beef products contaminated with horsemeat to retailers in Ireland and the UK. Although Burger King beef products were not targeted in contamination tests performed by Irish authorities at the time, and the chain was not found to be serving 'burgers containing horsemeat,' the company quickly switched production facilities in order to ensure the safety and quality of their offerings: The fast food company - whose products were not tested in the food standards checks by Irish authorities that sparked the furore - moved production from the Silvercrest plant in Ireland to Germany and Italy as a precaution. [The company] said test results at the plant revealed 'very small trace levels' of horse DNA in its products, but burgers taken from restaurants had tested negative. As governments in Ireland, the UK and Poland, where a supplier used by Silvercrest for a year is thought be the source of the contamination, continued their investigations, Burger King admitted that, contrary to previous assurances made to it by Silvercrest, it too had now been linked to the scandal. Authorities insist there is no health danger to consumers. Burger King said: 'Our independent DNA test results on product taken from restaurants were negative for any equine DNA. However, four samples recently taken from the Silvercrest plant have shown the presence of very small trace levels of equine DNA. Within the last 36 hours, we have established that Silvercrest used a small percentage of beef imported from a non-approved supplier in Poland. They promised to deliver 100% British and Irish beef patties and have not done so. This is a clear violation of our specifications, and we have terminated our relationship with them.' In short, Burger King stated back in early 2013 that trace amounts of horse DNA had been found at one of their suppliers' plants, but they had immediately discontinued use of that supplier as a precaution, and no horse DNA had actually been found in the chain's burgers. Nonetheless, the disreputable Before It's News site deliberately misrepresented a nearly three-year-old story about a horsemeat contamination scandal that had barely touched Burger King to make it appear that the chain was now acknowledging they are currently selling horsemeat to customers who order hamburgers. | In short, Burger King stated back in early 2013 that trace amounts of horse DNA had been found at one of their suppliers' plants, but they had immediately discontinued use of that supplier as a precaution, and no horse DNA had actually been found in the chain's burgers. Nonetheless, the disreputable Before It's News site deliberately misrepresented a nearly three-year-old story about a horsemeat contamination scandal that had barely touched Burger King to make it appear that the chain was now acknowledging they are currently selling horsemeat to customers who order hamburgers. | []
|
The Burger King fast food chain 'admitted it has been selling burgers that contain horsemeat. | Contradiction | On 5 September 2015, the notoriously unreliable web site Before It's News published an article stating that the Burger King fast food chain had 'now admitted after continuous denial that it has actually been selling UK customers both burgers and Whoppers that contain horsemeat': In a piece of highly disturbing news, Burger King has now admitted after continuous denial that it has actually been selling UK customers both burgers and Whoppers that contain horsemeat. This admission comes just after The Guardian reports that Burger King reps offered a round of 'absolute assurances' to customers that it did not ever use horsemeat in its products. A series of tests done on the burger products now reveal that Burger King has been issuing completely phony statements, with burgers made for the fast food chain from the Irish company Silvercrest containing measurable levels of horsemeat. It's important to note this is the same company that processes meat for Tesco, Asda, and the Co-op. The managers at Silvercrest have been revealed to be utilizing non-approved ingredients within their burger assortment - even for 'household brands'. The Before It's News piece misleadingly linked to a nearly three-year-old article from the UK newspaper The Guardian referencing a controversy that began in late 2012 when subsidiaries of the ABP Food Group (including Silvercrest Foods and Dalepak Hambleton) were discovered to have been inadvertently been supplying beef products contaminated with horsemeat to retailers in Ireland and the UK. Although Burger King beef products were not targeted in contamination tests performed by Irish authorities at the time, and the chain was not found to be serving 'burgers containing horsemeat,' the company quickly switched production facilities in order to ensure the safety and quality of their offerings: The fast food company - whose products were not tested in the food standards checks by Irish authorities that sparked the furore - moved production from the Silvercrest plant in Ireland to Germany and Italy as a precaution. [The company] said test results at the plant revealed 'very small trace levels' of horse DNA in its products, but burgers taken from restaurants had tested negative. As governments in Ireland, the UK and Poland, where a supplier used by Silvercrest for a year is thought be the source of the contamination, continued their investigations, Burger King admitted that, contrary to previous assurances made to it by Silvercrest, it too had now been linked to the scandal. Authorities insist there is no health danger to consumers. Burger King said: 'Our independent DNA test results on product taken from restaurants were negative for any equine DNA. However, four samples recently taken from the Silvercrest plant have shown the presence of very small trace levels of equine DNA. Within the last 36 hours, we have established that Silvercrest used a small percentage of beef imported from a non-approved supplier in Poland. They promised to deliver 100% British and Irish beef patties and have not done so. This is a clear violation of our specifications, and we have terminated our relationship with them.' In short, Burger King stated back in early 2013 that trace amounts of horse DNA had been found at one of their suppliers' plants, but they had immediately discontinued use of that supplier as a precaution, and no horse DNA had actually been found in the chain's burgers. Nonetheless, the disreputable Before It's News site deliberately misrepresented a nearly three-year-old story about a horsemeat contamination scandal that had barely touched Burger King to make it appear that the chain was now acknowledging they are currently selling horsemeat to customers who order hamburgers. | In short, Burger King stated back in early 2013 that trace amounts of horse DNA had been found at one of their suppliers' plants, but they had immediately discontinued use of that supplier as a precaution, and no horse DNA had actually been found in the chain's burgers. Nonetheless, the disreputable Before It's News site deliberately misrepresented a nearly three-year-old story about a horsemeat contamination scandal that had barely touched Burger King to make it appear that the chain was now acknowledging they are currently selling horsemeat to customers who order hamburgers. | []
|
In criticizing Donald Trump, Barack Obama became the first former U.S. president to publicly 'speak against' his successor. | Contradiction | In the lead-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, an old meme re-emerged on social media which claimed that former president Barack Obama had displayed an unprecedented level of partisanship and opportunism in his criticisms of President Donald Trump, in that Obama was 'the first ex president to publicly speak against a successor' The meme was actually an edited form of an earlier version which first emerged on social media in 2017. The original included only the phrase 'First Ex President to Publicly Speak Against a Successor': The claim, that no ex-president before Barack Obama ever publicly criticized his immediate successor is false. There is ample historical evidence of ex-presidents doing just that. Here are a few instances: Barack Obama The 44th president offered what were widely perceived as thinly-veiled criticisms of President Donald Trump when he spoke in Johannesburg, South Africa, in July 2018, railing against what he called 'strongman politics,' whereby 'those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning.' He also criticized 'far-right parties' with a platform of 'protectionism and closed borders' as well as 'barely-hidden racial nationalism.' Speaking at the University of Illinois in September, Obama criticized Trump by name, saying he was a 'symptom, not a cause' of an effort by powerful elites to engender fear and division in the face of social change and progress: Obama had declined to openly attack Trump for the first 18 months of his presidency, following what, in his University of Illinois speech, he called the 'wise American tradition of ex-presidents gracefully exiting the political stage.' Obama said he had changed his mind because, in his view, the 2018 mid-term elections represented 'one of those pivotal moments when every one of us, as citizens of the United States, need to determine just who it is that we are, just what it is that we stand for.' Bill Clinton In July 2007, the 42nd president took aim at the administration of his successor, George W. Bush, in its handling of the Iraq war, telling Good Morning America's Diane Sawyer 'There is no military victory here' and criticizing Bush for attempting to filibuster Congressional efforts to bring about a withdrawal of troops: George H.W. Bush Although George H.W. Bush had a general policy of not speaking publicly against his successor, the 41st president did just that more than once while campaigning for Republican candidates during the 1994 mid-term elections. The Daily Oklahoman newspaper reported that Bush Sr. had offered a stinging counter-attack against Clinton during a visit to the state capital on 4 November 1994: Saying he was breaking his policy against criticizing President Clinton, former President George Bush said Friday in Oklahoma City he was tired of his Democratic successor criticizing Republicans ... Bush told the crowd ... that Clinton was stumping about blaming Republicans in Congress 'for his demise or things that weren't going right.' 'He blames us and he is wrong. I'm so tired of it,' Bush told about 5,000 noisy GOP supporters at Oklahoma Christian University of Sciences and Arts. 'I think America is a little tired of it.' During a Republican rally in Omaha, Nebraska, the same week, Bush attacked Clinton for having 'the nerve' to blame the GOP for 'his own failures,' the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported: Former President George Bush broke a self-imposed silence yesterday and attacked President Clinton for taking credit for the U.S. economic recovery. Bush has been stumping for Republican candidates in the Mid-west this week. 'He has the nerve to blame Republicans for his own failures and the shortcomings of the Democratic Congress,' the former president told a crowd of about 1,500 people in Omaha. In 1999, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, Bush even appeared to accuse his successor of behaving in a way which demonstrated a lack of respect for the U.S. presidency, as the Associated Press reported: Former President Bush thinks Bill Clinton lacks respect for the presidency, but Bush predicts the country will bounce back after Clinton's impeachment trial ends. 'I have tried to stay out of all the Washington mess,' Bush said Saturday at the end of a keynote address to the Safari Club International's 27th annual hunters' convention. 'But I must confess I have been deeply concerned by what appears to be a lack of respect for the office I was so very proud to hold.' Jimmy Carter The 39th president more than once criticized Ronald Reagan, the man who defeated him in the 1980 presidential campaign, firmly defending his own record and offering relatively barbed comments about his successor. In September 1982, Carter responded to Reagan's earlier criticisms of the Democrat's legacy, accusing his rival of failing to 'accept his responsibilities as president,' the New York Times reported: Former President Jimmy Carter, responding to criticism from President Reagan, said tonight that while his Administration made mistakes, 'we did not spend four years blaming our mistakes on our predecessors' ... Mr. Carter accused Mr. Reagan of not accepting his responsibilities. The former President said that after his defeat in 1980, he resolved to pledge Mr. Reagan 'my help, my support when he was ready to accept the awesome responsibilities of the Presidency.' 'My offer still stands,' Mr. Carter said at a Democratic National Committee fund-raising dinner. 'When he is ready to accept those responsibilities, I'll be there to help him.' At a press conference two months later, Carter continued that theme, saying Reagan's efforts to deflect criticism onto him were 'irresponsible and ill-advised' and that his Republican successor had made 'radical' and unwelcome changes to U.S. foreign policy, United Press International reported: Jimmy Carter criticized President Reagan for making 'radical' changes in U.S. foreign and domestic policy, and said Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin is responsible in part for failure of the Camp David accords. In a wide-ranging news conference, Carter also twitted Reagan for trying to lay the blame for the nation's problems on the previous administration. 'There is always the temptation for an incumbent politician to blame all his mistakes on his predecessor. Most are willing to withstand the temptation. Mr. Reagan, apparently, is not,' Carter said. 'The public sees through that and the results of the (midterm) election proves I'm right' ... Speaking typically with a soft voice but strong words, Carter said: 'Most of the quite radical departures in foreign, domestic and economic policy have not been good for the country. We have an unprecedented number of people unemployed; bankruptcies are the highest in years; farm income is at the lowest level ever; the deficits have never been so high, and so forth' ... 'It's true President Reagan inherited some serious problems from my administration. I inherited some from President Ford. But to try to forego blame and say all these problems are my predecessor's fault is patently irresponsible and ill-advised,' he said. Carter called Reagan's nuclear policies 'ill-advised.' Gerald Ford Just as Carter publicly took aim at the man who replaced him in the White House, he was also the subject of repeated and sometimes very strong criticism by Republican Gerald Ford, whom Carter had defeated in the 1976 election. In April 1977, less than three months after Carter succeeded him, Ford ridiculed the Democrat's economic policies in a widely-syndicated interview with the Washington Post: 'Mr. Carter's anti-inflation program came in like a lion,' Ford said. 'It's going out like a mouse' ... The former president, looking relaxed, voiced his criticism of Carter in a brief interview following a speech to a Republican group here [in Los Angeles, California.] Over the next three years, Ford also took aim at Carter's handling of negotiations over the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), his handling of the economic crisis, and in the summer of 1980 he launched a devastating attack on his successor's legacy at a Republican event in Indianapolis, as the Associated Press reported: 'The Carter economic policies have been a catastrophe. They've been disasters. We handed them the economy on a silver platter,' Ford said, arguing that the rate of inflation was less than 5 percent when he left office and that unemployment was going down. 'The president blew it.' Ford predicted that Carter will go into the November election with a national unemployment rate of 9 percent, double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. 'He'll be defending the worst economic policy of any president since the Depression of 1932. That's bad. And he's responsible.' Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is 'the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor' is false. | Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is 'the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor' is false. | [
"14142-proof-02-bit-1.jpg",
"14142-proof-07-barack_obama.jpg"
]
|
In criticizing Donald Trump, Barack Obama became the first former U.S. president to publicly 'speak against' his successor. | Contradiction | In the lead-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, an old meme re-emerged on social media which claimed that former president Barack Obama had displayed an unprecedented level of partisanship and opportunism in his criticisms of President Donald Trump, in that Obama was 'the first ex president to publicly speak against a successor' The meme was actually an edited form of an earlier version which first emerged on social media in 2017. The original included only the phrase 'First Ex President to Publicly Speak Against a Successor': The claim, that no ex-president before Barack Obama ever publicly criticized his immediate successor is false. There is ample historical evidence of ex-presidents doing just that. Here are a few instances: Barack Obama The 44th president offered what were widely perceived as thinly-veiled criticisms of President Donald Trump when he spoke in Johannesburg, South Africa, in July 2018, railing against what he called 'strongman politics,' whereby 'those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning.' He also criticized 'far-right parties' with a platform of 'protectionism and closed borders' as well as 'barely-hidden racial nationalism.' Speaking at the University of Illinois in September, Obama criticized Trump by name, saying he was a 'symptom, not a cause' of an effort by powerful elites to engender fear and division in the face of social change and progress: Obama had declined to openly attack Trump for the first 18 months of his presidency, following what, in his University of Illinois speech, he called the 'wise American tradition of ex-presidents gracefully exiting the political stage.' Obama said he had changed his mind because, in his view, the 2018 mid-term elections represented 'one of those pivotal moments when every one of us, as citizens of the United States, need to determine just who it is that we are, just what it is that we stand for.' Bill Clinton In July 2007, the 42nd president took aim at the administration of his successor, George W. Bush, in its handling of the Iraq war, telling Good Morning America's Diane Sawyer 'There is no military victory here' and criticizing Bush for attempting to filibuster Congressional efforts to bring about a withdrawal of troops: George H.W. Bush Although George H.W. Bush had a general policy of not speaking publicly against his successor, the 41st president did just that more than once while campaigning for Republican candidates during the 1994 mid-term elections. The Daily Oklahoman newspaper reported that Bush Sr. had offered a stinging counter-attack against Clinton during a visit to the state capital on 4 November 1994: Saying he was breaking his policy against criticizing President Clinton, former President George Bush said Friday in Oklahoma City he was tired of his Democratic successor criticizing Republicans ... Bush told the crowd ... that Clinton was stumping about blaming Republicans in Congress 'for his demise or things that weren't going right.' 'He blames us and he is wrong. I'm so tired of it,' Bush told about 5,000 noisy GOP supporters at Oklahoma Christian University of Sciences and Arts. 'I think America is a little tired of it.' During a Republican rally in Omaha, Nebraska, the same week, Bush attacked Clinton for having 'the nerve' to blame the GOP for 'his own failures,' the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported: Former President George Bush broke a self-imposed silence yesterday and attacked President Clinton for taking credit for the U.S. economic recovery. Bush has been stumping for Republican candidates in the Mid-west this week. 'He has the nerve to blame Republicans for his own failures and the shortcomings of the Democratic Congress,' the former president told a crowd of about 1,500 people in Omaha. In 1999, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, Bush even appeared to accuse his successor of behaving in a way which demonstrated a lack of respect for the U.S. presidency, as the Associated Press reported: Former President Bush thinks Bill Clinton lacks respect for the presidency, but Bush predicts the country will bounce back after Clinton's impeachment trial ends. 'I have tried to stay out of all the Washington mess,' Bush said Saturday at the end of a keynote address to the Safari Club International's 27th annual hunters' convention. 'But I must confess I have been deeply concerned by what appears to be a lack of respect for the office I was so very proud to hold.' Jimmy Carter The 39th president more than once criticized Ronald Reagan, the man who defeated him in the 1980 presidential campaign, firmly defending his own record and offering relatively barbed comments about his successor. In September 1982, Carter responded to Reagan's earlier criticisms of the Democrat's legacy, accusing his rival of failing to 'accept his responsibilities as president,' the New York Times reported: Former President Jimmy Carter, responding to criticism from President Reagan, said tonight that while his Administration made mistakes, 'we did not spend four years blaming our mistakes on our predecessors' ... Mr. Carter accused Mr. Reagan of not accepting his responsibilities. The former President said that after his defeat in 1980, he resolved to pledge Mr. Reagan 'my help, my support when he was ready to accept the awesome responsibilities of the Presidency.' 'My offer still stands,' Mr. Carter said at a Democratic National Committee fund-raising dinner. 'When he is ready to accept those responsibilities, I'll be there to help him.' At a press conference two months later, Carter continued that theme, saying Reagan's efforts to deflect criticism onto him were 'irresponsible and ill-advised' and that his Republican successor had made 'radical' and unwelcome changes to U.S. foreign policy, United Press International reported: Jimmy Carter criticized President Reagan for making 'radical' changes in U.S. foreign and domestic policy, and said Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin is responsible in part for failure of the Camp David accords. In a wide-ranging news conference, Carter also twitted Reagan for trying to lay the blame for the nation's problems on the previous administration. 'There is always the temptation for an incumbent politician to blame all his mistakes on his predecessor. Most are willing to withstand the temptation. Mr. Reagan, apparently, is not,' Carter said. 'The public sees through that and the results of the (midterm) election proves I'm right' ... Speaking typically with a soft voice but strong words, Carter said: 'Most of the quite radical departures in foreign, domestic and economic policy have not been good for the country. We have an unprecedented number of people unemployed; bankruptcies are the highest in years; farm income is at the lowest level ever; the deficits have never been so high, and so forth' ... 'It's true President Reagan inherited some serious problems from my administration. I inherited some from President Ford. But to try to forego blame and say all these problems are my predecessor's fault is patently irresponsible and ill-advised,' he said. Carter called Reagan's nuclear policies 'ill-advised.' Gerald Ford Just as Carter publicly took aim at the man who replaced him in the White House, he was also the subject of repeated and sometimes very strong criticism by Republican Gerald Ford, whom Carter had defeated in the 1976 election. In April 1977, less than three months after Carter succeeded him, Ford ridiculed the Democrat's economic policies in a widely-syndicated interview with the Washington Post: 'Mr. Carter's anti-inflation program came in like a lion,' Ford said. 'It's going out like a mouse' ... The former president, looking relaxed, voiced his criticism of Carter in a brief interview following a speech to a Republican group here [in Los Angeles, California.] Over the next three years, Ford also took aim at Carter's handling of negotiations over the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), his handling of the economic crisis, and in the summer of 1980 he launched a devastating attack on his successor's legacy at a Republican event in Indianapolis, as the Associated Press reported: 'The Carter economic policies have been a catastrophe. They've been disasters. We handed them the economy on a silver platter,' Ford said, arguing that the rate of inflation was less than 5 percent when he left office and that unemployment was going down. 'The president blew it.' Ford predicted that Carter will go into the November election with a national unemployment rate of 9 percent, double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. 'He'll be defending the worst economic policy of any president since the Depression of 1932. That's bad. And he's responsible.' Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is 'the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor' is false. | Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is 'the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor' is false. | [
"14142-proof-02-bit-1.jpg",
"14142-proof-07-barack_obama.jpg"
]
|
In criticizing Donald Trump, Barack Obama became the first former U.S. president to publicly 'speak against' his successor. | Contradiction | In the lead-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, an old meme re-emerged on social media which claimed that former president Barack Obama had displayed an unprecedented level of partisanship and opportunism in his criticisms of President Donald Trump, in that Obama was 'the first ex president to publicly speak against a successor' The meme was actually an edited form of an earlier version which first emerged on social media in 2017. The original included only the phrase 'First Ex President to Publicly Speak Against a Successor': The claim, that no ex-president before Barack Obama ever publicly criticized his immediate successor is false. There is ample historical evidence of ex-presidents doing just that. Here are a few instances: Barack Obama The 44th president offered what were widely perceived as thinly-veiled criticisms of President Donald Trump when he spoke in Johannesburg, South Africa, in July 2018, railing against what he called 'strongman politics,' whereby 'those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning.' He also criticized 'far-right parties' with a platform of 'protectionism and closed borders' as well as 'barely-hidden racial nationalism.' Speaking at the University of Illinois in September, Obama criticized Trump by name, saying he was a 'symptom, not a cause' of an effort by powerful elites to engender fear and division in the face of social change and progress: Obama had declined to openly attack Trump for the first 18 months of his presidency, following what, in his University of Illinois speech, he called the 'wise American tradition of ex-presidents gracefully exiting the political stage.' Obama said he had changed his mind because, in his view, the 2018 mid-term elections represented 'one of those pivotal moments when every one of us, as citizens of the United States, need to determine just who it is that we are, just what it is that we stand for.' Bill Clinton In July 2007, the 42nd president took aim at the administration of his successor, George W. Bush, in its handling of the Iraq war, telling Good Morning America's Diane Sawyer 'There is no military victory here' and criticizing Bush for attempting to filibuster Congressional efforts to bring about a withdrawal of troops: George H.W. Bush Although George H.W. Bush had a general policy of not speaking publicly against his successor, the 41st president did just that more than once while campaigning for Republican candidates during the 1994 mid-term elections. The Daily Oklahoman newspaper reported that Bush Sr. had offered a stinging counter-attack against Clinton during a visit to the state capital on 4 November 1994: Saying he was breaking his policy against criticizing President Clinton, former President George Bush said Friday in Oklahoma City he was tired of his Democratic successor criticizing Republicans ... Bush told the crowd ... that Clinton was stumping about blaming Republicans in Congress 'for his demise or things that weren't going right.' 'He blames us and he is wrong. I'm so tired of it,' Bush told about 5,000 noisy GOP supporters at Oklahoma Christian University of Sciences and Arts. 'I think America is a little tired of it.' During a Republican rally in Omaha, Nebraska, the same week, Bush attacked Clinton for having 'the nerve' to blame the GOP for 'his own failures,' the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported: Former President George Bush broke a self-imposed silence yesterday and attacked President Clinton for taking credit for the U.S. economic recovery. Bush has been stumping for Republican candidates in the Mid-west this week. 'He has the nerve to blame Republicans for his own failures and the shortcomings of the Democratic Congress,' the former president told a crowd of about 1,500 people in Omaha. In 1999, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, Bush even appeared to accuse his successor of behaving in a way which demonstrated a lack of respect for the U.S. presidency, as the Associated Press reported: Former President Bush thinks Bill Clinton lacks respect for the presidency, but Bush predicts the country will bounce back after Clinton's impeachment trial ends. 'I have tried to stay out of all the Washington mess,' Bush said Saturday at the end of a keynote address to the Safari Club International's 27th annual hunters' convention. 'But I must confess I have been deeply concerned by what appears to be a lack of respect for the office I was so very proud to hold.' Jimmy Carter The 39th president more than once criticized Ronald Reagan, the man who defeated him in the 1980 presidential campaign, firmly defending his own record and offering relatively barbed comments about his successor. In September 1982, Carter responded to Reagan's earlier criticisms of the Democrat's legacy, accusing his rival of failing to 'accept his responsibilities as president,' the New York Times reported: Former President Jimmy Carter, responding to criticism from President Reagan, said tonight that while his Administration made mistakes, 'we did not spend four years blaming our mistakes on our predecessors' ... Mr. Carter accused Mr. Reagan of not accepting his responsibilities. The former President said that after his defeat in 1980, he resolved to pledge Mr. Reagan 'my help, my support when he was ready to accept the awesome responsibilities of the Presidency.' 'My offer still stands,' Mr. Carter said at a Democratic National Committee fund-raising dinner. 'When he is ready to accept those responsibilities, I'll be there to help him.' At a press conference two months later, Carter continued that theme, saying Reagan's efforts to deflect criticism onto him were 'irresponsible and ill-advised' and that his Republican successor had made 'radical' and unwelcome changes to U.S. foreign policy, United Press International reported: Jimmy Carter criticized President Reagan for making 'radical' changes in U.S. foreign and domestic policy, and said Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin is responsible in part for failure of the Camp David accords. In a wide-ranging news conference, Carter also twitted Reagan for trying to lay the blame for the nation's problems on the previous administration. 'There is always the temptation for an incumbent politician to blame all his mistakes on his predecessor. Most are willing to withstand the temptation. Mr. Reagan, apparently, is not,' Carter said. 'The public sees through that and the results of the (midterm) election proves I'm right' ... Speaking typically with a soft voice but strong words, Carter said: 'Most of the quite radical departures in foreign, domestic and economic policy have not been good for the country. We have an unprecedented number of people unemployed; bankruptcies are the highest in years; farm income is at the lowest level ever; the deficits have never been so high, and so forth' ... 'It's true President Reagan inherited some serious problems from my administration. I inherited some from President Ford. But to try to forego blame and say all these problems are my predecessor's fault is patently irresponsible and ill-advised,' he said. Carter called Reagan's nuclear policies 'ill-advised.' Gerald Ford Just as Carter publicly took aim at the man who replaced him in the White House, he was also the subject of repeated and sometimes very strong criticism by Republican Gerald Ford, whom Carter had defeated in the 1976 election. In April 1977, less than three months after Carter succeeded him, Ford ridiculed the Democrat's economic policies in a widely-syndicated interview with the Washington Post: 'Mr. Carter's anti-inflation program came in like a lion,' Ford said. 'It's going out like a mouse' ... The former president, looking relaxed, voiced his criticism of Carter in a brief interview following a speech to a Republican group here [in Los Angeles, California.] Over the next three years, Ford also took aim at Carter's handling of negotiations over the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), his handling of the economic crisis, and in the summer of 1980 he launched a devastating attack on his successor's legacy at a Republican event in Indianapolis, as the Associated Press reported: 'The Carter economic policies have been a catastrophe. They've been disasters. We handed them the economy on a silver platter,' Ford said, arguing that the rate of inflation was less than 5 percent when he left office and that unemployment was going down. 'The president blew it.' Ford predicted that Carter will go into the November election with a national unemployment rate of 9 percent, double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. 'He'll be defending the worst economic policy of any president since the Depression of 1932. That's bad. And he's responsible.' Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is 'the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor' is false. | Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is 'the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor' is false. | [
"14142-proof-02-bit-1.jpg",
"14142-proof-07-barack_obama.jpg"
]
|
In criticizing Donald Trump, Barack Obama became the first former U.S. president to publicly 'speak against' his successor. | Contradiction | In the lead-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, an old meme re-emerged on social media which claimed that former president Barack Obama had displayed an unprecedented level of partisanship and opportunism in his criticisms of President Donald Trump, in that Obama was 'the first ex president to publicly speak against a successor' The meme was actually an edited form of an earlier version which first emerged on social media in 2017. The original included only the phrase 'First Ex President to Publicly Speak Against a Successor': The claim, that no ex-president before Barack Obama ever publicly criticized his immediate successor is false. There is ample historical evidence of ex-presidents doing just that. Here are a few instances: Barack Obama The 44th president offered what were widely perceived as thinly-veiled criticisms of President Donald Trump when he spoke in Johannesburg, South Africa, in July 2018, railing against what he called 'strongman politics,' whereby 'those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning.' He also criticized 'far-right parties' with a platform of 'protectionism and closed borders' as well as 'barely-hidden racial nationalism.' Speaking at the University of Illinois in September, Obama criticized Trump by name, saying he was a 'symptom, not a cause' of an effort by powerful elites to engender fear and division in the face of social change and progress: Obama had declined to openly attack Trump for the first 18 months of his presidency, following what, in his University of Illinois speech, he called the 'wise American tradition of ex-presidents gracefully exiting the political stage.' Obama said he had changed his mind because, in his view, the 2018 mid-term elections represented 'one of those pivotal moments when every one of us, as citizens of the United States, need to determine just who it is that we are, just what it is that we stand for.' Bill Clinton In July 2007, the 42nd president took aim at the administration of his successor, George W. Bush, in its handling of the Iraq war, telling Good Morning America's Diane Sawyer 'There is no military victory here' and criticizing Bush for attempting to filibuster Congressional efforts to bring about a withdrawal of troops: George H.W. Bush Although George H.W. Bush had a general policy of not speaking publicly against his successor, the 41st president did just that more than once while campaigning for Republican candidates during the 1994 mid-term elections. The Daily Oklahoman newspaper reported that Bush Sr. had offered a stinging counter-attack against Clinton during a visit to the state capital on 4 November 1994: Saying he was breaking his policy against criticizing President Clinton, former President George Bush said Friday in Oklahoma City he was tired of his Democratic successor criticizing Republicans ... Bush told the crowd ... that Clinton was stumping about blaming Republicans in Congress 'for his demise or things that weren't going right.' 'He blames us and he is wrong. I'm so tired of it,' Bush told about 5,000 noisy GOP supporters at Oklahoma Christian University of Sciences and Arts. 'I think America is a little tired of it.' During a Republican rally in Omaha, Nebraska, the same week, Bush attacked Clinton for having 'the nerve' to blame the GOP for 'his own failures,' the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported: Former President George Bush broke a self-imposed silence yesterday and attacked President Clinton for taking credit for the U.S. economic recovery. Bush has been stumping for Republican candidates in the Mid-west this week. 'He has the nerve to blame Republicans for his own failures and the shortcomings of the Democratic Congress,' the former president told a crowd of about 1,500 people in Omaha. In 1999, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, Bush even appeared to accuse his successor of behaving in a way which demonstrated a lack of respect for the U.S. presidency, as the Associated Press reported: Former President Bush thinks Bill Clinton lacks respect for the presidency, but Bush predicts the country will bounce back after Clinton's impeachment trial ends. 'I have tried to stay out of all the Washington mess,' Bush said Saturday at the end of a keynote address to the Safari Club International's 27th annual hunters' convention. 'But I must confess I have been deeply concerned by what appears to be a lack of respect for the office I was so very proud to hold.' Jimmy Carter The 39th president more than once criticized Ronald Reagan, the man who defeated him in the 1980 presidential campaign, firmly defending his own record and offering relatively barbed comments about his successor. In September 1982, Carter responded to Reagan's earlier criticisms of the Democrat's legacy, accusing his rival of failing to 'accept his responsibilities as president,' the New York Times reported: Former President Jimmy Carter, responding to criticism from President Reagan, said tonight that while his Administration made mistakes, 'we did not spend four years blaming our mistakes on our predecessors' ... Mr. Carter accused Mr. Reagan of not accepting his responsibilities. The former President said that after his defeat in 1980, he resolved to pledge Mr. Reagan 'my help, my support when he was ready to accept the awesome responsibilities of the Presidency.' 'My offer still stands,' Mr. Carter said at a Democratic National Committee fund-raising dinner. 'When he is ready to accept those responsibilities, I'll be there to help him.' At a press conference two months later, Carter continued that theme, saying Reagan's efforts to deflect criticism onto him were 'irresponsible and ill-advised' and that his Republican successor had made 'radical' and unwelcome changes to U.S. foreign policy, United Press International reported: Jimmy Carter criticized President Reagan for making 'radical' changes in U.S. foreign and domestic policy, and said Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin is responsible in part for failure of the Camp David accords. In a wide-ranging news conference, Carter also twitted Reagan for trying to lay the blame for the nation's problems on the previous administration. 'There is always the temptation for an incumbent politician to blame all his mistakes on his predecessor. Most are willing to withstand the temptation. Mr. Reagan, apparently, is not,' Carter said. 'The public sees through that and the results of the (midterm) election proves I'm right' ... Speaking typically with a soft voice but strong words, Carter said: 'Most of the quite radical departures in foreign, domestic and economic policy have not been good for the country. We have an unprecedented number of people unemployed; bankruptcies are the highest in years; farm income is at the lowest level ever; the deficits have never been so high, and so forth' ... 'It's true President Reagan inherited some serious problems from my administration. I inherited some from President Ford. But to try to forego blame and say all these problems are my predecessor's fault is patently irresponsible and ill-advised,' he said. Carter called Reagan's nuclear policies 'ill-advised.' Gerald Ford Just as Carter publicly took aim at the man who replaced him in the White House, he was also the subject of repeated and sometimes very strong criticism by Republican Gerald Ford, whom Carter had defeated in the 1976 election. In April 1977, less than three months after Carter succeeded him, Ford ridiculed the Democrat's economic policies in a widely-syndicated interview with the Washington Post: 'Mr. Carter's anti-inflation program came in like a lion,' Ford said. 'It's going out like a mouse' ... The former president, looking relaxed, voiced his criticism of Carter in a brief interview following a speech to a Republican group here [in Los Angeles, California.] Over the next three years, Ford also took aim at Carter's handling of negotiations over the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), his handling of the economic crisis, and in the summer of 1980 he launched a devastating attack on his successor's legacy at a Republican event in Indianapolis, as the Associated Press reported: 'The Carter economic policies have been a catastrophe. They've been disasters. We handed them the economy on a silver platter,' Ford said, arguing that the rate of inflation was less than 5 percent when he left office and that unemployment was going down. 'The president blew it.' Ford predicted that Carter will go into the November election with a national unemployment rate of 9 percent, double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. 'He'll be defending the worst economic policy of any president since the Depression of 1932. That's bad. And he's responsible.' Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is 'the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor' is false. | Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is 'the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor' is false. | [
"14142-proof-02-bit-1.jpg",
"14142-proof-07-barack_obama.jpg"
]
|
In criticizing Donald Trump, Barack Obama became the first former U.S. president to publicly 'speak against' his successor. | Contradiction | In the lead-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, an old meme re-emerged on social media which claimed that former president Barack Obama had displayed an unprecedented level of partisanship and opportunism in his criticisms of President Donald Trump, in that Obama was 'the first ex president to publicly speak against a successor' The meme was actually an edited form of an earlier version which first emerged on social media in 2017. The original included only the phrase 'First Ex President to Publicly Speak Against a Successor': The claim, that no ex-president before Barack Obama ever publicly criticized his immediate successor is false. There is ample historical evidence of ex-presidents doing just that. Here are a few instances: Barack Obama The 44th president offered what were widely perceived as thinly-veiled criticisms of President Donald Trump when he spoke in Johannesburg, South Africa, in July 2018, railing against what he called 'strongman politics,' whereby 'those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning.' He also criticized 'far-right parties' with a platform of 'protectionism and closed borders' as well as 'barely-hidden racial nationalism.' Speaking at the University of Illinois in September, Obama criticized Trump by name, saying he was a 'symptom, not a cause' of an effort by powerful elites to engender fear and division in the face of social change and progress: Obama had declined to openly attack Trump for the first 18 months of his presidency, following what, in his University of Illinois speech, he called the 'wise American tradition of ex-presidents gracefully exiting the political stage.' Obama said he had changed his mind because, in his view, the 2018 mid-term elections represented 'one of those pivotal moments when every one of us, as citizens of the United States, need to determine just who it is that we are, just what it is that we stand for.' Bill Clinton In July 2007, the 42nd president took aim at the administration of his successor, George W. Bush, in its handling of the Iraq war, telling Good Morning America's Diane Sawyer 'There is no military victory here' and criticizing Bush for attempting to filibuster Congressional efforts to bring about a withdrawal of troops: George H.W. Bush Although George H.W. Bush had a general policy of not speaking publicly against his successor, the 41st president did just that more than once while campaigning for Republican candidates during the 1994 mid-term elections. The Daily Oklahoman newspaper reported that Bush Sr. had offered a stinging counter-attack against Clinton during a visit to the state capital on 4 November 1994: Saying he was breaking his policy against criticizing President Clinton, former President George Bush said Friday in Oklahoma City he was tired of his Democratic successor criticizing Republicans ... Bush told the crowd ... that Clinton was stumping about blaming Republicans in Congress 'for his demise or things that weren't going right.' 'He blames us and he is wrong. I'm so tired of it,' Bush told about 5,000 noisy GOP supporters at Oklahoma Christian University of Sciences and Arts. 'I think America is a little tired of it.' During a Republican rally in Omaha, Nebraska, the same week, Bush attacked Clinton for having 'the nerve' to blame the GOP for 'his own failures,' the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported: Former President George Bush broke a self-imposed silence yesterday and attacked President Clinton for taking credit for the U.S. economic recovery. Bush has been stumping for Republican candidates in the Mid-west this week. 'He has the nerve to blame Republicans for his own failures and the shortcomings of the Democratic Congress,' the former president told a crowd of about 1,500 people in Omaha. In 1999, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, Bush even appeared to accuse his successor of behaving in a way which demonstrated a lack of respect for the U.S. presidency, as the Associated Press reported: Former President Bush thinks Bill Clinton lacks respect for the presidency, but Bush predicts the country will bounce back after Clinton's impeachment trial ends. 'I have tried to stay out of all the Washington mess,' Bush said Saturday at the end of a keynote address to the Safari Club International's 27th annual hunters' convention. 'But I must confess I have been deeply concerned by what appears to be a lack of respect for the office I was so very proud to hold.' Jimmy Carter The 39th president more than once criticized Ronald Reagan, the man who defeated him in the 1980 presidential campaign, firmly defending his own record and offering relatively barbed comments about his successor. In September 1982, Carter responded to Reagan's earlier criticisms of the Democrat's legacy, accusing his rival of failing to 'accept his responsibilities as president,' the New York Times reported: Former President Jimmy Carter, responding to criticism from President Reagan, said tonight that while his Administration made mistakes, 'we did not spend four years blaming our mistakes on our predecessors' ... Mr. Carter accused Mr. Reagan of not accepting his responsibilities. The former President said that after his defeat in 1980, he resolved to pledge Mr. Reagan 'my help, my support when he was ready to accept the awesome responsibilities of the Presidency.' 'My offer still stands,' Mr. Carter said at a Democratic National Committee fund-raising dinner. 'When he is ready to accept those responsibilities, I'll be there to help him.' At a press conference two months later, Carter continued that theme, saying Reagan's efforts to deflect criticism onto him were 'irresponsible and ill-advised' and that his Republican successor had made 'radical' and unwelcome changes to U.S. foreign policy, United Press International reported: Jimmy Carter criticized President Reagan for making 'radical' changes in U.S. foreign and domestic policy, and said Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin is responsible in part for failure of the Camp David accords. In a wide-ranging news conference, Carter also twitted Reagan for trying to lay the blame for the nation's problems on the previous administration. 'There is always the temptation for an incumbent politician to blame all his mistakes on his predecessor. Most are willing to withstand the temptation. Mr. Reagan, apparently, is not,' Carter said. 'The public sees through that and the results of the (midterm) election proves I'm right' ... Speaking typically with a soft voice but strong words, Carter said: 'Most of the quite radical departures in foreign, domestic and economic policy have not been good for the country. We have an unprecedented number of people unemployed; bankruptcies are the highest in years; farm income is at the lowest level ever; the deficits have never been so high, and so forth' ... 'It's true President Reagan inherited some serious problems from my administration. I inherited some from President Ford. But to try to forego blame and say all these problems are my predecessor's fault is patently irresponsible and ill-advised,' he said. Carter called Reagan's nuclear policies 'ill-advised.' Gerald Ford Just as Carter publicly took aim at the man who replaced him in the White House, he was also the subject of repeated and sometimes very strong criticism by Republican Gerald Ford, whom Carter had defeated in the 1976 election. In April 1977, less than three months after Carter succeeded him, Ford ridiculed the Democrat's economic policies in a widely-syndicated interview with the Washington Post: 'Mr. Carter's anti-inflation program came in like a lion,' Ford said. 'It's going out like a mouse' ... The former president, looking relaxed, voiced his criticism of Carter in a brief interview following a speech to a Republican group here [in Los Angeles, California.] Over the next three years, Ford also took aim at Carter's handling of negotiations over the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), his handling of the economic crisis, and in the summer of 1980 he launched a devastating attack on his successor's legacy at a Republican event in Indianapolis, as the Associated Press reported: 'The Carter economic policies have been a catastrophe. They've been disasters. We handed them the economy on a silver platter,' Ford said, arguing that the rate of inflation was less than 5 percent when he left office and that unemployment was going down. 'The president blew it.' Ford predicted that Carter will go into the November election with a national unemployment rate of 9 percent, double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. 'He'll be defending the worst economic policy of any president since the Depression of 1932. That's bad. And he's responsible.' Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is 'the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor' is false. | Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is 'the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor' is false. | [
"14142-proof-02-bit-1.jpg",
"14142-proof-07-barack_obama.jpg"
]
|
In criticizing Donald Trump, Barack Obama became the first former U.S. president to publicly 'speak against' his successor. | Contradiction | In the lead-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, an old meme re-emerged on social media which claimed that former president Barack Obama had displayed an unprecedented level of partisanship and opportunism in his criticisms of President Donald Trump, in that Obama was 'the first ex president to publicly speak against a successor' The meme was actually an edited form of an earlier version which first emerged on social media in 2017. The original included only the phrase 'First Ex President to Publicly Speak Against a Successor': The claim, that no ex-president before Barack Obama ever publicly criticized his immediate successor is false. There is ample historical evidence of ex-presidents doing just that. Here are a few instances: Barack Obama The 44th president offered what were widely perceived as thinly-veiled criticisms of President Donald Trump when he spoke in Johannesburg, South Africa, in July 2018, railing against what he called 'strongman politics,' whereby 'those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning.' He also criticized 'far-right parties' with a platform of 'protectionism and closed borders' as well as 'barely-hidden racial nationalism.' Speaking at the University of Illinois in September, Obama criticized Trump by name, saying he was a 'symptom, not a cause' of an effort by powerful elites to engender fear and division in the face of social change and progress: Obama had declined to openly attack Trump for the first 18 months of his presidency, following what, in his University of Illinois speech, he called the 'wise American tradition of ex-presidents gracefully exiting the political stage.' Obama said he had changed his mind because, in his view, the 2018 mid-term elections represented 'one of those pivotal moments when every one of us, as citizens of the United States, need to determine just who it is that we are, just what it is that we stand for.' Bill Clinton In July 2007, the 42nd president took aim at the administration of his successor, George W. Bush, in its handling of the Iraq war, telling Good Morning America's Diane Sawyer 'There is no military victory here' and criticizing Bush for attempting to filibuster Congressional efforts to bring about a withdrawal of troops: George H.W. Bush Although George H.W. Bush had a general policy of not speaking publicly against his successor, the 41st president did just that more than once while campaigning for Republican candidates during the 1994 mid-term elections. The Daily Oklahoman newspaper reported that Bush Sr. had offered a stinging counter-attack against Clinton during a visit to the state capital on 4 November 1994: Saying he was breaking his policy against criticizing President Clinton, former President George Bush said Friday in Oklahoma City he was tired of his Democratic successor criticizing Republicans ... Bush told the crowd ... that Clinton was stumping about blaming Republicans in Congress 'for his demise or things that weren't going right.' 'He blames us and he is wrong. I'm so tired of it,' Bush told about 5,000 noisy GOP supporters at Oklahoma Christian University of Sciences and Arts. 'I think America is a little tired of it.' During a Republican rally in Omaha, Nebraska, the same week, Bush attacked Clinton for having 'the nerve' to blame the GOP for 'his own failures,' the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported: Former President George Bush broke a self-imposed silence yesterday and attacked President Clinton for taking credit for the U.S. economic recovery. Bush has been stumping for Republican candidates in the Mid-west this week. 'He has the nerve to blame Republicans for his own failures and the shortcomings of the Democratic Congress,' the former president told a crowd of about 1,500 people in Omaha. In 1999, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, Bush even appeared to accuse his successor of behaving in a way which demonstrated a lack of respect for the U.S. presidency, as the Associated Press reported: Former President Bush thinks Bill Clinton lacks respect for the presidency, but Bush predicts the country will bounce back after Clinton's impeachment trial ends. 'I have tried to stay out of all the Washington mess,' Bush said Saturday at the end of a keynote address to the Safari Club International's 27th annual hunters' convention. 'But I must confess I have been deeply concerned by what appears to be a lack of respect for the office I was so very proud to hold.' Jimmy Carter The 39th president more than once criticized Ronald Reagan, the man who defeated him in the 1980 presidential campaign, firmly defending his own record and offering relatively barbed comments about his successor. In September 1982, Carter responded to Reagan's earlier criticisms of the Democrat's legacy, accusing his rival of failing to 'accept his responsibilities as president,' the New York Times reported: Former President Jimmy Carter, responding to criticism from President Reagan, said tonight that while his Administration made mistakes, 'we did not spend four years blaming our mistakes on our predecessors' ... Mr. Carter accused Mr. Reagan of not accepting his responsibilities. The former President said that after his defeat in 1980, he resolved to pledge Mr. Reagan 'my help, my support when he was ready to accept the awesome responsibilities of the Presidency.' 'My offer still stands,' Mr. Carter said at a Democratic National Committee fund-raising dinner. 'When he is ready to accept those responsibilities, I'll be there to help him.' At a press conference two months later, Carter continued that theme, saying Reagan's efforts to deflect criticism onto him were 'irresponsible and ill-advised' and that his Republican successor had made 'radical' and unwelcome changes to U.S. foreign policy, United Press International reported: Jimmy Carter criticized President Reagan for making 'radical' changes in U.S. foreign and domestic policy, and said Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin is responsible in part for failure of the Camp David accords. In a wide-ranging news conference, Carter also twitted Reagan for trying to lay the blame for the nation's problems on the previous administration. 'There is always the temptation for an incumbent politician to blame all his mistakes on his predecessor. Most are willing to withstand the temptation. Mr. Reagan, apparently, is not,' Carter said. 'The public sees through that and the results of the (midterm) election proves I'm right' ... Speaking typically with a soft voice but strong words, Carter said: 'Most of the quite radical departures in foreign, domestic and economic policy have not been good for the country. We have an unprecedented number of people unemployed; bankruptcies are the highest in years; farm income is at the lowest level ever; the deficits have never been so high, and so forth' ... 'It's true President Reagan inherited some serious problems from my administration. I inherited some from President Ford. But to try to forego blame and say all these problems are my predecessor's fault is patently irresponsible and ill-advised,' he said. Carter called Reagan's nuclear policies 'ill-advised.' Gerald Ford Just as Carter publicly took aim at the man who replaced him in the White House, he was also the subject of repeated and sometimes very strong criticism by Republican Gerald Ford, whom Carter had defeated in the 1976 election. In April 1977, less than three months after Carter succeeded him, Ford ridiculed the Democrat's economic policies in a widely-syndicated interview with the Washington Post: 'Mr. Carter's anti-inflation program came in like a lion,' Ford said. 'It's going out like a mouse' ... The former president, looking relaxed, voiced his criticism of Carter in a brief interview following a speech to a Republican group here [in Los Angeles, California.] Over the next three years, Ford also took aim at Carter's handling of negotiations over the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), his handling of the economic crisis, and in the summer of 1980 he launched a devastating attack on his successor's legacy at a Republican event in Indianapolis, as the Associated Press reported: 'The Carter economic policies have been a catastrophe. They've been disasters. We handed them the economy on a silver platter,' Ford said, arguing that the rate of inflation was less than 5 percent when he left office and that unemployment was going down. 'The president blew it.' Ford predicted that Carter will go into the November election with a national unemployment rate of 9 percent, double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. 'He'll be defending the worst economic policy of any president since the Depression of 1932. That's bad. And he's responsible.' Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is 'the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor' is false. | Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is 'the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor' is false. | [
"14142-proof-02-bit-1.jpg",
"14142-proof-07-barack_obama.jpg"
]
|
In criticizing Donald Trump, Barack Obama became the first former U.S. president to publicly 'speak against' his successor. | Contradiction | In the lead-up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, an old meme re-emerged on social media which claimed that former president Barack Obama had displayed an unprecedented level of partisanship and opportunism in his criticisms of President Donald Trump, in that Obama was 'the first ex president to publicly speak against a successor' The meme was actually an edited form of an earlier version which first emerged on social media in 2017. The original included only the phrase 'First Ex President to Publicly Speak Against a Successor': The claim, that no ex-president before Barack Obama ever publicly criticized his immediate successor is false. There is ample historical evidence of ex-presidents doing just that. Here are a few instances: Barack Obama The 44th president offered what were widely perceived as thinly-veiled criticisms of President Donald Trump when he spoke in Johannesburg, South Africa, in July 2018, railing against what he called 'strongman politics,' whereby 'those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning.' He also criticized 'far-right parties' with a platform of 'protectionism and closed borders' as well as 'barely-hidden racial nationalism.' Speaking at the University of Illinois in September, Obama criticized Trump by name, saying he was a 'symptom, not a cause' of an effort by powerful elites to engender fear and division in the face of social change and progress: Obama had declined to openly attack Trump for the first 18 months of his presidency, following what, in his University of Illinois speech, he called the 'wise American tradition of ex-presidents gracefully exiting the political stage.' Obama said he had changed his mind because, in his view, the 2018 mid-term elections represented 'one of those pivotal moments when every one of us, as citizens of the United States, need to determine just who it is that we are, just what it is that we stand for.' Bill Clinton In July 2007, the 42nd president took aim at the administration of his successor, George W. Bush, in its handling of the Iraq war, telling Good Morning America's Diane Sawyer 'There is no military victory here' and criticizing Bush for attempting to filibuster Congressional efforts to bring about a withdrawal of troops: George H.W. Bush Although George H.W. Bush had a general policy of not speaking publicly against his successor, the 41st president did just that more than once while campaigning for Republican candidates during the 1994 mid-term elections. The Daily Oklahoman newspaper reported that Bush Sr. had offered a stinging counter-attack against Clinton during a visit to the state capital on 4 November 1994: Saying he was breaking his policy against criticizing President Clinton, former President George Bush said Friday in Oklahoma City he was tired of his Democratic successor criticizing Republicans ... Bush told the crowd ... that Clinton was stumping about blaming Republicans in Congress 'for his demise or things that weren't going right.' 'He blames us and he is wrong. I'm so tired of it,' Bush told about 5,000 noisy GOP supporters at Oklahoma Christian University of Sciences and Arts. 'I think America is a little tired of it.' During a Republican rally in Omaha, Nebraska, the same week, Bush attacked Clinton for having 'the nerve' to blame the GOP for 'his own failures,' the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported: Former President George Bush broke a self-imposed silence yesterday and attacked President Clinton for taking credit for the U.S. economic recovery. Bush has been stumping for Republican candidates in the Mid-west this week. 'He has the nerve to blame Republicans for his own failures and the shortcomings of the Democratic Congress,' the former president told a crowd of about 1,500 people in Omaha. In 1999, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, Bush even appeared to accuse his successor of behaving in a way which demonstrated a lack of respect for the U.S. presidency, as the Associated Press reported: Former President Bush thinks Bill Clinton lacks respect for the presidency, but Bush predicts the country will bounce back after Clinton's impeachment trial ends. 'I have tried to stay out of all the Washington mess,' Bush said Saturday at the end of a keynote address to the Safari Club International's 27th annual hunters' convention. 'But I must confess I have been deeply concerned by what appears to be a lack of respect for the office I was so very proud to hold.' Jimmy Carter The 39th president more than once criticized Ronald Reagan, the man who defeated him in the 1980 presidential campaign, firmly defending his own record and offering relatively barbed comments about his successor. In September 1982, Carter responded to Reagan's earlier criticisms of the Democrat's legacy, accusing his rival of failing to 'accept his responsibilities as president,' the New York Times reported: Former President Jimmy Carter, responding to criticism from President Reagan, said tonight that while his Administration made mistakes, 'we did not spend four years blaming our mistakes on our predecessors' ... Mr. Carter accused Mr. Reagan of not accepting his responsibilities. The former President said that after his defeat in 1980, he resolved to pledge Mr. Reagan 'my help, my support when he was ready to accept the awesome responsibilities of the Presidency.' 'My offer still stands,' Mr. Carter said at a Democratic National Committee fund-raising dinner. 'When he is ready to accept those responsibilities, I'll be there to help him.' At a press conference two months later, Carter continued that theme, saying Reagan's efforts to deflect criticism onto him were 'irresponsible and ill-advised' and that his Republican successor had made 'radical' and unwelcome changes to U.S. foreign policy, United Press International reported: Jimmy Carter criticized President Reagan for making 'radical' changes in U.S. foreign and domestic policy, and said Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin is responsible in part for failure of the Camp David accords. In a wide-ranging news conference, Carter also twitted Reagan for trying to lay the blame for the nation's problems on the previous administration. 'There is always the temptation for an incumbent politician to blame all his mistakes on his predecessor. Most are willing to withstand the temptation. Mr. Reagan, apparently, is not,' Carter said. 'The public sees through that and the results of the (midterm) election proves I'm right' ... Speaking typically with a soft voice but strong words, Carter said: 'Most of the quite radical departures in foreign, domestic and economic policy have not been good for the country. We have an unprecedented number of people unemployed; bankruptcies are the highest in years; farm income is at the lowest level ever; the deficits have never been so high, and so forth' ... 'It's true President Reagan inherited some serious problems from my administration. I inherited some from President Ford. But to try to forego blame and say all these problems are my predecessor's fault is patently irresponsible and ill-advised,' he said. Carter called Reagan's nuclear policies 'ill-advised.' Gerald Ford Just as Carter publicly took aim at the man who replaced him in the White House, he was also the subject of repeated and sometimes very strong criticism by Republican Gerald Ford, whom Carter had defeated in the 1976 election. In April 1977, less than three months after Carter succeeded him, Ford ridiculed the Democrat's economic policies in a widely-syndicated interview with the Washington Post: 'Mr. Carter's anti-inflation program came in like a lion,' Ford said. 'It's going out like a mouse' ... The former president, looking relaxed, voiced his criticism of Carter in a brief interview following a speech to a Republican group here [in Los Angeles, California.] Over the next three years, Ford also took aim at Carter's handling of negotiations over the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT), his handling of the economic crisis, and in the summer of 1980 he launched a devastating attack on his successor's legacy at a Republican event in Indianapolis, as the Associated Press reported: 'The Carter economic policies have been a catastrophe. They've been disasters. We handed them the economy on a silver platter,' Ford said, arguing that the rate of inflation was less than 5 percent when he left office and that unemployment was going down. 'The president blew it.' Ford predicted that Carter will go into the November election with a national unemployment rate of 9 percent, double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates. 'He'll be defending the worst economic policy of any president since the Depression of 1932. That's bad. And he's responsible.' Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is 'the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor' is false. | Conclusion The examples highlighted above are far from exhaustive but serve to illustrate that Barack Obama's recent criticisms of President Donald Trump are far from unique or unprecedented and, especially when compared to the pronouncements of Gerald Ford, could even be argued to have been relatively tame. As such, the claim in the 2017 meme which re-emerged in November 2018, that Obama is 'the first ex-president to publicly speak against a successor' is false. | [
"14142-proof-02-bit-1.jpg",
"14142-proof-07-barack_obama.jpg"
]
|
A gunman associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement shot and wounded two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies on Sept. 12, 2020, and BLM protesters afterwards blocked emergency access to the hospital where the deputies received medical treatment. | Contradiction | During America's growing political divide over policing, a video surfaced online in September 2020 showing a gunman shooting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies in the head as they sat in a squad car. Numerous viewers of the seven-second clip believed the apparent ambush - which sent the deputies to the hospital in critical condition - was a result of the momentum among civil rights activists to eliminate unjust killings of Black Americans by authorities, also known as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, as well as supporters of it. Sharing the video with her roughly 2.6 million followers, for example, conservative provocateur Candace Owens wrote on Twitter: 'Why else does this [shooting of deputies] happen? ... BLACK LIVES MATTER AND THE COMPLICIT MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS, ATHLETES, AND ENTERTAINERS ARE TO BLAME.' Below, we unpack that claim - which is ultimately a product of an expansive fear-mongering campaign by deceptive media sources to paint the BLM movement as a social force that doesn't match reality. Additionally, hours after the Compton shooting, another layer to the controversy emerged: Reports on social media alleged BLM protesters taunted law enforcement officers standing guard outside the hospital where the deputies were receiving medical treatment, and blocked emergency access to the facility: The Epoch Times, a media outlet laden with misinformation that has effectively served to help U.S. President Donald Trump's political agenda since 2016, claimed: 'Black Lives Matter protesters blocked a hospital entrance in Los Angeles on Saturday night and yelled, 'we hope they die,' hours after a man shot two county deputies in an ambush.' Based on our analysis of videos of the shooting and protests, as well as first-person accounts and news reports, these assertions were a blend of fact and distortions of reality - presented in memes such as the one displayed below that aimed to dissuade people against supporting the NFL because of its alleged support for protesters who gathered outside the hospital: While some football players were indeed supporters or leaders of the BLM movement, no evidence linked them or the league with the events in Los Angeles. Any social media post that claimed 'the NFL will honor and praise the organization that stood out outside [the] hospital chanting' was at best a misleading attempting to connect dots that didn't exist. At worst, it was a purposeful attempt to discredit an initiative by the NFL to recognize systemic racism by erroneously linking it to the gathering outside the California medical facility. Here's What's True About the Shooting of Two LA Deputies This information is undeniably true: Two deputies, a 31-year-old female and 24-year-old male, were shot at close range while sitting in a patrol car near the Compton sheriff's station south of downtown Los Angeles on Sept. 12 around 7 p.m. Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told reporters the female deputy was a mother of a 6-year-old boy - like the meme about the NFL suggested - and that both deputies graduated law enforcement training in the same class, just 14 months prior to the shooting. The department released the above-mentioned footage that went viral and apparently depicted the incident. The video showed a gunman wearing dark clothing casually approaching the passenger side of the squad car, raising his gun inches from the window, firing several rounds and then running away. 'The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation,' the department tweeted. Update: The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation. pic.twitter.com/cBQjyKkoxJ - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 An extended version of the surveillance video obtained by The Los Angeles Times showed the shooter fleeing in the direction from which he came and running past someone nearby on a sidewalk, although it was unclear if, or to what extent, that person was involved in the surprise attack. Meanwhile, an Instagram video by an apparent witness to the shooting showed the squad car from the front, several people walking on a nearby sidewalk with their phones out, and emergency vehicles arriving to help the wounded deputies. The narrator in that video said: Two sheriffs shot in the face, they tripping. It's going up in Compton. [Expletive] just bust on the police. [...] Somebody ran up on the car and busted on their ass, right through the window, in their face and all. Many who shared the footage assumed the narrator was an 'activist' and took him to be wrongfully celebrating the shooting. 'These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton,' one person tweeted: These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton. pic.twitter.com/zNvTbU4AIa - Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 14, 2020 The Instagram account on which that video originated was deleted after conservatives circulated it widely - leveraging it for their political message - so we have no evidence to verify its legitimacy. We also have no evidence to confirm or disprove the claim that the narrator is an 'activist' or in any way associated with the BLM movement. Moments after the gunfire, medics took the deputies - whom the department had not identified as of this writing - to the St. Francis Medical Center, where they underwent surgery. The following day, the hospital listed them in stable condition, and they were expected to recover from multiple gunshot wounds. Both Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden were quick to condemn the shooting of law enforcement, though their messages varied. Biden said: This cold-blooded shooting is unconscionable and the perpetrator must be brought to justice. Violence of any kind is wrong; those who commit it should be caught and punished. Jill and I are keeping the deputies and their loved ones in our hearts and praying for a full recovery. https://t.co/330QfeIUGg - Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 13, 2020 Trump, meanwhile, retweeted the sheriff's department's video of the shooting, with the comment: 'Animals that must be hit hard!' Later, he added: If they die, fast trial death penalty for the killer. Only way to stop this! https://t.co/K3sKh28GjX - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2020 No Evidence Linked the Shooter to BLM Critical to the rumors aiming to spear the BLM movement was this: The intentions of the gunman were unknown, as of this report. No one had come forward to explain the shooter's motivations behind the attack, nor his whereabouts. On Sept. 14, the sheriff's department announced a $175,000 reward for information to answer such questions leading to an arrest. In regards to the deputies' relationship with the suspect - whom the department described as a Black man between the ages of 28 and 30 years old - the sheriff told reporters: 'To my knowledge, they had no knowledge of this individual. No provocation. No conflict. Nothing. It was just cold blooded ambush.' In other words, very few details were known about the suspect, and the shooting appeared to be random, per Villanueva. That meant any assumption about the gunman's social or political affiliations would breach verified fact, as well as any assertion that those alleged beliefs drove the gunman to open fire on the deputies. That is all to say, no evidence connected the shooting - or the suspected gunman - to any organization or cause, including the BLM movement like some viral posts claimed. In fact, leaders within the movement sought to distance themselves from the spontaneous violence. For example, civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing several high-profile cases alleging wrongful use of force by police against Black Americans that have sparked BLM protests across the country - including the family of a man fatally shot by the LA sheriff's department - tweeted: 'We WILL hold [the sheriff's department] accountable for systemic brutality. But violence - including the shooting of two deputies in LA - is NOT the answer. I urge anyone with info about this incident should come forward.' A Group 'That Is Not BLM' Organized the Protest Outside the Hospital In the hours after the shooting, roughly five protesters gathered outside the hospital where the deputies were being treated, and law enforcement officers created a barricade there to supposedly keep the protesters from entering the facility. We uncovered these facts about the scene, primarily based on video evidence: Several protesters attempted to provoke the officers by shouting at them. A couple protesters appeared to be taking videos with their cellphones. At least one protester carried a Pan-African flag, which symbolizes Black liberation in the U.S. At least protester was recorded yelling, 'I hope they die,' apparently in reference to the wounded deputies. Other shouts from the group included, 'Fuck the police,' and 'oink, oink.' At least one officer at the hospital entrance pointed their gun in the protesters' direction. A tense situation developing in Lynwood as a handful of protesters on sidewalk shout at deputies outside St. Francis medical center where 2 deputies are recovering from surgery after being shot tonight in Compton pic.twitter.com/wwpcnVFvOI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 13, 2020 During the ordeal, the sheriff's office said on Twitter protesters were 'blocking the entrance & exit of the hospital emergency room,' and one witness told a local news station that some protesters tried to get inside the facility, though no visual evidence confirmed that was indeed the case. To the protesters blocking the entrance & exit of the HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM yelling 'We hope they die' referring to 2 LA Sheriff's ambushed today in #Compton: DO NOT BLOCK EMERGENCY ENTRIES & EXITS TO THE HOSPITAL. People's lives are at stake when ambulances can't get through. - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 Rather, video footage showed a handful of deputies standing in a driveway (apparently an entrance to the hospital's emergency room), while the small group of protesters paced up and down a sidewalk feet away from them. At one point, deputies detained a journalist with LA's NPR station, KPCC, who was reporting on the small protest, as well as a male protester who 'refused to comply' with deputies' demands to leave the area. The sheriff's department said the reporter, Josie Huang, ignored deputies' repeated commands and did not present 'proper' press credentials. But she said and videos of her arrest show she didn't have time or space to react to deputies orders before they shoved her and forcefully took her into custody. In one video, she can be heard shouting 'I'm a reporter... I'm with KPCC' as officers push her to the ground. They cited her with obstructing justice, though KPCC is urging authorities to drop the charge. Thank you https://t.co/5ajOiRV1m6 for what is the clearest footage of my arrest by @LASDHQ. It's how I remember it - like being tossed around in the ocean and then slammed into rock pic.twitter.com/G3rfCR1NiI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 14, 2020 In a Facebook video posted Sept. 13, Kevin Wharton Price, a founder of an LA-based Black rights group called the Africa Town Coalition, identified himself as the protester whom deputies arrested - as well as an organizer of the small gathering outside the hospital. He said he and three other people went to the facility to call attention to an alleged gang of deputies within the sheriff's department that control aspects of the agency, as well as the series of senseless killings of Black people by authorities over the years. And while BLM and Africa Town Coalition share some similar goals, such as empowering Black Americans, he said they have separate ideologies, and the latter group should not be conflated with the former. Price said: 'Africa Town came with four people that night. Four people. That was it. ...We are not Black Lives Matter. [...] We have our own political agenda.' In addition, he said the rumor that protesters were trying to break into the hospital was false. He said: In the news and some white supremacists are saying that there were Black Lives Matter protesters out there, trying to block the driveway of the hospital, the emergency hospital area, and allegedly trying to force their way in to the emergency room. [...] We did not go to force our way in to anywhere. We went out there to deliver a message to these gang-banging sheriff's department that we're not going to shed a tear because two of your gang-banging sheriffs got shot in the head. In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | [
"14270-proof-05-GettyImages-1228495242.jpg"
]
|
A gunman associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement shot and wounded two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies on Sept. 12, 2020, and BLM protesters afterwards blocked emergency access to the hospital where the deputies received medical treatment. | Contradiction | During America's growing political divide over policing, a video surfaced online in September 2020 showing a gunman shooting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies in the head as they sat in a squad car. Numerous viewers of the seven-second clip believed the apparent ambush - which sent the deputies to the hospital in critical condition - was a result of the momentum among civil rights activists to eliminate unjust killings of Black Americans by authorities, also known as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, as well as supporters of it. Sharing the video with her roughly 2.6 million followers, for example, conservative provocateur Candace Owens wrote on Twitter: 'Why else does this [shooting of deputies] happen? ... BLACK LIVES MATTER AND THE COMPLICIT MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS, ATHLETES, AND ENTERTAINERS ARE TO BLAME.' Below, we unpack that claim - which is ultimately a product of an expansive fear-mongering campaign by deceptive media sources to paint the BLM movement as a social force that doesn't match reality. Additionally, hours after the Compton shooting, another layer to the controversy emerged: Reports on social media alleged BLM protesters taunted law enforcement officers standing guard outside the hospital where the deputies were receiving medical treatment, and blocked emergency access to the facility: The Epoch Times, a media outlet laden with misinformation that has effectively served to help U.S. President Donald Trump's political agenda since 2016, claimed: 'Black Lives Matter protesters blocked a hospital entrance in Los Angeles on Saturday night and yelled, 'we hope they die,' hours after a man shot two county deputies in an ambush.' Based on our analysis of videos of the shooting and protests, as well as first-person accounts and news reports, these assertions were a blend of fact and distortions of reality - presented in memes such as the one displayed below that aimed to dissuade people against supporting the NFL because of its alleged support for protesters who gathered outside the hospital: While some football players were indeed supporters or leaders of the BLM movement, no evidence linked them or the league with the events in Los Angeles. Any social media post that claimed 'the NFL will honor and praise the organization that stood out outside [the] hospital chanting' was at best a misleading attempting to connect dots that didn't exist. At worst, it was a purposeful attempt to discredit an initiative by the NFL to recognize systemic racism by erroneously linking it to the gathering outside the California medical facility. Here's What's True About the Shooting of Two LA Deputies This information is undeniably true: Two deputies, a 31-year-old female and 24-year-old male, were shot at close range while sitting in a patrol car near the Compton sheriff's station south of downtown Los Angeles on Sept. 12 around 7 p.m. Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told reporters the female deputy was a mother of a 6-year-old boy - like the meme about the NFL suggested - and that both deputies graduated law enforcement training in the same class, just 14 months prior to the shooting. The department released the above-mentioned footage that went viral and apparently depicted the incident. The video showed a gunman wearing dark clothing casually approaching the passenger side of the squad car, raising his gun inches from the window, firing several rounds and then running away. 'The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation,' the department tweeted. Update: The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation. pic.twitter.com/cBQjyKkoxJ - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 An extended version of the surveillance video obtained by The Los Angeles Times showed the shooter fleeing in the direction from which he came and running past someone nearby on a sidewalk, although it was unclear if, or to what extent, that person was involved in the surprise attack. Meanwhile, an Instagram video by an apparent witness to the shooting showed the squad car from the front, several people walking on a nearby sidewalk with their phones out, and emergency vehicles arriving to help the wounded deputies. The narrator in that video said: Two sheriffs shot in the face, they tripping. It's going up in Compton. [Expletive] just bust on the police. [...] Somebody ran up on the car and busted on their ass, right through the window, in their face and all. Many who shared the footage assumed the narrator was an 'activist' and took him to be wrongfully celebrating the shooting. 'These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton,' one person tweeted: These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton. pic.twitter.com/zNvTbU4AIa - Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 14, 2020 The Instagram account on which that video originated was deleted after conservatives circulated it widely - leveraging it for their political message - so we have no evidence to verify its legitimacy. We also have no evidence to confirm or disprove the claim that the narrator is an 'activist' or in any way associated with the BLM movement. Moments after the gunfire, medics took the deputies - whom the department had not identified as of this writing - to the St. Francis Medical Center, where they underwent surgery. The following day, the hospital listed them in stable condition, and they were expected to recover from multiple gunshot wounds. Both Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden were quick to condemn the shooting of law enforcement, though their messages varied. Biden said: This cold-blooded shooting is unconscionable and the perpetrator must be brought to justice. Violence of any kind is wrong; those who commit it should be caught and punished. Jill and I are keeping the deputies and their loved ones in our hearts and praying for a full recovery. https://t.co/330QfeIUGg - Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 13, 2020 Trump, meanwhile, retweeted the sheriff's department's video of the shooting, with the comment: 'Animals that must be hit hard!' Later, he added: If they die, fast trial death penalty for the killer. Only way to stop this! https://t.co/K3sKh28GjX - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2020 No Evidence Linked the Shooter to BLM Critical to the rumors aiming to spear the BLM movement was this: The intentions of the gunman were unknown, as of this report. No one had come forward to explain the shooter's motivations behind the attack, nor his whereabouts. On Sept. 14, the sheriff's department announced a $175,000 reward for information to answer such questions leading to an arrest. In regards to the deputies' relationship with the suspect - whom the department described as a Black man between the ages of 28 and 30 years old - the sheriff told reporters: 'To my knowledge, they had no knowledge of this individual. No provocation. No conflict. Nothing. It was just cold blooded ambush.' In other words, very few details were known about the suspect, and the shooting appeared to be random, per Villanueva. That meant any assumption about the gunman's social or political affiliations would breach verified fact, as well as any assertion that those alleged beliefs drove the gunman to open fire on the deputies. That is all to say, no evidence connected the shooting - or the suspected gunman - to any organization or cause, including the BLM movement like some viral posts claimed. In fact, leaders within the movement sought to distance themselves from the spontaneous violence. For example, civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing several high-profile cases alleging wrongful use of force by police against Black Americans that have sparked BLM protests across the country - including the family of a man fatally shot by the LA sheriff's department - tweeted: 'We WILL hold [the sheriff's department] accountable for systemic brutality. But violence - including the shooting of two deputies in LA - is NOT the answer. I urge anyone with info about this incident should come forward.' A Group 'That Is Not BLM' Organized the Protest Outside the Hospital In the hours after the shooting, roughly five protesters gathered outside the hospital where the deputies were being treated, and law enforcement officers created a barricade there to supposedly keep the protesters from entering the facility. We uncovered these facts about the scene, primarily based on video evidence: Several protesters attempted to provoke the officers by shouting at them. A couple protesters appeared to be taking videos with their cellphones. At least one protester carried a Pan-African flag, which symbolizes Black liberation in the U.S. At least protester was recorded yelling, 'I hope they die,' apparently in reference to the wounded deputies. Other shouts from the group included, 'Fuck the police,' and 'oink, oink.' At least one officer at the hospital entrance pointed their gun in the protesters' direction. A tense situation developing in Lynwood as a handful of protesters on sidewalk shout at deputies outside St. Francis medical center where 2 deputies are recovering from surgery after being shot tonight in Compton pic.twitter.com/wwpcnVFvOI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 13, 2020 During the ordeal, the sheriff's office said on Twitter protesters were 'blocking the entrance & exit of the hospital emergency room,' and one witness told a local news station that some protesters tried to get inside the facility, though no visual evidence confirmed that was indeed the case. To the protesters blocking the entrance & exit of the HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM yelling 'We hope they die' referring to 2 LA Sheriff's ambushed today in #Compton: DO NOT BLOCK EMERGENCY ENTRIES & EXITS TO THE HOSPITAL. People's lives are at stake when ambulances can't get through. - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 Rather, video footage showed a handful of deputies standing in a driveway (apparently an entrance to the hospital's emergency room), while the small group of protesters paced up and down a sidewalk feet away from them. At one point, deputies detained a journalist with LA's NPR station, KPCC, who was reporting on the small protest, as well as a male protester who 'refused to comply' with deputies' demands to leave the area. The sheriff's department said the reporter, Josie Huang, ignored deputies' repeated commands and did not present 'proper' press credentials. But she said and videos of her arrest show she didn't have time or space to react to deputies orders before they shoved her and forcefully took her into custody. In one video, she can be heard shouting 'I'm a reporter... I'm with KPCC' as officers push her to the ground. They cited her with obstructing justice, though KPCC is urging authorities to drop the charge. Thank you https://t.co/5ajOiRV1m6 for what is the clearest footage of my arrest by @LASDHQ. It's how I remember it - like being tossed around in the ocean and then slammed into rock pic.twitter.com/G3rfCR1NiI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 14, 2020 In a Facebook video posted Sept. 13, Kevin Wharton Price, a founder of an LA-based Black rights group called the Africa Town Coalition, identified himself as the protester whom deputies arrested - as well as an organizer of the small gathering outside the hospital. He said he and three other people went to the facility to call attention to an alleged gang of deputies within the sheriff's department that control aspects of the agency, as well as the series of senseless killings of Black people by authorities over the years. And while BLM and Africa Town Coalition share some similar goals, such as empowering Black Americans, he said they have separate ideologies, and the latter group should not be conflated with the former. Price said: 'Africa Town came with four people that night. Four people. That was it. ...We are not Black Lives Matter. [...] We have our own political agenda.' In addition, he said the rumor that protesters were trying to break into the hospital was false. He said: In the news and some white supremacists are saying that there were Black Lives Matter protesters out there, trying to block the driveway of the hospital, the emergency hospital area, and allegedly trying to force their way in to the emergency room. [...] We did not go to force our way in to anywhere. We went out there to deliver a message to these gang-banging sheriff's department that we're not going to shed a tear because two of your gang-banging sheriffs got shot in the head. In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | [
"14270-proof-05-GettyImages-1228495242.jpg"
]
|
A gunman associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement shot and wounded two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies on Sept. 12, 2020, and BLM protesters afterwards blocked emergency access to the hospital where the deputies received medical treatment. | Contradiction | During America's growing political divide over policing, a video surfaced online in September 2020 showing a gunman shooting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies in the head as they sat in a squad car. Numerous viewers of the seven-second clip believed the apparent ambush - which sent the deputies to the hospital in critical condition - was a result of the momentum among civil rights activists to eliminate unjust killings of Black Americans by authorities, also known as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, as well as supporters of it. Sharing the video with her roughly 2.6 million followers, for example, conservative provocateur Candace Owens wrote on Twitter: 'Why else does this [shooting of deputies] happen? ... BLACK LIVES MATTER AND THE COMPLICIT MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS, ATHLETES, AND ENTERTAINERS ARE TO BLAME.' Below, we unpack that claim - which is ultimately a product of an expansive fear-mongering campaign by deceptive media sources to paint the BLM movement as a social force that doesn't match reality. Additionally, hours after the Compton shooting, another layer to the controversy emerged: Reports on social media alleged BLM protesters taunted law enforcement officers standing guard outside the hospital where the deputies were receiving medical treatment, and blocked emergency access to the facility: The Epoch Times, a media outlet laden with misinformation that has effectively served to help U.S. President Donald Trump's political agenda since 2016, claimed: 'Black Lives Matter protesters blocked a hospital entrance in Los Angeles on Saturday night and yelled, 'we hope they die,' hours after a man shot two county deputies in an ambush.' Based on our analysis of videos of the shooting and protests, as well as first-person accounts and news reports, these assertions were a blend of fact and distortions of reality - presented in memes such as the one displayed below that aimed to dissuade people against supporting the NFL because of its alleged support for protesters who gathered outside the hospital: While some football players were indeed supporters or leaders of the BLM movement, no evidence linked them or the league with the events in Los Angeles. Any social media post that claimed 'the NFL will honor and praise the organization that stood out outside [the] hospital chanting' was at best a misleading attempting to connect dots that didn't exist. At worst, it was a purposeful attempt to discredit an initiative by the NFL to recognize systemic racism by erroneously linking it to the gathering outside the California medical facility. Here's What's True About the Shooting of Two LA Deputies This information is undeniably true: Two deputies, a 31-year-old female and 24-year-old male, were shot at close range while sitting in a patrol car near the Compton sheriff's station south of downtown Los Angeles on Sept. 12 around 7 p.m. Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told reporters the female deputy was a mother of a 6-year-old boy - like the meme about the NFL suggested - and that both deputies graduated law enforcement training in the same class, just 14 months prior to the shooting. The department released the above-mentioned footage that went viral and apparently depicted the incident. The video showed a gunman wearing dark clothing casually approaching the passenger side of the squad car, raising his gun inches from the window, firing several rounds and then running away. 'The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation,' the department tweeted. Update: The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation. pic.twitter.com/cBQjyKkoxJ - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 An extended version of the surveillance video obtained by The Los Angeles Times showed the shooter fleeing in the direction from which he came and running past someone nearby on a sidewalk, although it was unclear if, or to what extent, that person was involved in the surprise attack. Meanwhile, an Instagram video by an apparent witness to the shooting showed the squad car from the front, several people walking on a nearby sidewalk with their phones out, and emergency vehicles arriving to help the wounded deputies. The narrator in that video said: Two sheriffs shot in the face, they tripping. It's going up in Compton. [Expletive] just bust on the police. [...] Somebody ran up on the car and busted on their ass, right through the window, in their face and all. Many who shared the footage assumed the narrator was an 'activist' and took him to be wrongfully celebrating the shooting. 'These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton,' one person tweeted: These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton. pic.twitter.com/zNvTbU4AIa - Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 14, 2020 The Instagram account on which that video originated was deleted after conservatives circulated it widely - leveraging it for their political message - so we have no evidence to verify its legitimacy. We also have no evidence to confirm or disprove the claim that the narrator is an 'activist' or in any way associated with the BLM movement. Moments after the gunfire, medics took the deputies - whom the department had not identified as of this writing - to the St. Francis Medical Center, where they underwent surgery. The following day, the hospital listed them in stable condition, and they were expected to recover from multiple gunshot wounds. Both Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden were quick to condemn the shooting of law enforcement, though their messages varied. Biden said: This cold-blooded shooting is unconscionable and the perpetrator must be brought to justice. Violence of any kind is wrong; those who commit it should be caught and punished. Jill and I are keeping the deputies and their loved ones in our hearts and praying for a full recovery. https://t.co/330QfeIUGg - Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 13, 2020 Trump, meanwhile, retweeted the sheriff's department's video of the shooting, with the comment: 'Animals that must be hit hard!' Later, he added: If they die, fast trial death penalty for the killer. Only way to stop this! https://t.co/K3sKh28GjX - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2020 No Evidence Linked the Shooter to BLM Critical to the rumors aiming to spear the BLM movement was this: The intentions of the gunman were unknown, as of this report. No one had come forward to explain the shooter's motivations behind the attack, nor his whereabouts. On Sept. 14, the sheriff's department announced a $175,000 reward for information to answer such questions leading to an arrest. In regards to the deputies' relationship with the suspect - whom the department described as a Black man between the ages of 28 and 30 years old - the sheriff told reporters: 'To my knowledge, they had no knowledge of this individual. No provocation. No conflict. Nothing. It was just cold blooded ambush.' In other words, very few details were known about the suspect, and the shooting appeared to be random, per Villanueva. That meant any assumption about the gunman's social or political affiliations would breach verified fact, as well as any assertion that those alleged beliefs drove the gunman to open fire on the deputies. That is all to say, no evidence connected the shooting - or the suspected gunman - to any organization or cause, including the BLM movement like some viral posts claimed. In fact, leaders within the movement sought to distance themselves from the spontaneous violence. For example, civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing several high-profile cases alleging wrongful use of force by police against Black Americans that have sparked BLM protests across the country - including the family of a man fatally shot by the LA sheriff's department - tweeted: 'We WILL hold [the sheriff's department] accountable for systemic brutality. But violence - including the shooting of two deputies in LA - is NOT the answer. I urge anyone with info about this incident should come forward.' A Group 'That Is Not BLM' Organized the Protest Outside the Hospital In the hours after the shooting, roughly five protesters gathered outside the hospital where the deputies were being treated, and law enforcement officers created a barricade there to supposedly keep the protesters from entering the facility. We uncovered these facts about the scene, primarily based on video evidence: Several protesters attempted to provoke the officers by shouting at them. A couple protesters appeared to be taking videos with their cellphones. At least one protester carried a Pan-African flag, which symbolizes Black liberation in the U.S. At least protester was recorded yelling, 'I hope they die,' apparently in reference to the wounded deputies. Other shouts from the group included, 'Fuck the police,' and 'oink, oink.' At least one officer at the hospital entrance pointed their gun in the protesters' direction. A tense situation developing in Lynwood as a handful of protesters on sidewalk shout at deputies outside St. Francis medical center where 2 deputies are recovering from surgery after being shot tonight in Compton pic.twitter.com/wwpcnVFvOI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 13, 2020 During the ordeal, the sheriff's office said on Twitter protesters were 'blocking the entrance & exit of the hospital emergency room,' and one witness told a local news station that some protesters tried to get inside the facility, though no visual evidence confirmed that was indeed the case. To the protesters blocking the entrance & exit of the HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM yelling 'We hope they die' referring to 2 LA Sheriff's ambushed today in #Compton: DO NOT BLOCK EMERGENCY ENTRIES & EXITS TO THE HOSPITAL. People's lives are at stake when ambulances can't get through. - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 Rather, video footage showed a handful of deputies standing in a driveway (apparently an entrance to the hospital's emergency room), while the small group of protesters paced up and down a sidewalk feet away from them. At one point, deputies detained a journalist with LA's NPR station, KPCC, who was reporting on the small protest, as well as a male protester who 'refused to comply' with deputies' demands to leave the area. The sheriff's department said the reporter, Josie Huang, ignored deputies' repeated commands and did not present 'proper' press credentials. But she said and videos of her arrest show she didn't have time or space to react to deputies orders before they shoved her and forcefully took her into custody. In one video, she can be heard shouting 'I'm a reporter... I'm with KPCC' as officers push her to the ground. They cited her with obstructing justice, though KPCC is urging authorities to drop the charge. Thank you https://t.co/5ajOiRV1m6 for what is the clearest footage of my arrest by @LASDHQ. It's how I remember it - like being tossed around in the ocean and then slammed into rock pic.twitter.com/G3rfCR1NiI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 14, 2020 In a Facebook video posted Sept. 13, Kevin Wharton Price, a founder of an LA-based Black rights group called the Africa Town Coalition, identified himself as the protester whom deputies arrested - as well as an organizer of the small gathering outside the hospital. He said he and three other people went to the facility to call attention to an alleged gang of deputies within the sheriff's department that control aspects of the agency, as well as the series of senseless killings of Black people by authorities over the years. And while BLM and Africa Town Coalition share some similar goals, such as empowering Black Americans, he said they have separate ideologies, and the latter group should not be conflated with the former. Price said: 'Africa Town came with four people that night. Four people. That was it. ...We are not Black Lives Matter. [...] We have our own political agenda.' In addition, he said the rumor that protesters were trying to break into the hospital was false. He said: In the news and some white supremacists are saying that there were Black Lives Matter protesters out there, trying to block the driveway of the hospital, the emergency hospital area, and allegedly trying to force their way in to the emergency room. [...] We did not go to force our way in to anywhere. We went out there to deliver a message to these gang-banging sheriff's department that we're not going to shed a tear because two of your gang-banging sheriffs got shot in the head. In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | [
"14270-proof-05-GettyImages-1228495242.jpg"
]
|
A gunman associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement shot and wounded two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies on Sept. 12, 2020, and BLM protesters afterwards blocked emergency access to the hospital where the deputies received medical treatment. | Contradiction | During America's growing political divide over policing, a video surfaced online in September 2020 showing a gunman shooting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies in the head as they sat in a squad car. Numerous viewers of the seven-second clip believed the apparent ambush - which sent the deputies to the hospital in critical condition - was a result of the momentum among civil rights activists to eliminate unjust killings of Black Americans by authorities, also known as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, as well as supporters of it. Sharing the video with her roughly 2.6 million followers, for example, conservative provocateur Candace Owens wrote on Twitter: 'Why else does this [shooting of deputies] happen? ... BLACK LIVES MATTER AND THE COMPLICIT MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS, ATHLETES, AND ENTERTAINERS ARE TO BLAME.' Below, we unpack that claim - which is ultimately a product of an expansive fear-mongering campaign by deceptive media sources to paint the BLM movement as a social force that doesn't match reality. Additionally, hours after the Compton shooting, another layer to the controversy emerged: Reports on social media alleged BLM protesters taunted law enforcement officers standing guard outside the hospital where the deputies were receiving medical treatment, and blocked emergency access to the facility: The Epoch Times, a media outlet laden with misinformation that has effectively served to help U.S. President Donald Trump's political agenda since 2016, claimed: 'Black Lives Matter protesters blocked a hospital entrance in Los Angeles on Saturday night and yelled, 'we hope they die,' hours after a man shot two county deputies in an ambush.' Based on our analysis of videos of the shooting and protests, as well as first-person accounts and news reports, these assertions were a blend of fact and distortions of reality - presented in memes such as the one displayed below that aimed to dissuade people against supporting the NFL because of its alleged support for protesters who gathered outside the hospital: While some football players were indeed supporters or leaders of the BLM movement, no evidence linked them or the league with the events in Los Angeles. Any social media post that claimed 'the NFL will honor and praise the organization that stood out outside [the] hospital chanting' was at best a misleading attempting to connect dots that didn't exist. At worst, it was a purposeful attempt to discredit an initiative by the NFL to recognize systemic racism by erroneously linking it to the gathering outside the California medical facility. Here's What's True About the Shooting of Two LA Deputies This information is undeniably true: Two deputies, a 31-year-old female and 24-year-old male, were shot at close range while sitting in a patrol car near the Compton sheriff's station south of downtown Los Angeles on Sept. 12 around 7 p.m. Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told reporters the female deputy was a mother of a 6-year-old boy - like the meme about the NFL suggested - and that both deputies graduated law enforcement training in the same class, just 14 months prior to the shooting. The department released the above-mentioned footage that went viral and apparently depicted the incident. The video showed a gunman wearing dark clothing casually approaching the passenger side of the squad car, raising his gun inches from the window, firing several rounds and then running away. 'The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation,' the department tweeted. Update: The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation. pic.twitter.com/cBQjyKkoxJ - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 An extended version of the surveillance video obtained by The Los Angeles Times showed the shooter fleeing in the direction from which he came and running past someone nearby on a sidewalk, although it was unclear if, or to what extent, that person was involved in the surprise attack. Meanwhile, an Instagram video by an apparent witness to the shooting showed the squad car from the front, several people walking on a nearby sidewalk with their phones out, and emergency vehicles arriving to help the wounded deputies. The narrator in that video said: Two sheriffs shot in the face, they tripping. It's going up in Compton. [Expletive] just bust on the police. [...] Somebody ran up on the car and busted on their ass, right through the window, in their face and all. Many who shared the footage assumed the narrator was an 'activist' and took him to be wrongfully celebrating the shooting. 'These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton,' one person tweeted: These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton. pic.twitter.com/zNvTbU4AIa - Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 14, 2020 The Instagram account on which that video originated was deleted after conservatives circulated it widely - leveraging it for their political message - so we have no evidence to verify its legitimacy. We also have no evidence to confirm or disprove the claim that the narrator is an 'activist' or in any way associated with the BLM movement. Moments after the gunfire, medics took the deputies - whom the department had not identified as of this writing - to the St. Francis Medical Center, where they underwent surgery. The following day, the hospital listed them in stable condition, and they were expected to recover from multiple gunshot wounds. Both Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden were quick to condemn the shooting of law enforcement, though their messages varied. Biden said: This cold-blooded shooting is unconscionable and the perpetrator must be brought to justice. Violence of any kind is wrong; those who commit it should be caught and punished. Jill and I are keeping the deputies and their loved ones in our hearts and praying for a full recovery. https://t.co/330QfeIUGg - Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 13, 2020 Trump, meanwhile, retweeted the sheriff's department's video of the shooting, with the comment: 'Animals that must be hit hard!' Later, he added: If they die, fast trial death penalty for the killer. Only way to stop this! https://t.co/K3sKh28GjX - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2020 No Evidence Linked the Shooter to BLM Critical to the rumors aiming to spear the BLM movement was this: The intentions of the gunman were unknown, as of this report. No one had come forward to explain the shooter's motivations behind the attack, nor his whereabouts. On Sept. 14, the sheriff's department announced a $175,000 reward for information to answer such questions leading to an arrest. In regards to the deputies' relationship with the suspect - whom the department described as a Black man between the ages of 28 and 30 years old - the sheriff told reporters: 'To my knowledge, they had no knowledge of this individual. No provocation. No conflict. Nothing. It was just cold blooded ambush.' In other words, very few details were known about the suspect, and the shooting appeared to be random, per Villanueva. That meant any assumption about the gunman's social or political affiliations would breach verified fact, as well as any assertion that those alleged beliefs drove the gunman to open fire on the deputies. That is all to say, no evidence connected the shooting - or the suspected gunman - to any organization or cause, including the BLM movement like some viral posts claimed. In fact, leaders within the movement sought to distance themselves from the spontaneous violence. For example, civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing several high-profile cases alleging wrongful use of force by police against Black Americans that have sparked BLM protests across the country - including the family of a man fatally shot by the LA sheriff's department - tweeted: 'We WILL hold [the sheriff's department] accountable for systemic brutality. But violence - including the shooting of two deputies in LA - is NOT the answer. I urge anyone with info about this incident should come forward.' A Group 'That Is Not BLM' Organized the Protest Outside the Hospital In the hours after the shooting, roughly five protesters gathered outside the hospital where the deputies were being treated, and law enforcement officers created a barricade there to supposedly keep the protesters from entering the facility. We uncovered these facts about the scene, primarily based on video evidence: Several protesters attempted to provoke the officers by shouting at them. A couple protesters appeared to be taking videos with their cellphones. At least one protester carried a Pan-African flag, which symbolizes Black liberation in the U.S. At least protester was recorded yelling, 'I hope they die,' apparently in reference to the wounded deputies. Other shouts from the group included, 'Fuck the police,' and 'oink, oink.' At least one officer at the hospital entrance pointed their gun in the protesters' direction. A tense situation developing in Lynwood as a handful of protesters on sidewalk shout at deputies outside St. Francis medical center where 2 deputies are recovering from surgery after being shot tonight in Compton pic.twitter.com/wwpcnVFvOI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 13, 2020 During the ordeal, the sheriff's office said on Twitter protesters were 'blocking the entrance & exit of the hospital emergency room,' and one witness told a local news station that some protesters tried to get inside the facility, though no visual evidence confirmed that was indeed the case. To the protesters blocking the entrance & exit of the HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM yelling 'We hope they die' referring to 2 LA Sheriff's ambushed today in #Compton: DO NOT BLOCK EMERGENCY ENTRIES & EXITS TO THE HOSPITAL. People's lives are at stake when ambulances can't get through. - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 Rather, video footage showed a handful of deputies standing in a driveway (apparently an entrance to the hospital's emergency room), while the small group of protesters paced up and down a sidewalk feet away from them. At one point, deputies detained a journalist with LA's NPR station, KPCC, who was reporting on the small protest, as well as a male protester who 'refused to comply' with deputies' demands to leave the area. The sheriff's department said the reporter, Josie Huang, ignored deputies' repeated commands and did not present 'proper' press credentials. But she said and videos of her arrest show she didn't have time or space to react to deputies orders before they shoved her and forcefully took her into custody. In one video, she can be heard shouting 'I'm a reporter... I'm with KPCC' as officers push her to the ground. They cited her with obstructing justice, though KPCC is urging authorities to drop the charge. Thank you https://t.co/5ajOiRV1m6 for what is the clearest footage of my arrest by @LASDHQ. It's how I remember it - like being tossed around in the ocean and then slammed into rock pic.twitter.com/G3rfCR1NiI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 14, 2020 In a Facebook video posted Sept. 13, Kevin Wharton Price, a founder of an LA-based Black rights group called the Africa Town Coalition, identified himself as the protester whom deputies arrested - as well as an organizer of the small gathering outside the hospital. He said he and three other people went to the facility to call attention to an alleged gang of deputies within the sheriff's department that control aspects of the agency, as well as the series of senseless killings of Black people by authorities over the years. And while BLM and Africa Town Coalition share some similar goals, such as empowering Black Americans, he said they have separate ideologies, and the latter group should not be conflated with the former. Price said: 'Africa Town came with four people that night. Four people. That was it. ...We are not Black Lives Matter. [...] We have our own political agenda.' In addition, he said the rumor that protesters were trying to break into the hospital was false. He said: In the news and some white supremacists are saying that there were Black Lives Matter protesters out there, trying to block the driveway of the hospital, the emergency hospital area, and allegedly trying to force their way in to the emergency room. [...] We did not go to force our way in to anywhere. We went out there to deliver a message to these gang-banging sheriff's department that we're not going to shed a tear because two of your gang-banging sheriffs got shot in the head. In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | [
"14270-proof-05-GettyImages-1228495242.jpg"
]
|
A gunman associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement shot and wounded two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies on Sept. 12, 2020, and BLM protesters afterwards blocked emergency access to the hospital where the deputies received medical treatment. | Contradiction | During America's growing political divide over policing, a video surfaced online in September 2020 showing a gunman shooting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies in the head as they sat in a squad car. Numerous viewers of the seven-second clip believed the apparent ambush - which sent the deputies to the hospital in critical condition - was a result of the momentum among civil rights activists to eliminate unjust killings of Black Americans by authorities, also known as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, as well as supporters of it. Sharing the video with her roughly 2.6 million followers, for example, conservative provocateur Candace Owens wrote on Twitter: 'Why else does this [shooting of deputies] happen? ... BLACK LIVES MATTER AND THE COMPLICIT MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS, ATHLETES, AND ENTERTAINERS ARE TO BLAME.' Below, we unpack that claim - which is ultimately a product of an expansive fear-mongering campaign by deceptive media sources to paint the BLM movement as a social force that doesn't match reality. Additionally, hours after the Compton shooting, another layer to the controversy emerged: Reports on social media alleged BLM protesters taunted law enforcement officers standing guard outside the hospital where the deputies were receiving medical treatment, and blocked emergency access to the facility: The Epoch Times, a media outlet laden with misinformation that has effectively served to help U.S. President Donald Trump's political agenda since 2016, claimed: 'Black Lives Matter protesters blocked a hospital entrance in Los Angeles on Saturday night and yelled, 'we hope they die,' hours after a man shot two county deputies in an ambush.' Based on our analysis of videos of the shooting and protests, as well as first-person accounts and news reports, these assertions were a blend of fact and distortions of reality - presented in memes such as the one displayed below that aimed to dissuade people against supporting the NFL because of its alleged support for protesters who gathered outside the hospital: While some football players were indeed supporters or leaders of the BLM movement, no evidence linked them or the league with the events in Los Angeles. Any social media post that claimed 'the NFL will honor and praise the organization that stood out outside [the] hospital chanting' was at best a misleading attempting to connect dots that didn't exist. At worst, it was a purposeful attempt to discredit an initiative by the NFL to recognize systemic racism by erroneously linking it to the gathering outside the California medical facility. Here's What's True About the Shooting of Two LA Deputies This information is undeniably true: Two deputies, a 31-year-old female and 24-year-old male, were shot at close range while sitting in a patrol car near the Compton sheriff's station south of downtown Los Angeles on Sept. 12 around 7 p.m. Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told reporters the female deputy was a mother of a 6-year-old boy - like the meme about the NFL suggested - and that both deputies graduated law enforcement training in the same class, just 14 months prior to the shooting. The department released the above-mentioned footage that went viral and apparently depicted the incident. The video showed a gunman wearing dark clothing casually approaching the passenger side of the squad car, raising his gun inches from the window, firing several rounds and then running away. 'The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation,' the department tweeted. Update: The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation. pic.twitter.com/cBQjyKkoxJ - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 An extended version of the surveillance video obtained by The Los Angeles Times showed the shooter fleeing in the direction from which he came and running past someone nearby on a sidewalk, although it was unclear if, or to what extent, that person was involved in the surprise attack. Meanwhile, an Instagram video by an apparent witness to the shooting showed the squad car from the front, several people walking on a nearby sidewalk with their phones out, and emergency vehicles arriving to help the wounded deputies. The narrator in that video said: Two sheriffs shot in the face, they tripping. It's going up in Compton. [Expletive] just bust on the police. [...] Somebody ran up on the car and busted on their ass, right through the window, in their face and all. Many who shared the footage assumed the narrator was an 'activist' and took him to be wrongfully celebrating the shooting. 'These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton,' one person tweeted: These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton. pic.twitter.com/zNvTbU4AIa - Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 14, 2020 The Instagram account on which that video originated was deleted after conservatives circulated it widely - leveraging it for their political message - so we have no evidence to verify its legitimacy. We also have no evidence to confirm or disprove the claim that the narrator is an 'activist' or in any way associated with the BLM movement. Moments after the gunfire, medics took the deputies - whom the department had not identified as of this writing - to the St. Francis Medical Center, where they underwent surgery. The following day, the hospital listed them in stable condition, and they were expected to recover from multiple gunshot wounds. Both Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden were quick to condemn the shooting of law enforcement, though their messages varied. Biden said: This cold-blooded shooting is unconscionable and the perpetrator must be brought to justice. Violence of any kind is wrong; those who commit it should be caught and punished. Jill and I are keeping the deputies and their loved ones in our hearts and praying for a full recovery. https://t.co/330QfeIUGg - Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 13, 2020 Trump, meanwhile, retweeted the sheriff's department's video of the shooting, with the comment: 'Animals that must be hit hard!' Later, he added: If they die, fast trial death penalty for the killer. Only way to stop this! https://t.co/K3sKh28GjX - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2020 No Evidence Linked the Shooter to BLM Critical to the rumors aiming to spear the BLM movement was this: The intentions of the gunman were unknown, as of this report. No one had come forward to explain the shooter's motivations behind the attack, nor his whereabouts. On Sept. 14, the sheriff's department announced a $175,000 reward for information to answer such questions leading to an arrest. In regards to the deputies' relationship with the suspect - whom the department described as a Black man between the ages of 28 and 30 years old - the sheriff told reporters: 'To my knowledge, they had no knowledge of this individual. No provocation. No conflict. Nothing. It was just cold blooded ambush.' In other words, very few details were known about the suspect, and the shooting appeared to be random, per Villanueva. That meant any assumption about the gunman's social or political affiliations would breach verified fact, as well as any assertion that those alleged beliefs drove the gunman to open fire on the deputies. That is all to say, no evidence connected the shooting - or the suspected gunman - to any organization or cause, including the BLM movement like some viral posts claimed. In fact, leaders within the movement sought to distance themselves from the spontaneous violence. For example, civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing several high-profile cases alleging wrongful use of force by police against Black Americans that have sparked BLM protests across the country - including the family of a man fatally shot by the LA sheriff's department - tweeted: 'We WILL hold [the sheriff's department] accountable for systemic brutality. But violence - including the shooting of two deputies in LA - is NOT the answer. I urge anyone with info about this incident should come forward.' A Group 'That Is Not BLM' Organized the Protest Outside the Hospital In the hours after the shooting, roughly five protesters gathered outside the hospital where the deputies were being treated, and law enforcement officers created a barricade there to supposedly keep the protesters from entering the facility. We uncovered these facts about the scene, primarily based on video evidence: Several protesters attempted to provoke the officers by shouting at them. A couple protesters appeared to be taking videos with their cellphones. At least one protester carried a Pan-African flag, which symbolizes Black liberation in the U.S. At least protester was recorded yelling, 'I hope they die,' apparently in reference to the wounded deputies. Other shouts from the group included, 'Fuck the police,' and 'oink, oink.' At least one officer at the hospital entrance pointed their gun in the protesters' direction. A tense situation developing in Lynwood as a handful of protesters on sidewalk shout at deputies outside St. Francis medical center where 2 deputies are recovering from surgery after being shot tonight in Compton pic.twitter.com/wwpcnVFvOI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 13, 2020 During the ordeal, the sheriff's office said on Twitter protesters were 'blocking the entrance & exit of the hospital emergency room,' and one witness told a local news station that some protesters tried to get inside the facility, though no visual evidence confirmed that was indeed the case. To the protesters blocking the entrance & exit of the HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM yelling 'We hope they die' referring to 2 LA Sheriff's ambushed today in #Compton: DO NOT BLOCK EMERGENCY ENTRIES & EXITS TO THE HOSPITAL. People's lives are at stake when ambulances can't get through. - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 Rather, video footage showed a handful of deputies standing in a driveway (apparently an entrance to the hospital's emergency room), while the small group of protesters paced up and down a sidewalk feet away from them. At one point, deputies detained a journalist with LA's NPR station, KPCC, who was reporting on the small protest, as well as a male protester who 'refused to comply' with deputies' demands to leave the area. The sheriff's department said the reporter, Josie Huang, ignored deputies' repeated commands and did not present 'proper' press credentials. But she said and videos of her arrest show she didn't have time or space to react to deputies orders before they shoved her and forcefully took her into custody. In one video, she can be heard shouting 'I'm a reporter... I'm with KPCC' as officers push her to the ground. They cited her with obstructing justice, though KPCC is urging authorities to drop the charge. Thank you https://t.co/5ajOiRV1m6 for what is the clearest footage of my arrest by @LASDHQ. It's how I remember it - like being tossed around in the ocean and then slammed into rock pic.twitter.com/G3rfCR1NiI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 14, 2020 In a Facebook video posted Sept. 13, Kevin Wharton Price, a founder of an LA-based Black rights group called the Africa Town Coalition, identified himself as the protester whom deputies arrested - as well as an organizer of the small gathering outside the hospital. He said he and three other people went to the facility to call attention to an alleged gang of deputies within the sheriff's department that control aspects of the agency, as well as the series of senseless killings of Black people by authorities over the years. And while BLM and Africa Town Coalition share some similar goals, such as empowering Black Americans, he said they have separate ideologies, and the latter group should not be conflated with the former. Price said: 'Africa Town came with four people that night. Four people. That was it. ...We are not Black Lives Matter. [...] We have our own political agenda.' In addition, he said the rumor that protesters were trying to break into the hospital was false. He said: In the news and some white supremacists are saying that there were Black Lives Matter protesters out there, trying to block the driveway of the hospital, the emergency hospital area, and allegedly trying to force their way in to the emergency room. [...] We did not go to force our way in to anywhere. We went out there to deliver a message to these gang-banging sheriff's department that we're not going to shed a tear because two of your gang-banging sheriffs got shot in the head. In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | [
"14270-proof-05-GettyImages-1228495242.jpg"
]
|
A gunman associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement shot and wounded two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies on Sept. 12, 2020, and BLM protesters afterwards blocked emergency access to the hospital where the deputies received medical treatment. | Contradiction | During America's growing political divide over policing, a video surfaced online in September 2020 showing a gunman shooting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies in the head as they sat in a squad car. Numerous viewers of the seven-second clip believed the apparent ambush - which sent the deputies to the hospital in critical condition - was a result of the momentum among civil rights activists to eliminate unjust killings of Black Americans by authorities, also known as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, as well as supporters of it. Sharing the video with her roughly 2.6 million followers, for example, conservative provocateur Candace Owens wrote on Twitter: 'Why else does this [shooting of deputies] happen? ... BLACK LIVES MATTER AND THE COMPLICIT MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS, ATHLETES, AND ENTERTAINERS ARE TO BLAME.' Below, we unpack that claim - which is ultimately a product of an expansive fear-mongering campaign by deceptive media sources to paint the BLM movement as a social force that doesn't match reality. Additionally, hours after the Compton shooting, another layer to the controversy emerged: Reports on social media alleged BLM protesters taunted law enforcement officers standing guard outside the hospital where the deputies were receiving medical treatment, and blocked emergency access to the facility: The Epoch Times, a media outlet laden with misinformation that has effectively served to help U.S. President Donald Trump's political agenda since 2016, claimed: 'Black Lives Matter protesters blocked a hospital entrance in Los Angeles on Saturday night and yelled, 'we hope they die,' hours after a man shot two county deputies in an ambush.' Based on our analysis of videos of the shooting and protests, as well as first-person accounts and news reports, these assertions were a blend of fact and distortions of reality - presented in memes such as the one displayed below that aimed to dissuade people against supporting the NFL because of its alleged support for protesters who gathered outside the hospital: While some football players were indeed supporters or leaders of the BLM movement, no evidence linked them or the league with the events in Los Angeles. Any social media post that claimed 'the NFL will honor and praise the organization that stood out outside [the] hospital chanting' was at best a misleading attempting to connect dots that didn't exist. At worst, it was a purposeful attempt to discredit an initiative by the NFL to recognize systemic racism by erroneously linking it to the gathering outside the California medical facility. Here's What's True About the Shooting of Two LA Deputies This information is undeniably true: Two deputies, a 31-year-old female and 24-year-old male, were shot at close range while sitting in a patrol car near the Compton sheriff's station south of downtown Los Angeles on Sept. 12 around 7 p.m. Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told reporters the female deputy was a mother of a 6-year-old boy - like the meme about the NFL suggested - and that both deputies graduated law enforcement training in the same class, just 14 months prior to the shooting. The department released the above-mentioned footage that went viral and apparently depicted the incident. The video showed a gunman wearing dark clothing casually approaching the passenger side of the squad car, raising his gun inches from the window, firing several rounds and then running away. 'The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation,' the department tweeted. Update: The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation. pic.twitter.com/cBQjyKkoxJ - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 An extended version of the surveillance video obtained by The Los Angeles Times showed the shooter fleeing in the direction from which he came and running past someone nearby on a sidewalk, although it was unclear if, or to what extent, that person was involved in the surprise attack. Meanwhile, an Instagram video by an apparent witness to the shooting showed the squad car from the front, several people walking on a nearby sidewalk with their phones out, and emergency vehicles arriving to help the wounded deputies. The narrator in that video said: Two sheriffs shot in the face, they tripping. It's going up in Compton. [Expletive] just bust on the police. [...] Somebody ran up on the car and busted on their ass, right through the window, in their face and all. Many who shared the footage assumed the narrator was an 'activist' and took him to be wrongfully celebrating the shooting. 'These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton,' one person tweeted: These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton. pic.twitter.com/zNvTbU4AIa - Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 14, 2020 The Instagram account on which that video originated was deleted after conservatives circulated it widely - leveraging it for their political message - so we have no evidence to verify its legitimacy. We also have no evidence to confirm or disprove the claim that the narrator is an 'activist' or in any way associated with the BLM movement. Moments after the gunfire, medics took the deputies - whom the department had not identified as of this writing - to the St. Francis Medical Center, where they underwent surgery. The following day, the hospital listed them in stable condition, and they were expected to recover from multiple gunshot wounds. Both Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden were quick to condemn the shooting of law enforcement, though their messages varied. Biden said: This cold-blooded shooting is unconscionable and the perpetrator must be brought to justice. Violence of any kind is wrong; those who commit it should be caught and punished. Jill and I are keeping the deputies and their loved ones in our hearts and praying for a full recovery. https://t.co/330QfeIUGg - Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 13, 2020 Trump, meanwhile, retweeted the sheriff's department's video of the shooting, with the comment: 'Animals that must be hit hard!' Later, he added: If they die, fast trial death penalty for the killer. Only way to stop this! https://t.co/K3sKh28GjX - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2020 No Evidence Linked the Shooter to BLM Critical to the rumors aiming to spear the BLM movement was this: The intentions of the gunman were unknown, as of this report. No one had come forward to explain the shooter's motivations behind the attack, nor his whereabouts. On Sept. 14, the sheriff's department announced a $175,000 reward for information to answer such questions leading to an arrest. In regards to the deputies' relationship with the suspect - whom the department described as a Black man between the ages of 28 and 30 years old - the sheriff told reporters: 'To my knowledge, they had no knowledge of this individual. No provocation. No conflict. Nothing. It was just cold blooded ambush.' In other words, very few details were known about the suspect, and the shooting appeared to be random, per Villanueva. That meant any assumption about the gunman's social or political affiliations would breach verified fact, as well as any assertion that those alleged beliefs drove the gunman to open fire on the deputies. That is all to say, no evidence connected the shooting - or the suspected gunman - to any organization or cause, including the BLM movement like some viral posts claimed. In fact, leaders within the movement sought to distance themselves from the spontaneous violence. For example, civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing several high-profile cases alleging wrongful use of force by police against Black Americans that have sparked BLM protests across the country - including the family of a man fatally shot by the LA sheriff's department - tweeted: 'We WILL hold [the sheriff's department] accountable for systemic brutality. But violence - including the shooting of two deputies in LA - is NOT the answer. I urge anyone with info about this incident should come forward.' A Group 'That Is Not BLM' Organized the Protest Outside the Hospital In the hours after the shooting, roughly five protesters gathered outside the hospital where the deputies were being treated, and law enforcement officers created a barricade there to supposedly keep the protesters from entering the facility. We uncovered these facts about the scene, primarily based on video evidence: Several protesters attempted to provoke the officers by shouting at them. A couple protesters appeared to be taking videos with their cellphones. At least one protester carried a Pan-African flag, which symbolizes Black liberation in the U.S. At least protester was recorded yelling, 'I hope they die,' apparently in reference to the wounded deputies. Other shouts from the group included, 'Fuck the police,' and 'oink, oink.' At least one officer at the hospital entrance pointed their gun in the protesters' direction. A tense situation developing in Lynwood as a handful of protesters on sidewalk shout at deputies outside St. Francis medical center where 2 deputies are recovering from surgery after being shot tonight in Compton pic.twitter.com/wwpcnVFvOI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 13, 2020 During the ordeal, the sheriff's office said on Twitter protesters were 'blocking the entrance & exit of the hospital emergency room,' and one witness told a local news station that some protesters tried to get inside the facility, though no visual evidence confirmed that was indeed the case. To the protesters blocking the entrance & exit of the HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM yelling 'We hope they die' referring to 2 LA Sheriff's ambushed today in #Compton: DO NOT BLOCK EMERGENCY ENTRIES & EXITS TO THE HOSPITAL. People's lives are at stake when ambulances can't get through. - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 Rather, video footage showed a handful of deputies standing in a driveway (apparently an entrance to the hospital's emergency room), while the small group of protesters paced up and down a sidewalk feet away from them. At one point, deputies detained a journalist with LA's NPR station, KPCC, who was reporting on the small protest, as well as a male protester who 'refused to comply' with deputies' demands to leave the area. The sheriff's department said the reporter, Josie Huang, ignored deputies' repeated commands and did not present 'proper' press credentials. But she said and videos of her arrest show she didn't have time or space to react to deputies orders before they shoved her and forcefully took her into custody. In one video, she can be heard shouting 'I'm a reporter... I'm with KPCC' as officers push her to the ground. They cited her with obstructing justice, though KPCC is urging authorities to drop the charge. Thank you https://t.co/5ajOiRV1m6 for what is the clearest footage of my arrest by @LASDHQ. It's how I remember it - like being tossed around in the ocean and then slammed into rock pic.twitter.com/G3rfCR1NiI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 14, 2020 In a Facebook video posted Sept. 13, Kevin Wharton Price, a founder of an LA-based Black rights group called the Africa Town Coalition, identified himself as the protester whom deputies arrested - as well as an organizer of the small gathering outside the hospital. He said he and three other people went to the facility to call attention to an alleged gang of deputies within the sheriff's department that control aspects of the agency, as well as the series of senseless killings of Black people by authorities over the years. And while BLM and Africa Town Coalition share some similar goals, such as empowering Black Americans, he said they have separate ideologies, and the latter group should not be conflated with the former. Price said: 'Africa Town came with four people that night. Four people. That was it. ...We are not Black Lives Matter. [...] We have our own political agenda.' In addition, he said the rumor that protesters were trying to break into the hospital was false. He said: In the news and some white supremacists are saying that there were Black Lives Matter protesters out there, trying to block the driveway of the hospital, the emergency hospital area, and allegedly trying to force their way in to the emergency room. [...] We did not go to force our way in to anywhere. We went out there to deliver a message to these gang-banging sheriff's department that we're not going to shed a tear because two of your gang-banging sheriffs got shot in the head. In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | [
"14270-proof-05-GettyImages-1228495242.jpg"
]
|
A gunman associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement shot and wounded two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies on Sept. 12, 2020, and BLM protesters afterwards blocked emergency access to the hospital where the deputies received medical treatment. | Contradiction | During America's growing political divide over policing, a video surfaced online in September 2020 showing a gunman shooting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies in the head as they sat in a squad car. Numerous viewers of the seven-second clip believed the apparent ambush - which sent the deputies to the hospital in critical condition - was a result of the momentum among civil rights activists to eliminate unjust killings of Black Americans by authorities, also known as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, as well as supporters of it. Sharing the video with her roughly 2.6 million followers, for example, conservative provocateur Candace Owens wrote on Twitter: 'Why else does this [shooting of deputies] happen? ... BLACK LIVES MATTER AND THE COMPLICIT MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS, ATHLETES, AND ENTERTAINERS ARE TO BLAME.' Below, we unpack that claim - which is ultimately a product of an expansive fear-mongering campaign by deceptive media sources to paint the BLM movement as a social force that doesn't match reality. Additionally, hours after the Compton shooting, another layer to the controversy emerged: Reports on social media alleged BLM protesters taunted law enforcement officers standing guard outside the hospital where the deputies were receiving medical treatment, and blocked emergency access to the facility: The Epoch Times, a media outlet laden with misinformation that has effectively served to help U.S. President Donald Trump's political agenda since 2016, claimed: 'Black Lives Matter protesters blocked a hospital entrance in Los Angeles on Saturday night and yelled, 'we hope they die,' hours after a man shot two county deputies in an ambush.' Based on our analysis of videos of the shooting and protests, as well as first-person accounts and news reports, these assertions were a blend of fact and distortions of reality - presented in memes such as the one displayed below that aimed to dissuade people against supporting the NFL because of its alleged support for protesters who gathered outside the hospital: While some football players were indeed supporters or leaders of the BLM movement, no evidence linked them or the league with the events in Los Angeles. Any social media post that claimed 'the NFL will honor and praise the organization that stood out outside [the] hospital chanting' was at best a misleading attempting to connect dots that didn't exist. At worst, it was a purposeful attempt to discredit an initiative by the NFL to recognize systemic racism by erroneously linking it to the gathering outside the California medical facility. Here's What's True About the Shooting of Two LA Deputies This information is undeniably true: Two deputies, a 31-year-old female and 24-year-old male, were shot at close range while sitting in a patrol car near the Compton sheriff's station south of downtown Los Angeles on Sept. 12 around 7 p.m. Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told reporters the female deputy was a mother of a 6-year-old boy - like the meme about the NFL suggested - and that both deputies graduated law enforcement training in the same class, just 14 months prior to the shooting. The department released the above-mentioned footage that went viral and apparently depicted the incident. The video showed a gunman wearing dark clothing casually approaching the passenger side of the squad car, raising his gun inches from the window, firing several rounds and then running away. 'The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation,' the department tweeted. Update: The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation. pic.twitter.com/cBQjyKkoxJ - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 An extended version of the surveillance video obtained by The Los Angeles Times showed the shooter fleeing in the direction from which he came and running past someone nearby on a sidewalk, although it was unclear if, or to what extent, that person was involved in the surprise attack. Meanwhile, an Instagram video by an apparent witness to the shooting showed the squad car from the front, several people walking on a nearby sidewalk with their phones out, and emergency vehicles arriving to help the wounded deputies. The narrator in that video said: Two sheriffs shot in the face, they tripping. It's going up in Compton. [Expletive] just bust on the police. [...] Somebody ran up on the car and busted on their ass, right through the window, in their face and all. Many who shared the footage assumed the narrator was an 'activist' and took him to be wrongfully celebrating the shooting. 'These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton,' one person tweeted: These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton. pic.twitter.com/zNvTbU4AIa - Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 14, 2020 The Instagram account on which that video originated was deleted after conservatives circulated it widely - leveraging it for their political message - so we have no evidence to verify its legitimacy. We also have no evidence to confirm or disprove the claim that the narrator is an 'activist' or in any way associated with the BLM movement. Moments after the gunfire, medics took the deputies - whom the department had not identified as of this writing - to the St. Francis Medical Center, where they underwent surgery. The following day, the hospital listed them in stable condition, and they were expected to recover from multiple gunshot wounds. Both Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden were quick to condemn the shooting of law enforcement, though their messages varied. Biden said: This cold-blooded shooting is unconscionable and the perpetrator must be brought to justice. Violence of any kind is wrong; those who commit it should be caught and punished. Jill and I are keeping the deputies and their loved ones in our hearts and praying for a full recovery. https://t.co/330QfeIUGg - Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 13, 2020 Trump, meanwhile, retweeted the sheriff's department's video of the shooting, with the comment: 'Animals that must be hit hard!' Later, he added: If they die, fast trial death penalty for the killer. Only way to stop this! https://t.co/K3sKh28GjX - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2020 No Evidence Linked the Shooter to BLM Critical to the rumors aiming to spear the BLM movement was this: The intentions of the gunman were unknown, as of this report. No one had come forward to explain the shooter's motivations behind the attack, nor his whereabouts. On Sept. 14, the sheriff's department announced a $175,000 reward for information to answer such questions leading to an arrest. In regards to the deputies' relationship with the suspect - whom the department described as a Black man between the ages of 28 and 30 years old - the sheriff told reporters: 'To my knowledge, they had no knowledge of this individual. No provocation. No conflict. Nothing. It was just cold blooded ambush.' In other words, very few details were known about the suspect, and the shooting appeared to be random, per Villanueva. That meant any assumption about the gunman's social or political affiliations would breach verified fact, as well as any assertion that those alleged beliefs drove the gunman to open fire on the deputies. That is all to say, no evidence connected the shooting - or the suspected gunman - to any organization or cause, including the BLM movement like some viral posts claimed. In fact, leaders within the movement sought to distance themselves from the spontaneous violence. For example, civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing several high-profile cases alleging wrongful use of force by police against Black Americans that have sparked BLM protests across the country - including the family of a man fatally shot by the LA sheriff's department - tweeted: 'We WILL hold [the sheriff's department] accountable for systemic brutality. But violence - including the shooting of two deputies in LA - is NOT the answer. I urge anyone with info about this incident should come forward.' A Group 'That Is Not BLM' Organized the Protest Outside the Hospital In the hours after the shooting, roughly five protesters gathered outside the hospital where the deputies were being treated, and law enforcement officers created a barricade there to supposedly keep the protesters from entering the facility. We uncovered these facts about the scene, primarily based on video evidence: Several protesters attempted to provoke the officers by shouting at them. A couple protesters appeared to be taking videos with their cellphones. At least one protester carried a Pan-African flag, which symbolizes Black liberation in the U.S. At least protester was recorded yelling, 'I hope they die,' apparently in reference to the wounded deputies. Other shouts from the group included, 'Fuck the police,' and 'oink, oink.' At least one officer at the hospital entrance pointed their gun in the protesters' direction. A tense situation developing in Lynwood as a handful of protesters on sidewalk shout at deputies outside St. Francis medical center where 2 deputies are recovering from surgery after being shot tonight in Compton pic.twitter.com/wwpcnVFvOI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 13, 2020 During the ordeal, the sheriff's office said on Twitter protesters were 'blocking the entrance & exit of the hospital emergency room,' and one witness told a local news station that some protesters tried to get inside the facility, though no visual evidence confirmed that was indeed the case. To the protesters blocking the entrance & exit of the HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM yelling 'We hope they die' referring to 2 LA Sheriff's ambushed today in #Compton: DO NOT BLOCK EMERGENCY ENTRIES & EXITS TO THE HOSPITAL. People's lives are at stake when ambulances can't get through. - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 Rather, video footage showed a handful of deputies standing in a driveway (apparently an entrance to the hospital's emergency room), while the small group of protesters paced up and down a sidewalk feet away from them. At one point, deputies detained a journalist with LA's NPR station, KPCC, who was reporting on the small protest, as well as a male protester who 'refused to comply' with deputies' demands to leave the area. The sheriff's department said the reporter, Josie Huang, ignored deputies' repeated commands and did not present 'proper' press credentials. But she said and videos of her arrest show she didn't have time or space to react to deputies orders before they shoved her and forcefully took her into custody. In one video, she can be heard shouting 'I'm a reporter... I'm with KPCC' as officers push her to the ground. They cited her with obstructing justice, though KPCC is urging authorities to drop the charge. Thank you https://t.co/5ajOiRV1m6 for what is the clearest footage of my arrest by @LASDHQ. It's how I remember it - like being tossed around in the ocean and then slammed into rock pic.twitter.com/G3rfCR1NiI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 14, 2020 In a Facebook video posted Sept. 13, Kevin Wharton Price, a founder of an LA-based Black rights group called the Africa Town Coalition, identified himself as the protester whom deputies arrested - as well as an organizer of the small gathering outside the hospital. He said he and three other people went to the facility to call attention to an alleged gang of deputies within the sheriff's department that control aspects of the agency, as well as the series of senseless killings of Black people by authorities over the years. And while BLM and Africa Town Coalition share some similar goals, such as empowering Black Americans, he said they have separate ideologies, and the latter group should not be conflated with the former. Price said: 'Africa Town came with four people that night. Four people. That was it. ...We are not Black Lives Matter. [...] We have our own political agenda.' In addition, he said the rumor that protesters were trying to break into the hospital was false. He said: In the news and some white supremacists are saying that there were Black Lives Matter protesters out there, trying to block the driveway of the hospital, the emergency hospital area, and allegedly trying to force their way in to the emergency room. [...] We did not go to force our way in to anywhere. We went out there to deliver a message to these gang-banging sheriff's department that we're not going to shed a tear because two of your gang-banging sheriffs got shot in the head. In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | [
"14270-proof-05-GettyImages-1228495242.jpg"
]
|
A gunman associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement shot and wounded two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies on Sept. 12, 2020, and BLM protesters afterwards blocked emergency access to the hospital where the deputies received medical treatment. | Contradiction | During America's growing political divide over policing, a video surfaced online in September 2020 showing a gunman shooting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies in the head as they sat in a squad car. Numerous viewers of the seven-second clip believed the apparent ambush - which sent the deputies to the hospital in critical condition - was a result of the momentum among civil rights activists to eliminate unjust killings of Black Americans by authorities, also known as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, as well as supporters of it. Sharing the video with her roughly 2.6 million followers, for example, conservative provocateur Candace Owens wrote on Twitter: 'Why else does this [shooting of deputies] happen? ... BLACK LIVES MATTER AND THE COMPLICIT MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS, ATHLETES, AND ENTERTAINERS ARE TO BLAME.' Below, we unpack that claim - which is ultimately a product of an expansive fear-mongering campaign by deceptive media sources to paint the BLM movement as a social force that doesn't match reality. Additionally, hours after the Compton shooting, another layer to the controversy emerged: Reports on social media alleged BLM protesters taunted law enforcement officers standing guard outside the hospital where the deputies were receiving medical treatment, and blocked emergency access to the facility: The Epoch Times, a media outlet laden with misinformation that has effectively served to help U.S. President Donald Trump's political agenda since 2016, claimed: 'Black Lives Matter protesters blocked a hospital entrance in Los Angeles on Saturday night and yelled, 'we hope they die,' hours after a man shot two county deputies in an ambush.' Based on our analysis of videos of the shooting and protests, as well as first-person accounts and news reports, these assertions were a blend of fact and distortions of reality - presented in memes such as the one displayed below that aimed to dissuade people against supporting the NFL because of its alleged support for protesters who gathered outside the hospital: While some football players were indeed supporters or leaders of the BLM movement, no evidence linked them or the league with the events in Los Angeles. Any social media post that claimed 'the NFL will honor and praise the organization that stood out outside [the] hospital chanting' was at best a misleading attempting to connect dots that didn't exist. At worst, it was a purposeful attempt to discredit an initiative by the NFL to recognize systemic racism by erroneously linking it to the gathering outside the California medical facility. Here's What's True About the Shooting of Two LA Deputies This information is undeniably true: Two deputies, a 31-year-old female and 24-year-old male, were shot at close range while sitting in a patrol car near the Compton sheriff's station south of downtown Los Angeles on Sept. 12 around 7 p.m. Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told reporters the female deputy was a mother of a 6-year-old boy - like the meme about the NFL suggested - and that both deputies graduated law enforcement training in the same class, just 14 months prior to the shooting. The department released the above-mentioned footage that went viral and apparently depicted the incident. The video showed a gunman wearing dark clothing casually approaching the passenger side of the squad car, raising his gun inches from the window, firing several rounds and then running away. 'The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation,' the department tweeted. Update: The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation. pic.twitter.com/cBQjyKkoxJ - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 An extended version of the surveillance video obtained by The Los Angeles Times showed the shooter fleeing in the direction from which he came and running past someone nearby on a sidewalk, although it was unclear if, or to what extent, that person was involved in the surprise attack. Meanwhile, an Instagram video by an apparent witness to the shooting showed the squad car from the front, several people walking on a nearby sidewalk with their phones out, and emergency vehicles arriving to help the wounded deputies. The narrator in that video said: Two sheriffs shot in the face, they tripping. It's going up in Compton. [Expletive] just bust on the police. [...] Somebody ran up on the car and busted on their ass, right through the window, in their face and all. Many who shared the footage assumed the narrator was an 'activist' and took him to be wrongfully celebrating the shooting. 'These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton,' one person tweeted: These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton. pic.twitter.com/zNvTbU4AIa - Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 14, 2020 The Instagram account on which that video originated was deleted after conservatives circulated it widely - leveraging it for their political message - so we have no evidence to verify its legitimacy. We also have no evidence to confirm or disprove the claim that the narrator is an 'activist' or in any way associated with the BLM movement. Moments after the gunfire, medics took the deputies - whom the department had not identified as of this writing - to the St. Francis Medical Center, where they underwent surgery. The following day, the hospital listed them in stable condition, and they were expected to recover from multiple gunshot wounds. Both Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden were quick to condemn the shooting of law enforcement, though their messages varied. Biden said: This cold-blooded shooting is unconscionable and the perpetrator must be brought to justice. Violence of any kind is wrong; those who commit it should be caught and punished. Jill and I are keeping the deputies and their loved ones in our hearts and praying for a full recovery. https://t.co/330QfeIUGg - Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 13, 2020 Trump, meanwhile, retweeted the sheriff's department's video of the shooting, with the comment: 'Animals that must be hit hard!' Later, he added: If they die, fast trial death penalty for the killer. Only way to stop this! https://t.co/K3sKh28GjX - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2020 No Evidence Linked the Shooter to BLM Critical to the rumors aiming to spear the BLM movement was this: The intentions of the gunman were unknown, as of this report. No one had come forward to explain the shooter's motivations behind the attack, nor his whereabouts. On Sept. 14, the sheriff's department announced a $175,000 reward for information to answer such questions leading to an arrest. In regards to the deputies' relationship with the suspect - whom the department described as a Black man between the ages of 28 and 30 years old - the sheriff told reporters: 'To my knowledge, they had no knowledge of this individual. No provocation. No conflict. Nothing. It was just cold blooded ambush.' In other words, very few details were known about the suspect, and the shooting appeared to be random, per Villanueva. That meant any assumption about the gunman's social or political affiliations would breach verified fact, as well as any assertion that those alleged beliefs drove the gunman to open fire on the deputies. That is all to say, no evidence connected the shooting - or the suspected gunman - to any organization or cause, including the BLM movement like some viral posts claimed. In fact, leaders within the movement sought to distance themselves from the spontaneous violence. For example, civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing several high-profile cases alleging wrongful use of force by police against Black Americans that have sparked BLM protests across the country - including the family of a man fatally shot by the LA sheriff's department - tweeted: 'We WILL hold [the sheriff's department] accountable for systemic brutality. But violence - including the shooting of two deputies in LA - is NOT the answer. I urge anyone with info about this incident should come forward.' A Group 'That Is Not BLM' Organized the Protest Outside the Hospital In the hours after the shooting, roughly five protesters gathered outside the hospital where the deputies were being treated, and law enforcement officers created a barricade there to supposedly keep the protesters from entering the facility. We uncovered these facts about the scene, primarily based on video evidence: Several protesters attempted to provoke the officers by shouting at them. A couple protesters appeared to be taking videos with their cellphones. At least one protester carried a Pan-African flag, which symbolizes Black liberation in the U.S. At least protester was recorded yelling, 'I hope they die,' apparently in reference to the wounded deputies. Other shouts from the group included, 'Fuck the police,' and 'oink, oink.' At least one officer at the hospital entrance pointed their gun in the protesters' direction. A tense situation developing in Lynwood as a handful of protesters on sidewalk shout at deputies outside St. Francis medical center where 2 deputies are recovering from surgery after being shot tonight in Compton pic.twitter.com/wwpcnVFvOI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 13, 2020 During the ordeal, the sheriff's office said on Twitter protesters were 'blocking the entrance & exit of the hospital emergency room,' and one witness told a local news station that some protesters tried to get inside the facility, though no visual evidence confirmed that was indeed the case. To the protesters blocking the entrance & exit of the HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM yelling 'We hope they die' referring to 2 LA Sheriff's ambushed today in #Compton: DO NOT BLOCK EMERGENCY ENTRIES & EXITS TO THE HOSPITAL. People's lives are at stake when ambulances can't get through. - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 Rather, video footage showed a handful of deputies standing in a driveway (apparently an entrance to the hospital's emergency room), while the small group of protesters paced up and down a sidewalk feet away from them. At one point, deputies detained a journalist with LA's NPR station, KPCC, who was reporting on the small protest, as well as a male protester who 'refused to comply' with deputies' demands to leave the area. The sheriff's department said the reporter, Josie Huang, ignored deputies' repeated commands and did not present 'proper' press credentials. But she said and videos of her arrest show she didn't have time or space to react to deputies orders before they shoved her and forcefully took her into custody. In one video, she can be heard shouting 'I'm a reporter... I'm with KPCC' as officers push her to the ground. They cited her with obstructing justice, though KPCC is urging authorities to drop the charge. Thank you https://t.co/5ajOiRV1m6 for what is the clearest footage of my arrest by @LASDHQ. It's how I remember it - like being tossed around in the ocean and then slammed into rock pic.twitter.com/G3rfCR1NiI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 14, 2020 In a Facebook video posted Sept. 13, Kevin Wharton Price, a founder of an LA-based Black rights group called the Africa Town Coalition, identified himself as the protester whom deputies arrested - as well as an organizer of the small gathering outside the hospital. He said he and three other people went to the facility to call attention to an alleged gang of deputies within the sheriff's department that control aspects of the agency, as well as the series of senseless killings of Black people by authorities over the years. And while BLM and Africa Town Coalition share some similar goals, such as empowering Black Americans, he said they have separate ideologies, and the latter group should not be conflated with the former. Price said: 'Africa Town came with four people that night. Four people. That was it. ...We are not Black Lives Matter. [...] We have our own political agenda.' In addition, he said the rumor that protesters were trying to break into the hospital was false. He said: In the news and some white supremacists are saying that there were Black Lives Matter protesters out there, trying to block the driveway of the hospital, the emergency hospital area, and allegedly trying to force their way in to the emergency room. [...] We did not go to force our way in to anywhere. We went out there to deliver a message to these gang-banging sheriff's department that we're not going to shed a tear because two of your gang-banging sheriffs got shot in the head. In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | [
"14270-proof-05-GettyImages-1228495242.jpg"
]
|
A gunman associated with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement shot and wounded two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies on Sept. 12, 2020, and BLM protesters afterwards blocked emergency access to the hospital where the deputies received medical treatment. | Contradiction | During America's growing political divide over policing, a video surfaced online in September 2020 showing a gunman shooting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies in the head as they sat in a squad car. Numerous viewers of the seven-second clip believed the apparent ambush - which sent the deputies to the hospital in critical condition - was a result of the momentum among civil rights activists to eliminate unjust killings of Black Americans by authorities, also known as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, as well as supporters of it. Sharing the video with her roughly 2.6 million followers, for example, conservative provocateur Candace Owens wrote on Twitter: 'Why else does this [shooting of deputies] happen? ... BLACK LIVES MATTER AND THE COMPLICIT MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS, ATHLETES, AND ENTERTAINERS ARE TO BLAME.' Below, we unpack that claim - which is ultimately a product of an expansive fear-mongering campaign by deceptive media sources to paint the BLM movement as a social force that doesn't match reality. Additionally, hours after the Compton shooting, another layer to the controversy emerged: Reports on social media alleged BLM protesters taunted law enforcement officers standing guard outside the hospital where the deputies were receiving medical treatment, and blocked emergency access to the facility: The Epoch Times, a media outlet laden with misinformation that has effectively served to help U.S. President Donald Trump's political agenda since 2016, claimed: 'Black Lives Matter protesters blocked a hospital entrance in Los Angeles on Saturday night and yelled, 'we hope they die,' hours after a man shot two county deputies in an ambush.' Based on our analysis of videos of the shooting and protests, as well as first-person accounts and news reports, these assertions were a blend of fact and distortions of reality - presented in memes such as the one displayed below that aimed to dissuade people against supporting the NFL because of its alleged support for protesters who gathered outside the hospital: While some football players were indeed supporters or leaders of the BLM movement, no evidence linked them or the league with the events in Los Angeles. Any social media post that claimed 'the NFL will honor and praise the organization that stood out outside [the] hospital chanting' was at best a misleading attempting to connect dots that didn't exist. At worst, it was a purposeful attempt to discredit an initiative by the NFL to recognize systemic racism by erroneously linking it to the gathering outside the California medical facility. Here's What's True About the Shooting of Two LA Deputies This information is undeniably true: Two deputies, a 31-year-old female and 24-year-old male, were shot at close range while sitting in a patrol car near the Compton sheriff's station south of downtown Los Angeles on Sept. 12 around 7 p.m. Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva told reporters the female deputy was a mother of a 6-year-old boy - like the meme about the NFL suggested - and that both deputies graduated law enforcement training in the same class, just 14 months prior to the shooting. The department released the above-mentioned footage that went viral and apparently depicted the incident. The video showed a gunman wearing dark clothing casually approaching the passenger side of the squad car, raising his gun inches from the window, firing several rounds and then running away. 'The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation,' the department tweeted. Update: The gunman walked up on the deputies and opened fire without warning or provocation. pic.twitter.com/cBQjyKkoxJ - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 An extended version of the surveillance video obtained by The Los Angeles Times showed the shooter fleeing in the direction from which he came and running past someone nearby on a sidewalk, although it was unclear if, or to what extent, that person was involved in the surprise attack. Meanwhile, an Instagram video by an apparent witness to the shooting showed the squad car from the front, several people walking on a nearby sidewalk with their phones out, and emergency vehicles arriving to help the wounded deputies. The narrator in that video said: Two sheriffs shot in the face, they tripping. It's going up in Compton. [Expletive] just bust on the police. [...] Somebody ran up on the car and busted on their ass, right through the window, in their face and all. Many who shared the footage assumed the narrator was an 'activist' and took him to be wrongfully celebrating the shooting. 'These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton,' one person tweeted: These 'activists' are celebrating the attempted executions of two police officers in Compton. pic.twitter.com/zNvTbU4AIa - Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 14, 2020 The Instagram account on which that video originated was deleted after conservatives circulated it widely - leveraging it for their political message - so we have no evidence to verify its legitimacy. We also have no evidence to confirm or disprove the claim that the narrator is an 'activist' or in any way associated with the BLM movement. Moments after the gunfire, medics took the deputies - whom the department had not identified as of this writing - to the St. Francis Medical Center, where they underwent surgery. The following day, the hospital listed them in stable condition, and they were expected to recover from multiple gunshot wounds. Both Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden were quick to condemn the shooting of law enforcement, though their messages varied. Biden said: This cold-blooded shooting is unconscionable and the perpetrator must be brought to justice. Violence of any kind is wrong; those who commit it should be caught and punished. Jill and I are keeping the deputies and their loved ones in our hearts and praying for a full recovery. https://t.co/330QfeIUGg - Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 13, 2020 Trump, meanwhile, retweeted the sheriff's department's video of the shooting, with the comment: 'Animals that must be hit hard!' Later, he added: If they die, fast trial death penalty for the killer. Only way to stop this! https://t.co/K3sKh28GjX - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2020 No Evidence Linked the Shooter to BLM Critical to the rumors aiming to spear the BLM movement was this: The intentions of the gunman were unknown, as of this report. No one had come forward to explain the shooter's motivations behind the attack, nor his whereabouts. On Sept. 14, the sheriff's department announced a $175,000 reward for information to answer such questions leading to an arrest. In regards to the deputies' relationship with the suspect - whom the department described as a Black man between the ages of 28 and 30 years old - the sheriff told reporters: 'To my knowledge, they had no knowledge of this individual. No provocation. No conflict. Nothing. It was just cold blooded ambush.' In other words, very few details were known about the suspect, and the shooting appeared to be random, per Villanueva. That meant any assumption about the gunman's social or political affiliations would breach verified fact, as well as any assertion that those alleged beliefs drove the gunman to open fire on the deputies. That is all to say, no evidence connected the shooting - or the suspected gunman - to any organization or cause, including the BLM movement like some viral posts claimed. In fact, leaders within the movement sought to distance themselves from the spontaneous violence. For example, civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing several high-profile cases alleging wrongful use of force by police against Black Americans that have sparked BLM protests across the country - including the family of a man fatally shot by the LA sheriff's department - tweeted: 'We WILL hold [the sheriff's department] accountable for systemic brutality. But violence - including the shooting of two deputies in LA - is NOT the answer. I urge anyone with info about this incident should come forward.' A Group 'That Is Not BLM' Organized the Protest Outside the Hospital In the hours after the shooting, roughly five protesters gathered outside the hospital where the deputies were being treated, and law enforcement officers created a barricade there to supposedly keep the protesters from entering the facility. We uncovered these facts about the scene, primarily based on video evidence: Several protesters attempted to provoke the officers by shouting at them. A couple protesters appeared to be taking videos with their cellphones. At least one protester carried a Pan-African flag, which symbolizes Black liberation in the U.S. At least protester was recorded yelling, 'I hope they die,' apparently in reference to the wounded deputies. Other shouts from the group included, 'Fuck the police,' and 'oink, oink.' At least one officer at the hospital entrance pointed their gun in the protesters' direction. A tense situation developing in Lynwood as a handful of protesters on sidewalk shout at deputies outside St. Francis medical center where 2 deputies are recovering from surgery after being shot tonight in Compton pic.twitter.com/wwpcnVFvOI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 13, 2020 During the ordeal, the sheriff's office said on Twitter protesters were 'blocking the entrance & exit of the hospital emergency room,' and one witness told a local news station that some protesters tried to get inside the facility, though no visual evidence confirmed that was indeed the case. To the protesters blocking the entrance & exit of the HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM yelling 'We hope they die' referring to 2 LA Sheriff's ambushed today in #Compton: DO NOT BLOCK EMERGENCY ENTRIES & EXITS TO THE HOSPITAL. People's lives are at stake when ambulances can't get through. - LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) September 13, 2020 Rather, video footage showed a handful of deputies standing in a driveway (apparently an entrance to the hospital's emergency room), while the small group of protesters paced up and down a sidewalk feet away from them. At one point, deputies detained a journalist with LA's NPR station, KPCC, who was reporting on the small protest, as well as a male protester who 'refused to comply' with deputies' demands to leave the area. The sheriff's department said the reporter, Josie Huang, ignored deputies' repeated commands and did not present 'proper' press credentials. But she said and videos of her arrest show she didn't have time or space to react to deputies orders before they shoved her and forcefully took her into custody. In one video, she can be heard shouting 'I'm a reporter... I'm with KPCC' as officers push her to the ground. They cited her with obstructing justice, though KPCC is urging authorities to drop the charge. Thank you https://t.co/5ajOiRV1m6 for what is the clearest footage of my arrest by @LASDHQ. It's how I remember it - like being tossed around in the ocean and then slammed into rock pic.twitter.com/G3rfCR1NiI - Josie Huang (@josie_huang) September 14, 2020 In a Facebook video posted Sept. 13, Kevin Wharton Price, a founder of an LA-based Black rights group called the Africa Town Coalition, identified himself as the protester whom deputies arrested - as well as an organizer of the small gathering outside the hospital. He said he and three other people went to the facility to call attention to an alleged gang of deputies within the sheriff's department that control aspects of the agency, as well as the series of senseless killings of Black people by authorities over the years. And while BLM and Africa Town Coalition share some similar goals, such as empowering Black Americans, he said they have separate ideologies, and the latter group should not be conflated with the former. Price said: 'Africa Town came with four people that night. Four people. That was it. ...We are not Black Lives Matter. [...] We have our own political agenda.' In addition, he said the rumor that protesters were trying to break into the hospital was false. He said: In the news and some white supremacists are saying that there were Black Lives Matter protesters out there, trying to block the driveway of the hospital, the emergency hospital area, and allegedly trying to force their way in to the emergency room. [...] We did not go to force our way in to anywhere. We went out there to deliver a message to these gang-banging sheriff's department that we're not going to shed a tear because two of your gang-banging sheriffs got shot in the head. In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | In sum, a group that is not BLM organized the small protest outside the hospital where two deputies received treatment for gunshot wounds, and tried to provoke law enforcement officers standing guard there. No visual evidence confirmed those protesters blocked an emergency access to the facility, though the sheriff's department reported that was the case. Also, no evidence linked the suspect in the supposed ambush of deputies to the BLM movement, as of this writing. For those reasons, we rate this claim as 'Mostly false.' | [
"14270-proof-05-GettyImages-1228495242.jpg"
]
|
Donald Trump will be a 'part-time President' and keep his job on 'Celebrity Apprentice. | Contradiction | On 8 December 2016, stories appeared that President-elect Donald Trump would remain on the reality television show 'Celebrity Apprentice' as an executive producer, even as he serves as president: .@realDonaldTrump to remain Executive Producer on #CelebrityApprentice (EXCLUSIVE) https://t.co/lWFRA3riN1 pic.twitter.com/PceHQUZODA - Variety (@Variety) December 8, 2016 The article clarified the claim, reporting that Trump would retain a 'credit' on the program: Donald Trump will remain an exec producer on NBC's 'Celebrity Apprentice,' which is returning Jan. 2 after a two-year hiatus with new host Arnold Schwarzenegger. MGM confirmed to Variety that Trump has retained his EP credit on the series. The president-elect's status on the 15th season of the reality series that made him a household name has been a question since Trump launched his presidential campaign in June 2015. In the credit sequence, Trump's name will air after that of 'Apprentice' creator Mark Burnett and before Schwarzenegger, who is also an exec producer of the new incarnation along with Page Feldman and Eric Van Wagenen. By that description, it sounded as if Trump would simply remain a credited entity in the program's introduction and conclusion sequences. The piece went on to say that residuals received by Trump would be scrutinized, adding that he planned to devote no time to upcoming productions of 'Celebrity Apprentice': Although Trump has no role in the production of the show, the fact that a sitting president will be on the payroll of a current TV show is another example of the thicket of potential conflicts of interest raised by Trump's segue from private businessman and TV star to commander-in-chief. However, past presidents have published books during their time in the White House, so there is precedent for a president earning royalties while in office. In the case of President Obama's 2010 book 'Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters,' his profits from the Alfred A. Knopf publication were donated to a charity that aids the children of disabled veterans. Nevertheless, a number of readers interpreted the headlines to mean that a sitting president would indeed be appearing on (or devoting significant time to) a reality television show. On 9 December 2016, Trump's former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway exacerbated the confusion by using the phrasing 'in his spare time' ostensibly to mean 'outside his role as President' when discussing the controversy: Kellyanne Conway on Friday defended President-elect Donald Trump's decision to remain an executive producer on NBC's 'Celebrity Apprentice' even as he takes office, arguing that 'presidents have a right to do things in their spare time.' 'He's a very transparent guy. Everyone can see what he's doing, and the fact is that he is conferring with all types of experts who tell him what he can do and not do as president of the United States,' Conway, a top Trump adviser and his former campaign manager, said on CNN's 'New Day.' 'If this is one of the approved activities, then perhaps he will consider staying on.' The Washington Post further noted that President Obama received book royalties while in office, reporting that Trump would retain a 'producing credit' when the show returned to the air. However, it added that prior to the election an NBC executive said the President-elect would never again appear on the series franchise: No previous president has faced the challenge of disentangling from a business as large and complicated as Trump's. President Obama received book royalties for two titles published before he took office ... In August, NBC Entertainment Chairman Robert Greenblatt told reporters that Trump would never again host the show, even if he lost the presidential election. 'I have no idea if he's got a future on television, but he would never be back on 'The Celebrity Apprentice,' ' Greenblatt said then. 'Not as long as I'm here.' But the show executive producer credits and payments are handed out by MGM, not NBC, which merely licenses the show. An NBC spokeswoman declined to comment. In short, Donald Trump would retain a producing credit on Celebrity Apprentice as of January 2017. The credit involved no direct work on the program, but would likely generate a profit, but as many pointed out, several presidents received royalties or residuals for projects which they worked on before their election. Although Trump will be credited for his role in the show, he will not star in or be involved with its production. | In short, Donald Trump would retain a producing credit on Celebrity Apprentice as of January 2017. The credit involved no direct work on the program, but would likely generate a profit, but as many pointed out, several presidents received royalties or residuals for projects which they worked on before their election. Although Trump will be credited for his role in the show, he will not star in or be involved with its production. | [
"14295-proof-02-donald_trump_nbc_fb.jpg"
]
|
Donald Trump will be a 'part-time President' and keep his job on 'Celebrity Apprentice. | Contradiction | On 8 December 2016, stories appeared that President-elect Donald Trump would remain on the reality television show 'Celebrity Apprentice' as an executive producer, even as he serves as president: .@realDonaldTrump to remain Executive Producer on #CelebrityApprentice (EXCLUSIVE) https://t.co/lWFRA3riN1 pic.twitter.com/PceHQUZODA - Variety (@Variety) December 8, 2016 The article clarified the claim, reporting that Trump would retain a 'credit' on the program: Donald Trump will remain an exec producer on NBC's 'Celebrity Apprentice,' which is returning Jan. 2 after a two-year hiatus with new host Arnold Schwarzenegger. MGM confirmed to Variety that Trump has retained his EP credit on the series. The president-elect's status on the 15th season of the reality series that made him a household name has been a question since Trump launched his presidential campaign in June 2015. In the credit sequence, Trump's name will air after that of 'Apprentice' creator Mark Burnett and before Schwarzenegger, who is also an exec producer of the new incarnation along with Page Feldman and Eric Van Wagenen. By that description, it sounded as if Trump would simply remain a credited entity in the program's introduction and conclusion sequences. The piece went on to say that residuals received by Trump would be scrutinized, adding that he planned to devote no time to upcoming productions of 'Celebrity Apprentice': Although Trump has no role in the production of the show, the fact that a sitting president will be on the payroll of a current TV show is another example of the thicket of potential conflicts of interest raised by Trump's segue from private businessman and TV star to commander-in-chief. However, past presidents have published books during their time in the White House, so there is precedent for a president earning royalties while in office. In the case of President Obama's 2010 book 'Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters,' his profits from the Alfred A. Knopf publication were donated to a charity that aids the children of disabled veterans. Nevertheless, a number of readers interpreted the headlines to mean that a sitting president would indeed be appearing on (or devoting significant time to) a reality television show. On 9 December 2016, Trump's former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway exacerbated the confusion by using the phrasing 'in his spare time' ostensibly to mean 'outside his role as President' when discussing the controversy: Kellyanne Conway on Friday defended President-elect Donald Trump's decision to remain an executive producer on NBC's 'Celebrity Apprentice' even as he takes office, arguing that 'presidents have a right to do things in their spare time.' 'He's a very transparent guy. Everyone can see what he's doing, and the fact is that he is conferring with all types of experts who tell him what he can do and not do as president of the United States,' Conway, a top Trump adviser and his former campaign manager, said on CNN's 'New Day.' 'If this is one of the approved activities, then perhaps he will consider staying on.' The Washington Post further noted that President Obama received book royalties while in office, reporting that Trump would retain a 'producing credit' when the show returned to the air. However, it added that prior to the election an NBC executive said the President-elect would never again appear on the series franchise: No previous president has faced the challenge of disentangling from a business as large and complicated as Trump's. President Obama received book royalties for two titles published before he took office ... In August, NBC Entertainment Chairman Robert Greenblatt told reporters that Trump would never again host the show, even if he lost the presidential election. 'I have no idea if he's got a future on television, but he would never be back on 'The Celebrity Apprentice,' ' Greenblatt said then. 'Not as long as I'm here.' But the show executive producer credits and payments are handed out by MGM, not NBC, which merely licenses the show. An NBC spokeswoman declined to comment. In short, Donald Trump would retain a producing credit on Celebrity Apprentice as of January 2017. The credit involved no direct work on the program, but would likely generate a profit, but as many pointed out, several presidents received royalties or residuals for projects which they worked on before their election. Although Trump will be credited for his role in the show, he will not star in or be involved with its production. | In short, Donald Trump would retain a producing credit on Celebrity Apprentice as of January 2017. The credit involved no direct work on the program, but would likely generate a profit, but as many pointed out, several presidents received royalties or residuals for projects which they worked on before their election. Although Trump will be credited for his role in the show, he will not star in or be involved with its production. | [
"14295-proof-02-donald_trump_nbc_fb.jpg"
]
|
Donald Trump will be a 'part-time President' and keep his job on 'Celebrity Apprentice. | Contradiction | On 8 December 2016, stories appeared that President-elect Donald Trump would remain on the reality television show 'Celebrity Apprentice' as an executive producer, even as he serves as president: .@realDonaldTrump to remain Executive Producer on #CelebrityApprentice (EXCLUSIVE) https://t.co/lWFRA3riN1 pic.twitter.com/PceHQUZODA - Variety (@Variety) December 8, 2016 The article clarified the claim, reporting that Trump would retain a 'credit' on the program: Donald Trump will remain an exec producer on NBC's 'Celebrity Apprentice,' which is returning Jan. 2 after a two-year hiatus with new host Arnold Schwarzenegger. MGM confirmed to Variety that Trump has retained his EP credit on the series. The president-elect's status on the 15th season of the reality series that made him a household name has been a question since Trump launched his presidential campaign in June 2015. In the credit sequence, Trump's name will air after that of 'Apprentice' creator Mark Burnett and before Schwarzenegger, who is also an exec producer of the new incarnation along with Page Feldman and Eric Van Wagenen. By that description, it sounded as if Trump would simply remain a credited entity in the program's introduction and conclusion sequences. The piece went on to say that residuals received by Trump would be scrutinized, adding that he planned to devote no time to upcoming productions of 'Celebrity Apprentice': Although Trump has no role in the production of the show, the fact that a sitting president will be on the payroll of a current TV show is another example of the thicket of potential conflicts of interest raised by Trump's segue from private businessman and TV star to commander-in-chief. However, past presidents have published books during their time in the White House, so there is precedent for a president earning royalties while in office. In the case of President Obama's 2010 book 'Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters,' his profits from the Alfred A. Knopf publication were donated to a charity that aids the children of disabled veterans. Nevertheless, a number of readers interpreted the headlines to mean that a sitting president would indeed be appearing on (or devoting significant time to) a reality television show. On 9 December 2016, Trump's former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway exacerbated the confusion by using the phrasing 'in his spare time' ostensibly to mean 'outside his role as President' when discussing the controversy: Kellyanne Conway on Friday defended President-elect Donald Trump's decision to remain an executive producer on NBC's 'Celebrity Apprentice' even as he takes office, arguing that 'presidents have a right to do things in their spare time.' 'He's a very transparent guy. Everyone can see what he's doing, and the fact is that he is conferring with all types of experts who tell him what he can do and not do as president of the United States,' Conway, a top Trump adviser and his former campaign manager, said on CNN's 'New Day.' 'If this is one of the approved activities, then perhaps he will consider staying on.' The Washington Post further noted that President Obama received book royalties while in office, reporting that Trump would retain a 'producing credit' when the show returned to the air. However, it added that prior to the election an NBC executive said the President-elect would never again appear on the series franchise: No previous president has faced the challenge of disentangling from a business as large and complicated as Trump's. President Obama received book royalties for two titles published before he took office ... In August, NBC Entertainment Chairman Robert Greenblatt told reporters that Trump would never again host the show, even if he lost the presidential election. 'I have no idea if he's got a future on television, but he would never be back on 'The Celebrity Apprentice,' ' Greenblatt said then. 'Not as long as I'm here.' But the show executive producer credits and payments are handed out by MGM, not NBC, which merely licenses the show. An NBC spokeswoman declined to comment. In short, Donald Trump would retain a producing credit on Celebrity Apprentice as of January 2017. The credit involved no direct work on the program, but would likely generate a profit, but as many pointed out, several presidents received royalties or residuals for projects which they worked on before their election. Although Trump will be credited for his role in the show, he will not star in or be involved with its production. | In short, Donald Trump would retain a producing credit on Celebrity Apprentice as of January 2017. The credit involved no direct work on the program, but would likely generate a profit, but as many pointed out, several presidents received royalties or residuals for projects which they worked on before their election. Although Trump will be credited for his role in the show, he will not star in or be involved with its production. | [
"14295-proof-02-donald_trump_nbc_fb.jpg"
]
|
Donald Trump will be a 'part-time President' and keep his job on 'Celebrity Apprentice. | Contradiction | On 8 December 2016, stories appeared that President-elect Donald Trump would remain on the reality television show 'Celebrity Apprentice' as an executive producer, even as he serves as president: .@realDonaldTrump to remain Executive Producer on #CelebrityApprentice (EXCLUSIVE) https://t.co/lWFRA3riN1 pic.twitter.com/PceHQUZODA - Variety (@Variety) December 8, 2016 The article clarified the claim, reporting that Trump would retain a 'credit' on the program: Donald Trump will remain an exec producer on NBC's 'Celebrity Apprentice,' which is returning Jan. 2 after a two-year hiatus with new host Arnold Schwarzenegger. MGM confirmed to Variety that Trump has retained his EP credit on the series. The president-elect's status on the 15th season of the reality series that made him a household name has been a question since Trump launched his presidential campaign in June 2015. In the credit sequence, Trump's name will air after that of 'Apprentice' creator Mark Burnett and before Schwarzenegger, who is also an exec producer of the new incarnation along with Page Feldman and Eric Van Wagenen. By that description, it sounded as if Trump would simply remain a credited entity in the program's introduction and conclusion sequences. The piece went on to say that residuals received by Trump would be scrutinized, adding that he planned to devote no time to upcoming productions of 'Celebrity Apprentice': Although Trump has no role in the production of the show, the fact that a sitting president will be on the payroll of a current TV show is another example of the thicket of potential conflicts of interest raised by Trump's segue from private businessman and TV star to commander-in-chief. However, past presidents have published books during their time in the White House, so there is precedent for a president earning royalties while in office. In the case of President Obama's 2010 book 'Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters,' his profits from the Alfred A. Knopf publication were donated to a charity that aids the children of disabled veterans. Nevertheless, a number of readers interpreted the headlines to mean that a sitting president would indeed be appearing on (or devoting significant time to) a reality television show. On 9 December 2016, Trump's former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway exacerbated the confusion by using the phrasing 'in his spare time' ostensibly to mean 'outside his role as President' when discussing the controversy: Kellyanne Conway on Friday defended President-elect Donald Trump's decision to remain an executive producer on NBC's 'Celebrity Apprentice' even as he takes office, arguing that 'presidents have a right to do things in their spare time.' 'He's a very transparent guy. Everyone can see what he's doing, and the fact is that he is conferring with all types of experts who tell him what he can do and not do as president of the United States,' Conway, a top Trump adviser and his former campaign manager, said on CNN's 'New Day.' 'If this is one of the approved activities, then perhaps he will consider staying on.' The Washington Post further noted that President Obama received book royalties while in office, reporting that Trump would retain a 'producing credit' when the show returned to the air. However, it added that prior to the election an NBC executive said the President-elect would never again appear on the series franchise: No previous president has faced the challenge of disentangling from a business as large and complicated as Trump's. President Obama received book royalties for two titles published before he took office ... In August, NBC Entertainment Chairman Robert Greenblatt told reporters that Trump would never again host the show, even if he lost the presidential election. 'I have no idea if he's got a future on television, but he would never be back on 'The Celebrity Apprentice,' ' Greenblatt said then. 'Not as long as I'm here.' But the show executive producer credits and payments are handed out by MGM, not NBC, which merely licenses the show. An NBC spokeswoman declined to comment. In short, Donald Trump would retain a producing credit on Celebrity Apprentice as of January 2017. The credit involved no direct work on the program, but would likely generate a profit, but as many pointed out, several presidents received royalties or residuals for projects which they worked on before their election. Although Trump will be credited for his role in the show, he will not star in or be involved with its production. | In short, Donald Trump would retain a producing credit on Celebrity Apprentice as of January 2017. The credit involved no direct work on the program, but would likely generate a profit, but as many pointed out, several presidents received royalties or residuals for projects which they worked on before their election. Although Trump will be credited for his role in the show, he will not star in or be involved with its production. | [
"14295-proof-02-donald_trump_nbc_fb.jpg"
]
|
Donald Trump will be a 'part-time President' and keep his job on 'Celebrity Apprentice. | Contradiction | On 8 December 2016, stories appeared that President-elect Donald Trump would remain on the reality television show 'Celebrity Apprentice' as an executive producer, even as he serves as president: .@realDonaldTrump to remain Executive Producer on #CelebrityApprentice (EXCLUSIVE) https://t.co/lWFRA3riN1 pic.twitter.com/PceHQUZODA - Variety (@Variety) December 8, 2016 The article clarified the claim, reporting that Trump would retain a 'credit' on the program: Donald Trump will remain an exec producer on NBC's 'Celebrity Apprentice,' which is returning Jan. 2 after a two-year hiatus with new host Arnold Schwarzenegger. MGM confirmed to Variety that Trump has retained his EP credit on the series. The president-elect's status on the 15th season of the reality series that made him a household name has been a question since Trump launched his presidential campaign in June 2015. In the credit sequence, Trump's name will air after that of 'Apprentice' creator Mark Burnett and before Schwarzenegger, who is also an exec producer of the new incarnation along with Page Feldman and Eric Van Wagenen. By that description, it sounded as if Trump would simply remain a credited entity in the program's introduction and conclusion sequences. The piece went on to say that residuals received by Trump would be scrutinized, adding that he planned to devote no time to upcoming productions of 'Celebrity Apprentice': Although Trump has no role in the production of the show, the fact that a sitting president will be on the payroll of a current TV show is another example of the thicket of potential conflicts of interest raised by Trump's segue from private businessman and TV star to commander-in-chief. However, past presidents have published books during their time in the White House, so there is precedent for a president earning royalties while in office. In the case of President Obama's 2010 book 'Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters,' his profits from the Alfred A. Knopf publication were donated to a charity that aids the children of disabled veterans. Nevertheless, a number of readers interpreted the headlines to mean that a sitting president would indeed be appearing on (or devoting significant time to) a reality television show. On 9 December 2016, Trump's former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway exacerbated the confusion by using the phrasing 'in his spare time' ostensibly to mean 'outside his role as President' when discussing the controversy: Kellyanne Conway on Friday defended President-elect Donald Trump's decision to remain an executive producer on NBC's 'Celebrity Apprentice' even as he takes office, arguing that 'presidents have a right to do things in their spare time.' 'He's a very transparent guy. Everyone can see what he's doing, and the fact is that he is conferring with all types of experts who tell him what he can do and not do as president of the United States,' Conway, a top Trump adviser and his former campaign manager, said on CNN's 'New Day.' 'If this is one of the approved activities, then perhaps he will consider staying on.' The Washington Post further noted that President Obama received book royalties while in office, reporting that Trump would retain a 'producing credit' when the show returned to the air. However, it added that prior to the election an NBC executive said the President-elect would never again appear on the series franchise: No previous president has faced the challenge of disentangling from a business as large and complicated as Trump's. President Obama received book royalties for two titles published before he took office ... In August, NBC Entertainment Chairman Robert Greenblatt told reporters that Trump would never again host the show, even if he lost the presidential election. 'I have no idea if he's got a future on television, but he would never be back on 'The Celebrity Apprentice,' ' Greenblatt said then. 'Not as long as I'm here.' But the show executive producer credits and payments are handed out by MGM, not NBC, which merely licenses the show. An NBC spokeswoman declined to comment. In short, Donald Trump would retain a producing credit on Celebrity Apprentice as of January 2017. The credit involved no direct work on the program, but would likely generate a profit, but as many pointed out, several presidents received royalties or residuals for projects which they worked on before their election. Although Trump will be credited for his role in the show, he will not star in or be involved with its production. | In short, Donald Trump would retain a producing credit on Celebrity Apprentice as of January 2017. The credit involved no direct work on the program, but would likely generate a profit, but as many pointed out, several presidents received royalties or residuals for projects which they worked on before their election. Although Trump will be credited for his role in the show, he will not star in or be involved with its production. | [
"14295-proof-02-donald_trump_nbc_fb.jpg"
]
|
A photograph documents Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger speaking to women of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). | Contradiction | A controversy in mid-2015 regarding Planned Parenthood and the purported sale of fetal tissue ignited many social media debates about reproductive health, and among the many threads of discussion were numerous claims about Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. A common assertion about Sanger's legacy holds that her efforts to afford women (and families) expanded reproductive agency were racist in nature (as demonstrated by a rumor holding that Sanger once described people of color as 'weeds' that ought to be 'exterminated'). The 2015 Planned Parenthood controversy debate was peppered with postings of a photograph alongside myriad claims that it documented Sanger's addressing Ku Klux Klan members (presumably to garner support for her endeavors among violent extremists with whom she shared a vision of white supremacy): Unlike other tidbits of lore that have since evolved to paint Sanger as unapologetically racist, the veracity of the photograph depicting her addressing female KKK members was easily determined. An original version of the photograph in question was uploaded to the white supremacist web site Stormfront in February 2008, and it shows that the original image featured a lit cross that was edited out and replaced with an picture of Sanger: Viewers confused about the image's veracity could be partially excused, as the blog with which it appeared to have originated (ostensibly fabricated to illustrate a point) was offline by the time the photograph began circulating widely in 2015 (although an archived copy of that blog post can be seen here). The quote that inspired the photograph was itself a falsehood. With its original context largely erased from the Internet, the doctored photograph gained traction among Planned Parenthood's detractors. By September 2015, the image had been merged with a backstory that had no connection to the original photograph: Although the image was a fabrication, it did include a grain of (distorted) truth in its assertion that Sanger once addressed female KKK members in Silver Lake, New Jersey: There is little question that Sanger supported the eugenics movement, but one statement really stuck out. Sanger was 'an active participant in the Ku Klux Klan.' It turns out, Sanger did speak to a group connected to the KKK and wrote about it openly. In Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, published in 1938, Sanger details her work advocating birth control across the United States and emphasizes her willingness to talk to virtually anyone. 'Always to me any aroused group was a good group,' Sanger writes, 'and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.' While Sanger did speak to such an audience in 1926, 'she didn't hold the group in the highest esteem,' and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke favorably of her at the height of the U.S. civil rights movement: 'Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand,' Sanger writes. We should also note that in 1966, while she was still alive, Planned Parenthood bestowed the Margaret Sanger award on Martin Luther King Jr. He accepted, and while he was unable to attend the event, his wife Coretta showed up in his place to read his speech. In it, King wrote: 'There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist - a nonviolent resister.' Given the fact that Sanger's autobiography had been published nearly 30 years before King's speech, her earlier address was no secret. It should be clear the civil rights leader did not think of Sanger as a racist. In short, Sanger once addressed female KKK members in a bid to have her message heard as widely as possible, but she both openly described that meeting and disparaged the group's mission in her writings, and a photograph supposedly depicting that talk (or a similar one) is fabricated. | In short, Sanger once addressed female KKK members in a bid to have her message heard as widely as possible, but she both openly described that meeting and disparaged the group's mission in her writings, and a photograph supposedly depicting that talk (or a similar one) is fabricated. | []
|
A photograph documents Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger speaking to women of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). | Contradiction | A controversy in mid-2015 regarding Planned Parenthood and the purported sale of fetal tissue ignited many social media debates about reproductive health, and among the many threads of discussion were numerous claims about Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. A common assertion about Sanger's legacy holds that her efforts to afford women (and families) expanded reproductive agency were racist in nature (as demonstrated by a rumor holding that Sanger once described people of color as 'weeds' that ought to be 'exterminated'). The 2015 Planned Parenthood controversy debate was peppered with postings of a photograph alongside myriad claims that it documented Sanger's addressing Ku Klux Klan members (presumably to garner support for her endeavors among violent extremists with whom she shared a vision of white supremacy): Unlike other tidbits of lore that have since evolved to paint Sanger as unapologetically racist, the veracity of the photograph depicting her addressing female KKK members was easily determined. An original version of the photograph in question was uploaded to the white supremacist web site Stormfront in February 2008, and it shows that the original image featured a lit cross that was edited out and replaced with an picture of Sanger: Viewers confused about the image's veracity could be partially excused, as the blog with which it appeared to have originated (ostensibly fabricated to illustrate a point) was offline by the time the photograph began circulating widely in 2015 (although an archived copy of that blog post can be seen here). The quote that inspired the photograph was itself a falsehood. With its original context largely erased from the Internet, the doctored photograph gained traction among Planned Parenthood's detractors. By September 2015, the image had been merged with a backstory that had no connection to the original photograph: Although the image was a fabrication, it did include a grain of (distorted) truth in its assertion that Sanger once addressed female KKK members in Silver Lake, New Jersey: There is little question that Sanger supported the eugenics movement, but one statement really stuck out. Sanger was 'an active participant in the Ku Klux Klan.' It turns out, Sanger did speak to a group connected to the KKK and wrote about it openly. In Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, published in 1938, Sanger details her work advocating birth control across the United States and emphasizes her willingness to talk to virtually anyone. 'Always to me any aroused group was a good group,' Sanger writes, 'and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing.' While Sanger did speak to such an audience in 1926, 'she didn't hold the group in the highest esteem,' and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke favorably of her at the height of the U.S. civil rights movement: 'Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand,' Sanger writes. We should also note that in 1966, while she was still alive, Planned Parenthood bestowed the Margaret Sanger award on Martin Luther King Jr. He accepted, and while he was unable to attend the event, his wife Coretta showed up in his place to read his speech. In it, King wrote: 'There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist - a nonviolent resister.' Given the fact that Sanger's autobiography had been published nearly 30 years before King's speech, her earlier address was no secret. It should be clear the civil rights leader did not think of Sanger as a racist. In short, Sanger once addressed female KKK members in a bid to have her message heard as widely as possible, but she both openly described that meeting and disparaged the group's mission in her writings, and a photograph supposedly depicting that talk (or a similar one) is fabricated. | In short, Sanger once addressed female KKK members in a bid to have her message heard as widely as possible, but she both openly described that meeting and disparaged the group's mission in her writings, and a photograph supposedly depicting that talk (or a similar one) is fabricated. | []
|
A U.N. small arms treaty signed by the U.S. provides a 'legal way around the 2nd Amendment. | Contradiction | The concept of trying to crack down on the illicit trading of conventional arms through the development of an international agreement setting standards for legal arms trading has been in process in the United Nations (UN) since 2006, when the General Assembly passed a resolution titled 'Toward an arms trade treaty' which called upon the UN secretary-general to survey member states on 'the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.' The administration of President George W. Bush was opposed to such efforts, stating that they preferred national controls to international agreements, and in several votes on resolutions and procedures related to a UN arms trade treaty from 2006 through 2008 the United States either cast the lone dissenting vote or was one of a very small number of member nations voting in the negative. The administation of President Barack Obama has been more receptive to UN efforts to craft an international agreement on the small arms trade, however, as reported in the October 2009 Reuters news article cited in the example text reproduced above. That month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement proclaiming that 'The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons,' and the U.S. voted in favor of moving forward with plans for a 2012 UN conference on drafting an arms trade treaty. In March 2013 a finished version of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was finally presented to the U.N. General Assembly, and that body approved the treaty by a vote 154 to 3 (with 23 abstentions) on 2 April 2013. The U.S. was one of the member nations voting in the General Assembly to approve the treaty; only Iran, North Korea, and Syria voted against it. The treaty was finally signed by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in September 2013, but the treaty still requires ratification by fifty U.N. signatories before it goes into effect (so far only seven nations have committed to that step), and it still requires approval by the U.S. Senate before the United States commits to its terms. The above-referenced piece of scarelore about the United States' having already entered into a such a treaty - one which supposedly provides a 'legal way around the 2nd Amendment' and will result in a 'complete ban on all weapons for US citizens' - is erroneous in all its particulars: The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by 'tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons' in order to 'close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market': The Arms Trade Treaty obligates member states to monitor arms exports and ensure that weapons don't cross existing arms embargoes or end up being used for human-rights abuses, including terrorism. Member states, with the assistance of the U.N., will put into place enforceable, standardized arms import and export regulations (much like those that already exist in the U.S.) and be expected to track the destination of exports to ensure they don't end up in the wrong hands. Ideally, that means limiting the inflow of deadly weapons into places like Syria. The text of the proposed treaty specifically 'reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems,' so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States. The Obama administration has stated that mandatory conditions for U.S. approval of such an arms trade treaty include the following: The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld. There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution. There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law. As the Wall Street Journal reported, the U.S. 'voted in favor [of the treaty only] after the Obama Administration secured its key 'red line' that the treaty would have no impact on the Second Amendment. The final draft specifies 'non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction' of signatories.' No such treaty could 'bypass the normal legislative process in Congress,' as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding. The President of the United States cannot enact a 'complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.' The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate. As Rachel Stohl, a senior associate with the Managing Across Boundaries initiative at the Stimson Center and co-author of the book The International Arms Trade, noted: Those opposed to the accord have misrepresented what it does, suggesting that it would somehow infringe on American gun owners' rights. It would do nothing of the kind. The treaty applies only to international transfers of conventional arms and, in fact, reaffirms 'the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms' within its territory. The treaty's preamble also makes specific reference to the legitimate trade, lawful ownership and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities. Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized these points in his statement welcoming the treaty's adoption, noting that 'nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment,' a point on which the United States insisted throughout the negotiations. This treaty has no reach into domestic gun policy, nor would it create a United Nations gun registry. There is absolutely nothing in it that violates the Second Amendment. In short, there is no 'legal way around the 2nd Amendment' other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied. Updated An item circulated in April 2013 claimed to identify '46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.' in reference to a Senate vote on the U.S. Arms Trade Treaty: WHAT A MESS Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the bill read: To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N. Notice that ALL are either Democrat or 'Independent.' However, the measure voted upon was not the treaty itself, but a non-binding test amendment expressing opposition to the ATT which was tacked onto an unrelated congressional budget resolution. The record of the U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote confirms that all the senators who voted against the amendment were Democrats or independents. | In short, there is no 'legal way around the 2nd Amendment' other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied. Updated An item circulated in April 2013 claimed to identify '46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.' in reference to a Senate vote on the U.S. Arms Trade Treaty: WHAT A MESS Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the bill read: To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N. Notice that ALL are either Democrat or 'Independent.' However, the measure voted upon was not the treaty itself, but a non-binding test amendment expressing opposition to the ATT which was tacked onto an unrelated congressional budget resolution. The record of the U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote confirms that all the senators who voted against the amendment were Democrats or independents. | []
|
A U.N. small arms treaty signed by the U.S. provides a 'legal way around the 2nd Amendment. | Contradiction | The concept of trying to crack down on the illicit trading of conventional arms through the development of an international agreement setting standards for legal arms trading has been in process in the United Nations (UN) since 2006, when the General Assembly passed a resolution titled 'Toward an arms trade treaty' which called upon the UN secretary-general to survey member states on 'the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.' The administration of President George W. Bush was opposed to such efforts, stating that they preferred national controls to international agreements, and in several votes on resolutions and procedures related to a UN arms trade treaty from 2006 through 2008 the United States either cast the lone dissenting vote or was one of a very small number of member nations voting in the negative. The administation of President Barack Obama has been more receptive to UN efforts to craft an international agreement on the small arms trade, however, as reported in the October 2009 Reuters news article cited in the example text reproduced above. That month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement proclaiming that 'The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons,' and the U.S. voted in favor of moving forward with plans for a 2012 UN conference on drafting an arms trade treaty. In March 2013 a finished version of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was finally presented to the U.N. General Assembly, and that body approved the treaty by a vote 154 to 3 (with 23 abstentions) on 2 April 2013. The U.S. was one of the member nations voting in the General Assembly to approve the treaty; only Iran, North Korea, and Syria voted against it. The treaty was finally signed by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in September 2013, but the treaty still requires ratification by fifty U.N. signatories before it goes into effect (so far only seven nations have committed to that step), and it still requires approval by the U.S. Senate before the United States commits to its terms. The above-referenced piece of scarelore about the United States' having already entered into a such a treaty - one which supposedly provides a 'legal way around the 2nd Amendment' and will result in a 'complete ban on all weapons for US citizens' - is erroneous in all its particulars: The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by 'tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons' in order to 'close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market': The Arms Trade Treaty obligates member states to monitor arms exports and ensure that weapons don't cross existing arms embargoes or end up being used for human-rights abuses, including terrorism. Member states, with the assistance of the U.N., will put into place enforceable, standardized arms import and export regulations (much like those that already exist in the U.S.) and be expected to track the destination of exports to ensure they don't end up in the wrong hands. Ideally, that means limiting the inflow of deadly weapons into places like Syria. The text of the proposed treaty specifically 'reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems,' so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States. The Obama administration has stated that mandatory conditions for U.S. approval of such an arms trade treaty include the following: The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld. There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution. There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law. As the Wall Street Journal reported, the U.S. 'voted in favor [of the treaty only] after the Obama Administration secured its key 'red line' that the treaty would have no impact on the Second Amendment. The final draft specifies 'non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction' of signatories.' No such treaty could 'bypass the normal legislative process in Congress,' as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding. The President of the United States cannot enact a 'complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.' The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate. As Rachel Stohl, a senior associate with the Managing Across Boundaries initiative at the Stimson Center and co-author of the book The International Arms Trade, noted: Those opposed to the accord have misrepresented what it does, suggesting that it would somehow infringe on American gun owners' rights. It would do nothing of the kind. The treaty applies only to international transfers of conventional arms and, in fact, reaffirms 'the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms' within its territory. The treaty's preamble also makes specific reference to the legitimate trade, lawful ownership and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities. Secretary of State John Kerry emphasized these points in his statement welcoming the treaty's adoption, noting that 'nothing in this treaty could ever infringe on the rights of American citizens under our domestic law or the Constitution, including the Second Amendment,' a point on which the United States insisted throughout the negotiations. This treaty has no reach into domestic gun policy, nor would it create a United Nations gun registry. There is absolutely nothing in it that violates the Second Amendment. In short, there is no 'legal way around the 2nd Amendment' other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied. Updated An item circulated in April 2013 claimed to identify '46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.' in reference to a Senate vote on the U.S. Arms Trade Treaty: WHAT A MESS Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the bill read: To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N. Notice that ALL are either Democrat or 'Independent.' However, the measure voted upon was not the treaty itself, but a non-binding test amendment expressing opposition to the ATT which was tacked onto an unrelated congressional budget resolution. The record of the U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote confirms that all the senators who voted against the amendment were Democrats or independents. | In short, there is no 'legal way around the 2nd Amendment' other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied. Updated An item circulated in April 2013 claimed to identify '46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.' in reference to a Senate vote on the U.S. Arms Trade Treaty: WHAT A MESS Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the bill read: To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S., and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N. Notice that ALL are either Democrat or 'Independent.' However, the measure voted upon was not the treaty itself, but a non-binding test amendment expressing opposition to the ATT which was tacked onto an unrelated congressional budget resolution. The record of the U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote confirms that all the senators who voted against the amendment were Democrats or independents. | []
|
In 2019 and 2020, Democratic and Independent U.S. Senators voted to allow health care practitioners to let babies die, untreated, if born alive after an abortion. | Contradiction | In the summer of 2020, Snopes readers asked us to look into the accuracy of social media posts that claimed to list the names of 41 U.S. Senators who had 'voted to let babies scream until they die if born alive.' The meme referred to Senate Bill 311 (SB 311), which was introduced in the Senate in January 2019 by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service summary of the legislation reads as follows: This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must exercise in the event a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion. A health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital. The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement. A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties - a fine, up to five years in prison, or both. Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder. The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony. A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill. The text of SB 311 can be read in full here. It's true that Democratic and Independent senators did vote to block that bill's progress, but the above-displayed Facebook meme leaves out crucial context - federal and state laws already provide protections for babies born alive after abortions - and obscure the stated reasons for those votes, an essential component of any evaluation of a legislative vote. Overall, we rate the meme's core claim as 'Mostly False.' Votes The proposed 'Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act' has been stuck in the Senate since February 2019, despite efforts by Republicans to revive it in February 2020. The bill has not been forwarded to any Senate committee, and Republicans have failed on two occasions to obtain the votes necessary to advance the legislation through the Senate. Those two votes, in February 2019 and February 2020, were on motions of cloture. A motion of cloture is, roughly speaking, a proposal signed by at least 16 senators to close debate on a particular bill. At first glance, that might suggest that those in favor of the cloture motion are opposed to the content of the legislation itself, but in fact, 'invoking cloture' is a way to advance a bill's progress in the Senate by pushing through the debate stage and arriving at a full-Senate vote on the legislation itself. Cloture is a key mechanism for breaking a filibuster in the Senate. On most matters, a cloture motion must be agreed to by 60% of senators, which usually means 60 votes (except in cases where a Senate seat is temporarily vacant). In the 2019 vote, only 53 members voted 'Yea,' and in 2020 that number was 56 - below the 60-vote threshold on each occasion. It's worth noting that the Senate has not yet voted on whether to pass SB 311 itself, so a vote in favor of a motion for cloture should not be conflated with a vote in favor of the substance of the legislation. However, it is reasonable to assume, in general, that senators who voted to push SB 311 through to the next stage towards enactment were also in favor of enacting the bill itself, and those who voted against the cloture motions were doing so in order to halt the legislation's progress because they opposed its contents. This assumption is borne out in the partisan contours of the 2019 and 2020 cloture votes: On both occasions, no Republican voted against the motion, and only Democrats voted against it (including Independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who both caucus with the Democrats). On both occasions, three Democrats crossed the floor and voted in favor of the cloture motions: Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Doug Jones of Alabama. The exact claim in the Facebook meme is somewhat confusing. The caption refers to 41 senators, but the list contains 44 names. In February 2019, all 44 of the senators listed in the meme voted against the Republican cloture motion. However, in February 2020, 41 of them voted against the cloture motion, with the remaining three not voting (Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Sanders). So it's not clear to which vote the meme refers. However, on each occasion the wording of the cloture motion and the question put to senators was identical, so the distinction is only a formal one. The Content of SB 311 In evaluating whether the Democratic senators listed in the meme did, in fact, 'vote to let babies scream until they die if born alive,' it is necessary to assess the reasons for their votes against cloture motions and the effect of the failure of the cloture motions. It hardly needs to be said, but neither the bill itself, nor any statements made by the Democratic senators who opposed it, contained any mention of 'babies screaming until they die.' So in voting against the progress of SB 311, no senator was explicitly voting in order to bring about that outcome, in those terms. Rather, that phrase was a characterization of the effect of the votes, which originated from the creator of the Facebook meme. Effects By voting against the cloture motions, the senators halted the progress of a bill that, if enacted, would mean that federal law required health care practitioners to provide the same life-saving treatments and interventions for a baby born alive after a failed abortion (including admitting the baby to a hospital) as they are currently required to provide to babies born alive under other circumstances. The bill would also mean that health care practitioners would be required, under federal law, to report to law enforcement if they became aware that someone else had violated those requirements. Any health practitioner convicted of failing to fulfill those requirements, or failing to report someone else's violation, would be liable to be fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years. SB 311 would also mean that a person found to have intentionally killed a baby born alive after a failed abortion would be liable to conviction and punishment under the federal prohibition against murder. Does this mean that by preventing the passage of SB 311 Democratic senators were allowing health care practitioners to lawfully let babies die, without rendering aid, if they are born alive after a failed abortion? Not really. Federal law already explicitly states that babies born alive, regardless of the circumstances, are human persons and should be treated as such in the context of criminal law. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush in 2002. It states that: (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words 'person', 'human being', 'child', and 'individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. As used in this section, the term 'born alive', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. This means that intentionally killing a baby born alive can be, and is, prosecuted as murder, since the baby is defined under the 2002 act as a human person. In principle, it also means that doctors and nurses have the same professional, legal, and ethical responsibility to babies born alive after failed abortions as they do to babies born alive in other circumstances. The 2002 law does not include an explicit, affirmative duty of care for health care practitioners and does not stipulate any penalties for failing to provide appropriate care. However, many individual states do. Based on research originally published by the anti-abortion Family Research Council, Snopes checked legislation in all 50 states and found that, as of Aug. 20, 2020, 34 states have laws that explicitly either: affirm the equal right to medical care of a baby born alive after an abortion; or assert an affirmative legal obligation for medical practitioners to provide care; or set out criminal penalties for failing to provide care; or all of the above provisions. A full list of each state's 'born alive' abortion laws, including links to the original legislation, can be found here. (Note: At the time of the first cloture vote in February 2019, the number of states with 'born alive' abortion laws was 33. West Virginia's Senate passed the state's own Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Feb. 10, 2020, and Gov. Jim Justice signed it into law on March 2, 2020. By the time the U.S. Senate had its second cloture motion on Feb. 25, 2020, Justice had already vowed to sign the West Virginia law, meaning the number of states with 'born alive' abortion laws was imminently about to become 34.) The effect of the decision to block the progress of SB 311 through the U.S. Senate was to preserve the legal status quo around the country, namely that: two-thirds of states already had laws offering various levels of protection for babies born alive after failed abortions, and various levels of criminal penalties set out for health care practitioners who fail to provide care for them; and that federal law already recognized that babies born alive after failed abortions should be treated as human persons in the context of criminal law. This significantly undermines the Facebook meme's claim that the 44 senators had voted to allow babies to be left to die if they are born alive after a failed abortion, because that it isn't the case in most states. However, passing SB 311 would mean that there would be no ambiguity about the criminal implications and consequences of the 2002 law. Under SB 311, federal law would unequivocally set out a legal duty of care and a reporting obligation for health care professionals, as well as specific criminal penalties. While the 2002 law empowered states to enact their own 'born alive' abortion laws, and 34 states have opted to do just that, 16 states have not, and SB 311 would introduce a 'born alive' abortion law that would apply uniformly throughout the entire country. By voting to block the progress of SB 311, the Democratic and Independent senators did undoubtedly prevent that outcome from becoming much more likely. In evaluating whether voting against the cloture motions on SB 311 meant the 44 senators were voting to allow babies born alive after abortion to simply die without medical aid, it is also necessary to examine the reasons why the senators voted the way they did. Reasons In general, the Democratic senators who gave statements about their votes on SB 311 said that they had opposed the passage of the bill because they felt it was unnecessary in light of existing law and because they felt it inappropriately criminalized health care practitioners and interfered in the doctor-patient relationship. None said they had voted against the cloture motions in order to allow babies to be left to die or expressed indifference about that outcome. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, for example, wrote, 'We should not unnecessarily create new federal crimes and penalties to punish behavior that is already illegal under existing state and federal laws.' Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland wrote, 'It has always been illegal to kill or harm a newborn infant, and this bill had nothing to do with that. Instead, this bill would have subjected medical professionals to unprecedented criminal liability and inappropriately comes between a woman and her doctor.' Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii said SB 311 was 'a solution in search of a problem,' adding, 'Contrary to what the proponents of this bill argue, it is and has always been a crime to harm or kill newborn babies. And people guilty of this crime can already be charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.' Speaking from the floor of the Senate, Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois emphasized the fact that abortions that take place late enough for a fetus to show vital signs overwhelmingly occur in the context of a late diagnosis of a fetal abnormality that will, in short order, prove fatal. She stated that her reason for opposing SB 311 was that it would exacerbate the suffering of parents in such scenarios and force health care practitioners to attempt medical interventions that they know to be futile. ... Imagine the heartbreak of going to the doctor one day and learning that there's no chance your baby will survive... that there's no hope your baby girl will ever speak her first word or take her first step ... Or that delivering her would put your own life at risk, leaving your firstborn to grow up without a mother. These are the types of scenarios that lead to the heart-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy later on. As the mom of two little girls, I can't begin to fathom that kind of pain. And yet today, some on the other side of the aisle are trying to use those parents' suffering for political advantage ... making worst-case scenarios like these all the more difficult by pushing a bill aimed to criminalize reproductive care no matter the cost. If it becomes law, this bill would force doctors to perform ineffective, invasive procedures on fetuses born with fatal abnormalities ... even if it's against the best interests of the child. Even if it goes against recommended standards of care and they know it wouldn't extend or improve the baby's life. Even if it would prolong the suffering of the families ... forcing women to endure added lasting trauma ... making one of the worst moments in their lives somehow even more painful. If physicians refuse, they'd be punished ... sentenced to up to five years in prison. In February 2019, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Nurse-Midwives co-signed a letter to U.S. Senators, urging them to vote against SB 311 for similar reasons to those given by Duckworth and others, writing: 'It [S. 311] injects politicians into the patient-provider relationship, disregarding providers' training and clinical judgment and undermining their ability to determine the best course of action with their patients.' Late-term abortions are exceedingly rare. In 2016, the most recent year for which data was available, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that just 1.2% of abortions took place after 21 weeks' gestational age. Deaths involving babies born alive after an abortion are even rarer. According to CDC data, just 143 newborn deaths were recorded as resulting from spontaneous or induced terminations of pregnancy between 2003 and 2014, a period during which more than 49 million live births took place. The CDC advised that the figure of 143 might be an understatement, but also stated that two-thirds of those newborn deaths involved a 'maternal complication or one or more congenital anomalies,' which corroborates the claims of Duckworth and others. | in short order, prove fatal. She stated that her reason for opposing SB 311 was that it would exacerbate the suffering of parents in such scenarios and force health care practitioners to attempt medical interventions that they know to be futile. ... Imagine the heartbreak of going to the doctor one day and learning that there's no chance your baby will survive... that there's no hope your baby girl will ever speak her first word or take her first step ... Or that delivering her would put your own life at risk, leaving your firstborn to grow up without a mother. These are the types of scenarios that lead to the heart-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy later on. As the mom of two little girls, I can't begin to fathom that kind of pain. And yet today, some on the other side of the aisle are trying to use those parents' suffering for political advantage ... making worst-case scenarios like these all the more difficult by pushing a bill aimed to criminalize reproductive care no matter the cost. If it becomes law, this bill would force doctors to perform ineffective, invasive procedures on fetuses born with fatal abnormalities ... even if it's against the best interests of the child. Even if it goes against recommended standards of care and they know it wouldn't extend or improve the baby's life. Even if it would prolong the suffering of the families ... forcing women to endure added lasting trauma ... making one of the worst moments in their lives somehow even more painful. If physicians refuse, they'd be punished ... sentenced to up to five years in prison. In February 2019, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Nurse-Midwives co-signed a letter to U.S. Senators, urging them to vote against SB 311 for similar reasons to those given by Duckworth and others, writing: 'It [S. 311] injects politicians into the patient-provider relationship, disregarding providers' training and clinical judgment and undermining their ability to determine the best course of action with their patients.' Late-term abortions are exceedingly rare. In 2016, the most recent year for which data was available, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that just 1.2% of abortions took place after 21 weeks' gestational age. Deaths involving babies born alive after an abortion are even rarer. According to CDC data, just 143 newborn deaths were recorded as resulting from spontaneous or induced terminations of pregnancy between 2003 and 2014, a period during which more than 49 million live births took place. The CDC advised that the figure of 143 might be an understatement, but also stated that two-thirds of those newborn deaths involved a 'maternal complication or one or more congenital anomalies,' which corroborates the claims of Duckworth and others. | []
|
In 2019 and 2020, Democratic and Independent U.S. Senators voted to allow health care practitioners to let babies die, untreated, if born alive after an abortion. | Contradiction | In the summer of 2020, Snopes readers asked us to look into the accuracy of social media posts that claimed to list the names of 41 U.S. Senators who had 'voted to let babies scream until they die if born alive.' The meme referred to Senate Bill 311 (SB 311), which was introduced in the Senate in January 2019 by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service summary of the legislation reads as follows: This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must exercise in the event a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion. A health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital. The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement. A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties - a fine, up to five years in prison, or both. Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder. The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony. A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill. The text of SB 311 can be read in full here. It's true that Democratic and Independent senators did vote to block that bill's progress, but the above-displayed Facebook meme leaves out crucial context - federal and state laws already provide protections for babies born alive after abortions - and obscure the stated reasons for those votes, an essential component of any evaluation of a legislative vote. Overall, we rate the meme's core claim as 'Mostly False.' Votes The proposed 'Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act' has been stuck in the Senate since February 2019, despite efforts by Republicans to revive it in February 2020. The bill has not been forwarded to any Senate committee, and Republicans have failed on two occasions to obtain the votes necessary to advance the legislation through the Senate. Those two votes, in February 2019 and February 2020, were on motions of cloture. A motion of cloture is, roughly speaking, a proposal signed by at least 16 senators to close debate on a particular bill. At first glance, that might suggest that those in favor of the cloture motion are opposed to the content of the legislation itself, but in fact, 'invoking cloture' is a way to advance a bill's progress in the Senate by pushing through the debate stage and arriving at a full-Senate vote on the legislation itself. Cloture is a key mechanism for breaking a filibuster in the Senate. On most matters, a cloture motion must be agreed to by 60% of senators, which usually means 60 votes (except in cases where a Senate seat is temporarily vacant). In the 2019 vote, only 53 members voted 'Yea,' and in 2020 that number was 56 - below the 60-vote threshold on each occasion. It's worth noting that the Senate has not yet voted on whether to pass SB 311 itself, so a vote in favor of a motion for cloture should not be conflated with a vote in favor of the substance of the legislation. However, it is reasonable to assume, in general, that senators who voted to push SB 311 through to the next stage towards enactment were also in favor of enacting the bill itself, and those who voted against the cloture motions were doing so in order to halt the legislation's progress because they opposed its contents. This assumption is borne out in the partisan contours of the 2019 and 2020 cloture votes: On both occasions, no Republican voted against the motion, and only Democrats voted against it (including Independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who both caucus with the Democrats). On both occasions, three Democrats crossed the floor and voted in favor of the cloture motions: Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Doug Jones of Alabama. The exact claim in the Facebook meme is somewhat confusing. The caption refers to 41 senators, but the list contains 44 names. In February 2019, all 44 of the senators listed in the meme voted against the Republican cloture motion. However, in February 2020, 41 of them voted against the cloture motion, with the remaining three not voting (Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Sanders). So it's not clear to which vote the meme refers. However, on each occasion the wording of the cloture motion and the question put to senators was identical, so the distinction is only a formal one. The Content of SB 311 In evaluating whether the Democratic senators listed in the meme did, in fact, 'vote to let babies scream until they die if born alive,' it is necessary to assess the reasons for their votes against cloture motions and the effect of the failure of the cloture motions. It hardly needs to be said, but neither the bill itself, nor any statements made by the Democratic senators who opposed it, contained any mention of 'babies screaming until they die.' So in voting against the progress of SB 311, no senator was explicitly voting in order to bring about that outcome, in those terms. Rather, that phrase was a characterization of the effect of the votes, which originated from the creator of the Facebook meme. Effects By voting against the cloture motions, the senators halted the progress of a bill that, if enacted, would mean that federal law required health care practitioners to provide the same life-saving treatments and interventions for a baby born alive after a failed abortion (including admitting the baby to a hospital) as they are currently required to provide to babies born alive under other circumstances. The bill would also mean that health care practitioners would be required, under federal law, to report to law enforcement if they became aware that someone else had violated those requirements. Any health practitioner convicted of failing to fulfill those requirements, or failing to report someone else's violation, would be liable to be fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years. SB 311 would also mean that a person found to have intentionally killed a baby born alive after a failed abortion would be liable to conviction and punishment under the federal prohibition against murder. Does this mean that by preventing the passage of SB 311 Democratic senators were allowing health care practitioners to lawfully let babies die, without rendering aid, if they are born alive after a failed abortion? Not really. Federal law already explicitly states that babies born alive, regardless of the circumstances, are human persons and should be treated as such in the context of criminal law. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush in 2002. It states that: (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words 'person', 'human being', 'child', and 'individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. As used in this section, the term 'born alive', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. This means that intentionally killing a baby born alive can be, and is, prosecuted as murder, since the baby is defined under the 2002 act as a human person. In principle, it also means that doctors and nurses have the same professional, legal, and ethical responsibility to babies born alive after failed abortions as they do to babies born alive in other circumstances. The 2002 law does not include an explicit, affirmative duty of care for health care practitioners and does not stipulate any penalties for failing to provide appropriate care. However, many individual states do. Based on research originally published by the anti-abortion Family Research Council, Snopes checked legislation in all 50 states and found that, as of Aug. 20, 2020, 34 states have laws that explicitly either: affirm the equal right to medical care of a baby born alive after an abortion; or assert an affirmative legal obligation for medical practitioners to provide care; or set out criminal penalties for failing to provide care; or all of the above provisions. A full list of each state's 'born alive' abortion laws, including links to the original legislation, can be found here. (Note: At the time of the first cloture vote in February 2019, the number of states with 'born alive' abortion laws was 33. West Virginia's Senate passed the state's own Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Feb. 10, 2020, and Gov. Jim Justice signed it into law on March 2, 2020. By the time the U.S. Senate had its second cloture motion on Feb. 25, 2020, Justice had already vowed to sign the West Virginia law, meaning the number of states with 'born alive' abortion laws was imminently about to become 34.) The effect of the decision to block the progress of SB 311 through the U.S. Senate was to preserve the legal status quo around the country, namely that: two-thirds of states already had laws offering various levels of protection for babies born alive after failed abortions, and various levels of criminal penalties set out for health care practitioners who fail to provide care for them; and that federal law already recognized that babies born alive after failed abortions should be treated as human persons in the context of criminal law. This significantly undermines the Facebook meme's claim that the 44 senators had voted to allow babies to be left to die if they are born alive after a failed abortion, because that it isn't the case in most states. However, passing SB 311 would mean that there would be no ambiguity about the criminal implications and consequences of the 2002 law. Under SB 311, federal law would unequivocally set out a legal duty of care and a reporting obligation for health care professionals, as well as specific criminal penalties. While the 2002 law empowered states to enact their own 'born alive' abortion laws, and 34 states have opted to do just that, 16 states have not, and SB 311 would introduce a 'born alive' abortion law that would apply uniformly throughout the entire country. By voting to block the progress of SB 311, the Democratic and Independent senators did undoubtedly prevent that outcome from becoming much more likely. In evaluating whether voting against the cloture motions on SB 311 meant the 44 senators were voting to allow babies born alive after abortion to simply die without medical aid, it is also necessary to examine the reasons why the senators voted the way they did. Reasons In general, the Democratic senators who gave statements about their votes on SB 311 said that they had opposed the passage of the bill because they felt it was unnecessary in light of existing law and because they felt it inappropriately criminalized health care practitioners and interfered in the doctor-patient relationship. None said they had voted against the cloture motions in order to allow babies to be left to die or expressed indifference about that outcome. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, for example, wrote, 'We should not unnecessarily create new federal crimes and penalties to punish behavior that is already illegal under existing state and federal laws.' Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland wrote, 'It has always been illegal to kill or harm a newborn infant, and this bill had nothing to do with that. Instead, this bill would have subjected medical professionals to unprecedented criminal liability and inappropriately comes between a woman and her doctor.' Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii said SB 311 was 'a solution in search of a problem,' adding, 'Contrary to what the proponents of this bill argue, it is and has always been a crime to harm or kill newborn babies. And people guilty of this crime can already be charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.' Speaking from the floor of the Senate, Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois emphasized the fact that abortions that take place late enough for a fetus to show vital signs overwhelmingly occur in the context of a late diagnosis of a fetal abnormality that will, in short order, prove fatal. She stated that her reason for opposing SB 311 was that it would exacerbate the suffering of parents in such scenarios and force health care practitioners to attempt medical interventions that they know to be futile. ... Imagine the heartbreak of going to the doctor one day and learning that there's no chance your baby will survive... that there's no hope your baby girl will ever speak her first word or take her first step ... Or that delivering her would put your own life at risk, leaving your firstborn to grow up without a mother. These are the types of scenarios that lead to the heart-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy later on. As the mom of two little girls, I can't begin to fathom that kind of pain. And yet today, some on the other side of the aisle are trying to use those parents' suffering for political advantage ... making worst-case scenarios like these all the more difficult by pushing a bill aimed to criminalize reproductive care no matter the cost. If it becomes law, this bill would force doctors to perform ineffective, invasive procedures on fetuses born with fatal abnormalities ... even if it's against the best interests of the child. Even if it goes against recommended standards of care and they know it wouldn't extend or improve the baby's life. Even if it would prolong the suffering of the families ... forcing women to endure added lasting trauma ... making one of the worst moments in their lives somehow even more painful. If physicians refuse, they'd be punished ... sentenced to up to five years in prison. In February 2019, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Nurse-Midwives co-signed a letter to U.S. Senators, urging them to vote against SB 311 for similar reasons to those given by Duckworth and others, writing: 'It [S. 311] injects politicians into the patient-provider relationship, disregarding providers' training and clinical judgment and undermining their ability to determine the best course of action with their patients.' Late-term abortions are exceedingly rare. In 2016, the most recent year for which data was available, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that just 1.2% of abortions took place after 21 weeks' gestational age. Deaths involving babies born alive after an abortion are even rarer. According to CDC data, just 143 newborn deaths were recorded as resulting from spontaneous or induced terminations of pregnancy between 2003 and 2014, a period during which more than 49 million live births took place. The CDC advised that the figure of 143 might be an understatement, but also stated that two-thirds of those newborn deaths involved a 'maternal complication or one or more congenital anomalies,' which corroborates the claims of Duckworth and others. | in short order, prove fatal. She stated that her reason for opposing SB 311 was that it would exacerbate the suffering of parents in such scenarios and force health care practitioners to attempt medical interventions that they know to be futile. ... Imagine the heartbreak of going to the doctor one day and learning that there's no chance your baby will survive... that there's no hope your baby girl will ever speak her first word or take her first step ... Or that delivering her would put your own life at risk, leaving your firstborn to grow up without a mother. These are the types of scenarios that lead to the heart-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy later on. As the mom of two little girls, I can't begin to fathom that kind of pain. And yet today, some on the other side of the aisle are trying to use those parents' suffering for political advantage ... making worst-case scenarios like these all the more difficult by pushing a bill aimed to criminalize reproductive care no matter the cost. If it becomes law, this bill would force doctors to perform ineffective, invasive procedures on fetuses born with fatal abnormalities ... even if it's against the best interests of the child. Even if it goes against recommended standards of care and they know it wouldn't extend or improve the baby's life. Even if it would prolong the suffering of the families ... forcing women to endure added lasting trauma ... making one of the worst moments in their lives somehow even more painful. If physicians refuse, they'd be punished ... sentenced to up to five years in prison. In February 2019, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Nurse-Midwives co-signed a letter to U.S. Senators, urging them to vote against SB 311 for similar reasons to those given by Duckworth and others, writing: 'It [S. 311] injects politicians into the patient-provider relationship, disregarding providers' training and clinical judgment and undermining their ability to determine the best course of action with their patients.' Late-term abortions are exceedingly rare. In 2016, the most recent year for which data was available, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that just 1.2% of abortions took place after 21 weeks' gestational age. Deaths involving babies born alive after an abortion are even rarer. According to CDC data, just 143 newborn deaths were recorded as resulting from spontaneous or induced terminations of pregnancy between 2003 and 2014, a period during which more than 49 million live births took place. The CDC advised that the figure of 143 might be an understatement, but also stated that two-thirds of those newborn deaths involved a 'maternal complication or one or more congenital anomalies,' which corroborates the claims of Duckworth and others. | []
|
In 2019 and 2020, Democratic and Independent U.S. Senators voted to allow health care practitioners to let babies die, untreated, if born alive after an abortion. | Contradiction | In the summer of 2020, Snopes readers asked us to look into the accuracy of social media posts that claimed to list the names of 41 U.S. Senators who had 'voted to let babies scream until they die if born alive.' The meme referred to Senate Bill 311 (SB 311), which was introduced in the Senate in January 2019 by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service summary of the legislation reads as follows: This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must exercise in the event a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion. A health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital. The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement. A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties - a fine, up to five years in prison, or both. Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder. The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony. A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill. The text of SB 311 can be read in full here. It's true that Democratic and Independent senators did vote to block that bill's progress, but the above-displayed Facebook meme leaves out crucial context - federal and state laws already provide protections for babies born alive after abortions - and obscure the stated reasons for those votes, an essential component of any evaluation of a legislative vote. Overall, we rate the meme's core claim as 'Mostly False.' Votes The proposed 'Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act' has been stuck in the Senate since February 2019, despite efforts by Republicans to revive it in February 2020. The bill has not been forwarded to any Senate committee, and Republicans have failed on two occasions to obtain the votes necessary to advance the legislation through the Senate. Those two votes, in February 2019 and February 2020, were on motions of cloture. A motion of cloture is, roughly speaking, a proposal signed by at least 16 senators to close debate on a particular bill. At first glance, that might suggest that those in favor of the cloture motion are opposed to the content of the legislation itself, but in fact, 'invoking cloture' is a way to advance a bill's progress in the Senate by pushing through the debate stage and arriving at a full-Senate vote on the legislation itself. Cloture is a key mechanism for breaking a filibuster in the Senate. On most matters, a cloture motion must be agreed to by 60% of senators, which usually means 60 votes (except in cases where a Senate seat is temporarily vacant). In the 2019 vote, only 53 members voted 'Yea,' and in 2020 that number was 56 - below the 60-vote threshold on each occasion. It's worth noting that the Senate has not yet voted on whether to pass SB 311 itself, so a vote in favor of a motion for cloture should not be conflated with a vote in favor of the substance of the legislation. However, it is reasonable to assume, in general, that senators who voted to push SB 311 through to the next stage towards enactment were also in favor of enacting the bill itself, and those who voted against the cloture motions were doing so in order to halt the legislation's progress because they opposed its contents. This assumption is borne out in the partisan contours of the 2019 and 2020 cloture votes: On both occasions, no Republican voted against the motion, and only Democrats voted against it (including Independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who both caucus with the Democrats). On both occasions, three Democrats crossed the floor and voted in favor of the cloture motions: Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Doug Jones of Alabama. The exact claim in the Facebook meme is somewhat confusing. The caption refers to 41 senators, but the list contains 44 names. In February 2019, all 44 of the senators listed in the meme voted against the Republican cloture motion. However, in February 2020, 41 of them voted against the cloture motion, with the remaining three not voting (Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Sanders). So it's not clear to which vote the meme refers. However, on each occasion the wording of the cloture motion and the question put to senators was identical, so the distinction is only a formal one. The Content of SB 311 In evaluating whether the Democratic senators listed in the meme did, in fact, 'vote to let babies scream until they die if born alive,' it is necessary to assess the reasons for their votes against cloture motions and the effect of the failure of the cloture motions. It hardly needs to be said, but neither the bill itself, nor any statements made by the Democratic senators who opposed it, contained any mention of 'babies screaming until they die.' So in voting against the progress of SB 311, no senator was explicitly voting in order to bring about that outcome, in those terms. Rather, that phrase was a characterization of the effect of the votes, which originated from the creator of the Facebook meme. Effects By voting against the cloture motions, the senators halted the progress of a bill that, if enacted, would mean that federal law required health care practitioners to provide the same life-saving treatments and interventions for a baby born alive after a failed abortion (including admitting the baby to a hospital) as they are currently required to provide to babies born alive under other circumstances. The bill would also mean that health care practitioners would be required, under federal law, to report to law enforcement if they became aware that someone else had violated those requirements. Any health practitioner convicted of failing to fulfill those requirements, or failing to report someone else's violation, would be liable to be fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years. SB 311 would also mean that a person found to have intentionally killed a baby born alive after a failed abortion would be liable to conviction and punishment under the federal prohibition against murder. Does this mean that by preventing the passage of SB 311 Democratic senators were allowing health care practitioners to lawfully let babies die, without rendering aid, if they are born alive after a failed abortion? Not really. Federal law already explicitly states that babies born alive, regardless of the circumstances, are human persons and should be treated as such in the context of criminal law. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush in 2002. It states that: (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words 'person', 'human being', 'child', and 'individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. As used in this section, the term 'born alive', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. This means that intentionally killing a baby born alive can be, and is, prosecuted as murder, since the baby is defined under the 2002 act as a human person. In principle, it also means that doctors and nurses have the same professional, legal, and ethical responsibility to babies born alive after failed abortions as they do to babies born alive in other circumstances. The 2002 law does not include an explicit, affirmative duty of care for health care practitioners and does not stipulate any penalties for failing to provide appropriate care. However, many individual states do. Based on research originally published by the anti-abortion Family Research Council, Snopes checked legislation in all 50 states and found that, as of Aug. 20, 2020, 34 states have laws that explicitly either: affirm the equal right to medical care of a baby born alive after an abortion; or assert an affirmative legal obligation for medical practitioners to provide care; or set out criminal penalties for failing to provide care; or all of the above provisions. A full list of each state's 'born alive' abortion laws, including links to the original legislation, can be found here. (Note: At the time of the first cloture vote in February 2019, the number of states with 'born alive' abortion laws was 33. West Virginia's Senate passed the state's own Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Feb. 10, 2020, and Gov. Jim Justice signed it into law on March 2, 2020. By the time the U.S. Senate had its second cloture motion on Feb. 25, 2020, Justice had already vowed to sign the West Virginia law, meaning the number of states with 'born alive' abortion laws was imminently about to become 34.) The effect of the decision to block the progress of SB 311 through the U.S. Senate was to preserve the legal status quo around the country, namely that: two-thirds of states already had laws offering various levels of protection for babies born alive after failed abortions, and various levels of criminal penalties set out for health care practitioners who fail to provide care for them; and that federal law already recognized that babies born alive after failed abortions should be treated as human persons in the context of criminal law. This significantly undermines the Facebook meme's claim that the 44 senators had voted to allow babies to be left to die if they are born alive after a failed abortion, because that it isn't the case in most states. However, passing SB 311 would mean that there would be no ambiguity about the criminal implications and consequences of the 2002 law. Under SB 311, federal law would unequivocally set out a legal duty of care and a reporting obligation for health care professionals, as well as specific criminal penalties. While the 2002 law empowered states to enact their own 'born alive' abortion laws, and 34 states have opted to do just that, 16 states have not, and SB 311 would introduce a 'born alive' abortion law that would apply uniformly throughout the entire country. By voting to block the progress of SB 311, the Democratic and Independent senators did undoubtedly prevent that outcome from becoming much more likely. In evaluating whether voting against the cloture motions on SB 311 meant the 44 senators were voting to allow babies born alive after abortion to simply die without medical aid, it is also necessary to examine the reasons why the senators voted the way they did. Reasons In general, the Democratic senators who gave statements about their votes on SB 311 said that they had opposed the passage of the bill because they felt it was unnecessary in light of existing law and because they felt it inappropriately criminalized health care practitioners and interfered in the doctor-patient relationship. None said they had voted against the cloture motions in order to allow babies to be left to die or expressed indifference about that outcome. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, for example, wrote, 'We should not unnecessarily create new federal crimes and penalties to punish behavior that is already illegal under existing state and federal laws.' Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland wrote, 'It has always been illegal to kill or harm a newborn infant, and this bill had nothing to do with that. Instead, this bill would have subjected medical professionals to unprecedented criminal liability and inappropriately comes between a woman and her doctor.' Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii said SB 311 was 'a solution in search of a problem,' adding, 'Contrary to what the proponents of this bill argue, it is and has always been a crime to harm or kill newborn babies. And people guilty of this crime can already be charged and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.' Speaking from the floor of the Senate, Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois emphasized the fact that abortions that take place late enough for a fetus to show vital signs overwhelmingly occur in the context of a late diagnosis of a fetal abnormality that will, in short order, prove fatal. She stated that her reason for opposing SB 311 was that it would exacerbate the suffering of parents in such scenarios and force health care practitioners to attempt medical interventions that they know to be futile. ... Imagine the heartbreak of going to the doctor one day and learning that there's no chance your baby will survive... that there's no hope your baby girl will ever speak her first word or take her first step ... Or that delivering her would put your own life at risk, leaving your firstborn to grow up without a mother. These are the types of scenarios that lead to the heart-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy later on. As the mom of two little girls, I can't begin to fathom that kind of pain. And yet today, some on the other side of the aisle are trying to use those parents' suffering for political advantage ... making worst-case scenarios like these all the more difficult by pushing a bill aimed to criminalize reproductive care no matter the cost. If it becomes law, this bill would force doctors to perform ineffective, invasive procedures on fetuses born with fatal abnormalities ... even if it's against the best interests of the child. Even if it goes against recommended standards of care and they know it wouldn't extend or improve the baby's life. Even if it would prolong the suffering of the families ... forcing women to endure added lasting trauma ... making one of the worst moments in their lives somehow even more painful. If physicians refuse, they'd be punished ... sentenced to up to five years in prison. In February 2019, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Nurse-Midwives co-signed a letter to U.S. Senators, urging them to vote against SB 311 for similar reasons to those given by Duckworth and others, writing: 'It [S. 311] injects politicians into the patient-provider relationship, disregarding providers' training and clinical judgment and undermining their ability to determine the best course of action with their patients.' Late-term abortions are exceedingly rare. In 2016, the most recent year for which data was available, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that just 1.2% of abortions took place after 21 weeks' gestational age. Deaths involving babies born alive after an abortion are even rarer. According to CDC data, just 143 newborn deaths were recorded as resulting from spontaneous or induced terminations of pregnancy between 2003 and 2014, a period during which more than 49 million live births took place. The CDC advised that the figure of 143 might be an understatement, but also stated that two-thirds of those newborn deaths involved a 'maternal complication or one or more congenital anomalies,' which corroborates the claims of Duckworth and others. | in short order, prove fatal. She stated that her reason for opposing SB 311 was that it would exacerbate the suffering of parents in such scenarios and force health care practitioners to attempt medical interventions that they know to be futile. ... Imagine the heartbreak of going to the doctor one day and learning that there's no chance your baby will survive... that there's no hope your baby girl will ever speak her first word or take her first step ... Or that delivering her would put your own life at risk, leaving your firstborn to grow up without a mother. These are the types of scenarios that lead to the heart-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy later on. As the mom of two little girls, I can't begin to fathom that kind of pain. And yet today, some on the other side of the aisle are trying to use those parents' suffering for political advantage ... making worst-case scenarios like these all the more difficult by pushing a bill aimed to criminalize reproductive care no matter the cost. If it becomes law, this bill would force doctors to perform ineffective, invasive procedures on fetuses born with fatal abnormalities ... even if it's against the best interests of the child. Even if it goes against recommended standards of care and they know it wouldn't extend or improve the baby's life. Even if it would prolong the suffering of the families ... forcing women to endure added lasting trauma ... making one of the worst moments in their lives somehow even more painful. If physicians refuse, they'd be punished ... sentenced to up to five years in prison. In February 2019, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Nurse-Midwives co-signed a letter to U.S. Senators, urging them to vote against SB 311 for similar reasons to those given by Duckworth and others, writing: 'It [S. 311] injects politicians into the patient-provider relationship, disregarding providers' training and clinical judgment and undermining their ability to determine the best course of action with their patients.' Late-term abortions are exceedingly rare. In 2016, the most recent year for which data was available, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that just 1.2% of abortions took place after 21 weeks' gestational age. Deaths involving babies born alive after an abortion are even rarer. According to CDC data, just 143 newborn deaths were recorded as resulting from spontaneous or induced terminations of pregnancy between 2003 and 2014, a period during which more than 49 million live births took place. The CDC advised that the figure of 143 might be an understatement, but also stated that two-thirds of those newborn deaths involved a 'maternal complication or one or more congenital anomalies,' which corroborates the claims of Duckworth and others. | []
|
After discovering a doomsday asteroid was approaching Earth, world leaders created the COVID-19 pandemic in an effort to distract the world population and force everyone to spend time with their families during Earth's final days. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. We've come across a number of 'doomsday asteroid' rumors over the years. These claims typically stem from fearmongering headlines that make NASA's observations appear scarier than they actually are. In early March 2020, for instance, tabloids published articles claiming that NASA had issued a warning about a large asteroid approaching Earth that could, it if hit, end civilization. These articles referenced a real asteroid, but they misrepresented NASA's observations as a 'warning' and failed to mention in headlines how the space agency's data showed the asteroid passing Earth at a safe distance of a nearly 4 million miles (16 times farther than the moon). In March 2020, we came across a fresh variation of this formula. This time, a viral Facebook post claimed that NASA and the Vatican Observatory were hiding the discovery of a doomsday asteroid, and world leaders had implemented a 'scapegoat' virus - the coronavirus, which causes COVID-19 - in order to distract the global population from their imminent demise and force people to spend more time with family as they sheltered in place: The World Deserves the Truth.... Please brace yourself for the following information I'm about to share with you. It's not going to be easy to understand or cope with and I'm sure many will reject the truth entirely, but I can no longer keep this classified information from the public, so do with it what you will. In the first week of November 2019, NASA and the Vatican Observatory both discovered and confirmed a fast approaching comet that is so extremely large that a collision with earth on its current path is inevitable. On November 9th 2019, the United Nations held a secret meeting with world leaders to develop an 'exist strategy' to make everyone as comfortable as possible for what scientists have carefully calculated and confirmed as the apocalypse in the months to follow. The plan would implement a scapegoat virus (COVID-19) which will cause flu like symptoms, spread easily/fast, distract from the truth, and force a worldwide quarantine with the sole purpose of initiating home time to be spent with family, while minimizing the overall panic, anarchy, and premature mass casualties that would otherwise take over with public knowledge / foresight of the apocalypse. Unfortunately we are not talking about an obstacle we will have the ability to overcome, this comet will bring with it death and extinction of every living organism we know to exist, a complete global annihilation from which there will be no survivors or Earth as we know it. Understandably the UN doesn't want to create a global panic, however I truly believe that everyone should have the right to know, and deserves a chance to accept this truth. The details of this information will all be confirmed in the weeks leading up to the end, watch as the global elites step down from their positions by the masses, they will be doing exactly what they want you to do, which is spend time at home with family and be at peace. These are certainly scary times, but it is my hope that we as a civilization can be responsible with this information, and come together to enjoy what brief moments we have left on this beautiful planet. With love, peace, and blessings to all humanity, your brother/friend and recently retired CIA agent, Scott W. This post, in a word, is nonsense. But let's take a closer look at some of its logical flaws: The World's Response Has Not Been Unanimous The gist of the post is that world leaders released a 'scapegoat virus' in order to distract people around the world from their imminent death-by-asteroid. In addition to providing a diversion, this virus also allowed world leaders to announce a global quarantine and force people to stay at home with their families, according to the post. But that isn't what happened. World leaders did not come together to announce in one voice that everyone should stay home and spend time with family. Rather, the response to the spread of COVID-19 has differed from one country to the next. In the United States, even, some cities and states are currently under shelter-in-place orders, but others are not. If the goal was to make people spend more time with family before the apocalypse, wouldn't these self-quarantine orders be more uniform? Messaging from the United States government also appears to fly in the face of this rumor. President Donald Trump recently said that he wanted people to get back to work by mid-April, which would, of course, be a futile exercise if he knew the world was truly coming to an end. Trump was also downplaying the seriousness of this disease in early 2020, behavior which would have contradicted decisions made at some alleged 'secret meeting' of world leaders in November 2019. Shelter-in-Place Orders Can Keep Families Separated If the plan was to force people to spend more time with family, a 'scapegoat virus' may not have been the best tactic. Not all families live together under the same roof, or even in the same country. Travel restrictions put in place to help slow the spread of COVID-19 could prevent people from seeing family members for indefinite periods of time. Also, government agencies worldwide have encouraged social distancing, which has left many elderly people separated from families, as the Brooks family tried to demonstrate here: A message from me and my dad, @Melbrooks. #coronavirus #DontBeASpreader pic.twitter.com/Hqhc4fFXbe - Max Brooks (@maxbrooksauthor) March 16, 2020 What About Medical Staff, Delivery Drivers, and Other Essential Service Providers? Again, if this secret plan was designed to force families to spend time together, a 'scapegoat virus' may have caused more problems than this post alleges it solves. Hundreds of thousands of people have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and that has caused medical personnel to work overtime. Because they are at risk for contracting the disease, some doctors are practicing social distancing from their own families. While the COVID-19 pandemic has shut down many businesses, such as restaurants and bars, 'essential services' are still operating. Delivery drivers, grocery store employees, warehouse workers, etc., are all people with families, too. A Secret Meeting on Nov. 9, 2019? From what we can tell, world leaders did not convene at the United Nations on this date to discuss the release of a 'scapegoat virus' in order to distract attention from a doomsday asteroid. Trump, for instance, attended a college football game in Louisiana on this date, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel was commemorating the fall of the Berlin wall. While, theoretically, this 'secret meeting' could have happened via teleconference, we are highly skeptical of the notion that leaders from the 193 sovereign states that are members of the United Nations would have unanimously agreed over the course of a single meeting to let a potentially deadly virus loose in order to distract the world from an asteroid. 'Implement a Scapegoat Virus'? Central to the post's bogus claim is the assumption that COVID-19 was human-made. But this idea has been repeatedly debunked by scientists studying the disease. Put simply, COVID-19 was not made in a laboratory. Live Science writes: 'No evidence suggests that the virus is man-made. SARS-CoV-2 closely resembles two other coronaviruses that have triggered outbreaks in recent decades, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, and all three viruses seem to have originated in bats. In short, the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 fall in line with what we know about other naturally occurring coronaviruses that made the jump from animals to people.' And again, for reasons mentioned above, manufacturing a pandemic does not seem like the ideal way to get people to spend more time among family. A Retired CIA Agent? This post originated with Facebook user 'Scott W' whose profile seems to have been deleted in the days after he posted this message. The only biographical information we can glean from this post is that 'Scott W' claims to be a retired CIA agent. It sounds like an authoritative title, but ask yourself: Why would a retired CIA agent be privy to this 'secret' plan? Furthermore, if this was truly a retired CIA agent who wanted to expose a hidden 'truth' about the apocalypse, why would he do so on an anonymous, unverified Facebook page? Why wouldn't he provide some sort of evidence to show that his was an accurate account? If 'the world deserves the truth,' this 'CIA agent' did a terrible job of providing it. Conclusion: All You Need To Know Is That COVID-19 Is a Real Threat COVID-19 is a real disease that has already killed thousands of people and could potentially kill millions more if left unchecked. While appreciating your loved ones is certainly not bad advice (especially during times of crisis), the truth that the 'world deserves to know' about this disease is that we're currently in the middle of a very real pandemic. Please keep yourself informed about COVID-19. If you have a question about the disease or a related matter, you can contact us here. You can also read previous Snopes fact-checks about the coronavirus here. The websites of the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also full of crucial information. But if hazardous asteroids are your main concern, review the NASA database tracking near-Earth Objects (NEO) here. | Conclusion: All You Need To Know Is That COVID-19 Is a Real Threat COVID-19 is a real disease that has already killed thousands of people and could potentially kill millions more if left unchecked. While appreciating your loved ones is certainly not bad advice (especially during times of crisis), the truth that the 'world deserves to know' about this disease is that we're currently in the middle of a very real pandemic. Please keep yourself informed about COVID-19. If you have a question about the disease or a related matter, you can contact us here. You can also read previous Snopes fact-checks about the coronavirus here. The websites of the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also full of crucial information. But if hazardous asteroids are your main concern, review the NASA database tracking near-Earth Objects (NEO) here. | [
"14575-proof-06-asteroid20161103-16_2.jpg"
]
|
After discovering a doomsday asteroid was approaching Earth, world leaders created the COVID-19 pandemic in an effort to distract the world population and force everyone to spend time with their families during Earth's final days. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. We've come across a number of 'doomsday asteroid' rumors over the years. These claims typically stem from fearmongering headlines that make NASA's observations appear scarier than they actually are. In early March 2020, for instance, tabloids published articles claiming that NASA had issued a warning about a large asteroid approaching Earth that could, it if hit, end civilization. These articles referenced a real asteroid, but they misrepresented NASA's observations as a 'warning' and failed to mention in headlines how the space agency's data showed the asteroid passing Earth at a safe distance of a nearly 4 million miles (16 times farther than the moon). In March 2020, we came across a fresh variation of this formula. This time, a viral Facebook post claimed that NASA and the Vatican Observatory were hiding the discovery of a doomsday asteroid, and world leaders had implemented a 'scapegoat' virus - the coronavirus, which causes COVID-19 - in order to distract the global population from their imminent demise and force people to spend more time with family as they sheltered in place: The World Deserves the Truth.... Please brace yourself for the following information I'm about to share with you. It's not going to be easy to understand or cope with and I'm sure many will reject the truth entirely, but I can no longer keep this classified information from the public, so do with it what you will. In the first week of November 2019, NASA and the Vatican Observatory both discovered and confirmed a fast approaching comet that is so extremely large that a collision with earth on its current path is inevitable. On November 9th 2019, the United Nations held a secret meeting with world leaders to develop an 'exist strategy' to make everyone as comfortable as possible for what scientists have carefully calculated and confirmed as the apocalypse in the months to follow. The plan would implement a scapegoat virus (COVID-19) which will cause flu like symptoms, spread easily/fast, distract from the truth, and force a worldwide quarantine with the sole purpose of initiating home time to be spent with family, while minimizing the overall panic, anarchy, and premature mass casualties that would otherwise take over with public knowledge / foresight of the apocalypse. Unfortunately we are not talking about an obstacle we will have the ability to overcome, this comet will bring with it death and extinction of every living organism we know to exist, a complete global annihilation from which there will be no survivors or Earth as we know it. Understandably the UN doesn't want to create a global panic, however I truly believe that everyone should have the right to know, and deserves a chance to accept this truth. The details of this information will all be confirmed in the weeks leading up to the end, watch as the global elites step down from their positions by the masses, they will be doing exactly what they want you to do, which is spend time at home with family and be at peace. These are certainly scary times, but it is my hope that we as a civilization can be responsible with this information, and come together to enjoy what brief moments we have left on this beautiful planet. With love, peace, and blessings to all humanity, your brother/friend and recently retired CIA agent, Scott W. This post, in a word, is nonsense. But let's take a closer look at some of its logical flaws: The World's Response Has Not Been Unanimous The gist of the post is that world leaders released a 'scapegoat virus' in order to distract people around the world from their imminent death-by-asteroid. In addition to providing a diversion, this virus also allowed world leaders to announce a global quarantine and force people to stay at home with their families, according to the post. But that isn't what happened. World leaders did not come together to announce in one voice that everyone should stay home and spend time with family. Rather, the response to the spread of COVID-19 has differed from one country to the next. In the United States, even, some cities and states are currently under shelter-in-place orders, but others are not. If the goal was to make people spend more time with family before the apocalypse, wouldn't these self-quarantine orders be more uniform? Messaging from the United States government also appears to fly in the face of this rumor. President Donald Trump recently said that he wanted people to get back to work by mid-April, which would, of course, be a futile exercise if he knew the world was truly coming to an end. Trump was also downplaying the seriousness of this disease in early 2020, behavior which would have contradicted decisions made at some alleged 'secret meeting' of world leaders in November 2019. Shelter-in-Place Orders Can Keep Families Separated If the plan was to force people to spend more time with family, a 'scapegoat virus' may not have been the best tactic. Not all families live together under the same roof, or even in the same country. Travel restrictions put in place to help slow the spread of COVID-19 could prevent people from seeing family members for indefinite periods of time. Also, government agencies worldwide have encouraged social distancing, which has left many elderly people separated from families, as the Brooks family tried to demonstrate here: A message from me and my dad, @Melbrooks. #coronavirus #DontBeASpreader pic.twitter.com/Hqhc4fFXbe - Max Brooks (@maxbrooksauthor) March 16, 2020 What About Medical Staff, Delivery Drivers, and Other Essential Service Providers? Again, if this secret plan was designed to force families to spend time together, a 'scapegoat virus' may have caused more problems than this post alleges it solves. Hundreds of thousands of people have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and that has caused medical personnel to work overtime. Because they are at risk for contracting the disease, some doctors are practicing social distancing from their own families. While the COVID-19 pandemic has shut down many businesses, such as restaurants and bars, 'essential services' are still operating. Delivery drivers, grocery store employees, warehouse workers, etc., are all people with families, too. A Secret Meeting on Nov. 9, 2019? From what we can tell, world leaders did not convene at the United Nations on this date to discuss the release of a 'scapegoat virus' in order to distract attention from a doomsday asteroid. Trump, for instance, attended a college football game in Louisiana on this date, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel was commemorating the fall of the Berlin wall. While, theoretically, this 'secret meeting' could have happened via teleconference, we are highly skeptical of the notion that leaders from the 193 sovereign states that are members of the United Nations would have unanimously agreed over the course of a single meeting to let a potentially deadly virus loose in order to distract the world from an asteroid. 'Implement a Scapegoat Virus'? Central to the post's bogus claim is the assumption that COVID-19 was human-made. But this idea has been repeatedly debunked by scientists studying the disease. Put simply, COVID-19 was not made in a laboratory. Live Science writes: 'No evidence suggests that the virus is man-made. SARS-CoV-2 closely resembles two other coronaviruses that have triggered outbreaks in recent decades, SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, and all three viruses seem to have originated in bats. In short, the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 fall in line with what we know about other naturally occurring coronaviruses that made the jump from animals to people.' And again, for reasons mentioned above, manufacturing a pandemic does not seem like the ideal way to get people to spend more time among family. A Retired CIA Agent? This post originated with Facebook user 'Scott W' whose profile seems to have been deleted in the days after he posted this message. The only biographical information we can glean from this post is that 'Scott W' claims to be a retired CIA agent. It sounds like an authoritative title, but ask yourself: Why would a retired CIA agent be privy to this 'secret' plan? Furthermore, if this was truly a retired CIA agent who wanted to expose a hidden 'truth' about the apocalypse, why would he do so on an anonymous, unverified Facebook page? Why wouldn't he provide some sort of evidence to show that his was an accurate account? If 'the world deserves the truth,' this 'CIA agent' did a terrible job of providing it. Conclusion: All You Need To Know Is That COVID-19 Is a Real Threat COVID-19 is a real disease that has already killed thousands of people and could potentially kill millions more if left unchecked. While appreciating your loved ones is certainly not bad advice (especially during times of crisis), the truth that the 'world deserves to know' about this disease is that we're currently in the middle of a very real pandemic. Please keep yourself informed about COVID-19. If you have a question about the disease or a related matter, you can contact us here. You can also read previous Snopes fact-checks about the coronavirus here. The websites of the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also full of crucial information. But if hazardous asteroids are your main concern, review the NASA database tracking near-Earth Objects (NEO) here. | Conclusion: All You Need To Know Is That COVID-19 Is a Real Threat COVID-19 is a real disease that has already killed thousands of people and could potentially kill millions more if left unchecked. While appreciating your loved ones is certainly not bad advice (especially during times of crisis), the truth that the 'world deserves to know' about this disease is that we're currently in the middle of a very real pandemic. Please keep yourself informed about COVID-19. If you have a question about the disease or a related matter, you can contact us here. You can also read previous Snopes fact-checks about the coronavirus here. The websites of the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also full of crucial information. But if hazardous asteroids are your main concern, review the NASA database tracking near-Earth Objects (NEO) here. | [
"14575-proof-06-asteroid20161103-16_2.jpg"
]
|
U.S. President Joe Biden said: 'Hell, I like all people. White, LGBTQ, even some colored folk.' He also said: 'Negroes should not be allowed to hold positions of power in government. | Contradiction | In March 2021, a viral meme purportedly containing past statements uttered by U.S. President Joe Biden was shared on social media. One quote read: 'Negroes should not be allowed to hold positions of power in government.' The quote often appeared by itself, or with another quote also attributed to Biden that read: 'Hell, I like all people. White, LGBTQ, even some colored folk.' However, these were not real quotes. We searched far and wide in archived newspapers, C-SPAN transcripts, and other sources, and found nothing of the sort. Further, the quote about 'even some colored folk' did not appear to be a paraphrase of anything Biden said. Regarding the 'negroes' quote that mentioned 'positions of power,' specifically, it may have been a paraphrase of something then-Sen. Biden read aloud in Congress in 1985. It bore similarities to an instance in which he quoted someone else during a congressional hearing. We previously reported about this June 5, 1985, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The same moment was referenced in a misleading meme that claimed he said: 'We already have a n- mayor (in New Orleans) and we don't need another n- bigshot.' Again, while Biden did utter these words, he was quoting someone else to frame a question about the racial slurs. At the time, Biden was a U.S. Senator from Delaware. He was questioning William Bradford Reynolds, who was the assistant U.S. attorney general for the Civil Rights Division. He had been nominated by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan to be associate attorney general. From our previous reporting: Biden opposed Reynolds' nomination on the grounds that Reynolds 'had pursued a conservative political agenda and had shown contempt for civil rights laws,' particularly by opposing a redistricting plan (i.e., the 'Nunez plan') that would have eliminated gerrymandering to create a majority Black congressional district in Louisiana, and by ignoring racist comments issued by the state's lawmakers. During a committee hearing on Reynolds' nomination, Biden pointed out that Reynolds had approved a redistricting plan that favored Republicans over the state's Black residents, and that Reynolds had been made aware, via a memo from his staff, that legislators who opposed the Nunez plan had engaged in making racially disparaging comments. It was in that context, then, that Biden confronted Reynolds by reading out loud portions of the memo detailing racial slurs used by Louisiana legislators: '[Your staff] brought to your attention the allegation that important legislators in defeating the Nunez plan, in the basement, said, 'We already have a n- mayor [in New Orleans], we don't need any more n- big shots.'' Biden's point was that those comments, among other evidence, should have alerted Reynolds to issues with approving the Louisiana governor's redistricting plan over the so-called Nunez plan. Biden's efforts in opposing Reynolds were successful, as the Senate Judiciary Committee ultimately rejected his nomination for promotion. In other words, Biden confronted Reynolds on live television after learning of racial slurs and a redistricting plan that put people of color at a disadvantage. In sum, Biden never said the words 'negroes should not be allowed to hold positions of power in government.' The meme appears to be a paraphrase of a racial slur Biden quoted someone else using while he questioned a political nominee at a congressional hearing. In addition, we found no evidence he ever said anything resembling the 'colored folk' quote. | In sum, Biden never said the words 'negroes should not be allowed to hold positions of power in government.' The meme appears to be a paraphrase of a racial slur Biden quoted someone else using while he questioned a political nominee at a congressional hearing. In addition, we found no evidence he ever said anything resembling the 'colored folk' quote. | [
"14587-proof-02-joe-biden-mask-photo-e1616176972155.jpg",
"14587-proof-03-biden-colored-negroes-fake-quotes.jpg"
]
|
The Clintons charged the Secret Service rent to house the security detail protecting their home in Chappaqua, New York. | Contradiction | In September 1999, just before President Bill Clinton's last full year in office, the First Couple purchased a $1.7 million, 11-room Dutch Colonial home in in Chappaqua, New York, located in the wooded suburbs of Westchester County. Around the time of that purchase, the press estimated that a permanent, taxpayer-funded security system worth more than $1 million would have to be installed to adequately protect the President. This circumstance eventually led to rumors that the Clintons were charging 'rent' to the federal agents assigned to protect their home (and eventually themselves): Just in case your blood pressure wasn't up enough ... As you know, the Clintons had to establish residence in New York for Hillary to run for the Senate. So they bought that big house-BUT there was no place for Secret Service which has statuary responsibility to protect the First Family. So, a special 'safe area' was built. NOW, the Clintons are charging them rent! It just happens that their rent is about same amount as their mortgage payment! In short, we taxpayers pay for the Secret Service addition, AND the Clinton's mortgage! Such a deal, eh? What will it take for the American public to wake up? Don't you just feel like you've been suckered again, fellow taxpayers? I say let's pass this info throughout the length and breadth of this Nation to shake the American people into a heightened state of anger upon knowing they have been literally raped during their long sleep by no other than those trustees they have appointed to look after their interests ... Security measures of this level are not specific to the Clintons; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of former presidents. (In 1981, for example, the Secret Service spent several months providing round-the-clock protection, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars per day, for an empty Pacific Palisades, California, home owned by Ronald and Nancy Reagan, even though the Reagans no longer lived in or used the house, and even though it was vacant and up for sale.) The costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at the properties of current and former presidents comes from public funds, because the protection of first families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation. The Secret Service does not divulge the costs of its protective details, but it's believed to be in the range of tens of millions of dollars a year for each former president. The Clintons' home in Chappaqua is served by the White Plains office of the Secret Service, which was already well-staffed before the Clintons' home purchase (largely because many consulates maintain houses in the area). The arrival of the First Family shifted the office's workload from 90% investigative and 10% protective to 80% protective and 20% investigative. The office was there before the Clintons bought into the neighborhood, and it will continue to be there even if the Clintons sell the house. In 1994 Congress changed the rules governing protection of former Presidents, limiting future ex-Chief Executives to only ten years' worth of protection after they leave office (with the exemption of then-President Bill Clinton). However, that rules change was overturned in 2013 by a measure that restored Secret Service protection to all former U.S. presidents and first ladies throughout their lifetimes, as well as for the children of former presidents until they are 16 years old. (Former presidents and first ladies are free to relinquish this Secret Service protection, as Richard Nixon did in 1985.) The Clintons have always been subject to rumors of the 'Slick Willy' variety; that is, ones which play upon a recurrent theme of their taking advantage of loopholes and benefits they've a legal, but not moral, right to. In the world of popular lore, they are often perceived as candy grabbers, greedy little children set loose in an enormous sweets shop funded by the taxpayer. This rumor is another of this kind, an expression of widely-held public opinion. It's gossip, but it's what the public is thinking, set down in the form of a story. There was a kernel of truth underlying the gossip here, but that kernel has been so distorted that it hardly qualifies as the truth any more. As Lloyd Grove reported in the Washington Post: It is a standard arrangement that the Secret Service provide payment to homeowners for space used by the agency in such situations. The Clintons did not take it upon themselves to 'charge the Secret Service rent.' The amount provided is based on a government formula, not set by the homeowner, and in the Clintons' case this amount was $1,100. (Note that this figure was not chosen by the Clintons, and it was well short of their monthly mortgage payment.) Most important, although regulations call for the payment of this amount, the Clintons did not in fact accept any money from the Secret Service. Versions of this rumor circulated in January 2008 included the following addendum: If Hillary wins in 2008 and Bill is 'appointed' to fill her Senate seat and either live to retire 'they' (together or alone) would get two US Presidential retirement checks, two US Senate retirement checks, and a retirement check from the State of Arkansas. About the only thing they MIGHT NOT get is a Social Security check....but I wouldn't bet on it.... I understand ole Bill has earned $40,000,000 in the past six years. What a guy! AND THE REST OF THE STORY... Hilarious Rotten Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under the 'Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan,' which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies. (Would it not be nice if all Americans were pension eligible after only 4 years?) If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that? The (false) claim that anyone who serves even a single term in Congress is eligible to collect the equivalent of a full congressional salary for life is based on a misunderstanding of the congressional pension plan. | In short, we taxpayers pay for the Secret Service addition, AND the Clinton's mortgage! Such a deal, eh? What will it take for the American public to wake up? Don't you just feel like you've been suckered again, fellow taxpayers? I say let's pass this info throughout the length and breadth of this Nation to shake the American people into a heightened state of anger upon knowing they have been literally raped during their long sleep by no other than those trustees they have appointed to look after their interests ... Security measures of this level are not specific to the Clintons; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of former presidents. (In 1981, for example, the Secret Service spent several months providing round-the-clock protection, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars per day, for an empty Pacific Palisades, California, home owned by Ronald and Nancy Reagan, even though the Reagans no longer lived in or used the house, and even though it was vacant and up for sale.) The costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at the properties of current and former presidents comes from public funds, because the protection of first families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation. The Secret Service does not divulge the costs of its protective details, but it's believed to be in the range of tens of millions of dollars a year for each former president. The Clintons' home in Chappaqua is served by the White Plains office of the Secret Service, which was already well-staffed before the Clintons' home purchase (largely because many consulates maintain houses in the area). The arrival of the First Family shifted the office's workload from 90% investigative and 10% protective to 80% protective and 20% investigative. The office was there before the Clintons bought into the neighborhood, and it will continue to be there even if the Clintons sell the house. In 1994 Congress changed the rules governing protection of former Presidents, limiting future ex-Chief Executives to only ten years' worth of protection after they leave office (with the exemption of then-President Bill Clinton). However, that rules change was overturned in 2013 by a measure that restored Secret Service protection to all former U.S. presidents and first ladies throughout their lifetimes, as well as for the children of former presidents until they are 16 years old. (Former presidents and first ladies are free to relinquish this Secret Service protection, as Richard Nixon did in 1985.) The Clintons have always been subject to rumors of the 'Slick Willy' variety; that is, ones which play upon a recurrent theme of their taking advantage of loopholes and benefits they've a legal, but not moral, right to. In the world of popular lore, they are often perceived as candy grabbers, greedy little children set loose in an enormous sweets shop funded by the taxpayer. This rumor is another of this kind, an expression of widely-held public opinion. It's gossip, but it's what the public is thinking, set down in the form of a story. There was a kernel of truth underlying the gossip here, but that kernel has been so distorted that it hardly qualifies as the truth any more. As Lloyd Grove reported in the Washington Post: It is a standard arrangement that the Secret Service provide payment to homeowners for space used by the agency in such situations. The Clintons did not take it upon themselves to 'charge the Secret Service rent.' The amount provided is based on a government formula, not set by the homeowner, and in the Clintons' case this amount was $1,100. (Note that this figure was not chosen by the Clintons, and it was well short of their monthly mortgage payment.) Most important, although regulations call for the payment of this amount, the Clintons did not in fact accept any money from the Secret Service. Versions of this rumor circulated in January 2008 included the following addendum: If Hillary wins in 2008 and Bill is 'appointed' to fill her Senate seat and either live to retire 'they' (together or alone) would get two US Presidential retirement checks, two US Senate retirement checks, and a retirement check from the State of Arkansas. About the only thing they MIGHT NOT get is a Social Security check....but I wouldn't bet on it.... I understand ole Bill has earned $40,000,000 in the past six years. What a guy! AND THE REST OF THE STORY... Hilarious Rotten Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under the 'Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan,' which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies. (Would it not be nice if all Americans were pension eligible after only 4 years?) If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that? The (false) claim that anyone who serves even a single term in Congress is eligible to collect the equivalent of a full congressional salary for life is based on a misunderstanding of the congressional pension plan. | [
"14607-proof-05-shutterstock_242333638-2.jpg"
]
|
The Clintons charged the Secret Service rent to house the security detail protecting their home in Chappaqua, New York. | Contradiction | In September 1999, just before President Bill Clinton's last full year in office, the First Couple purchased a $1.7 million, 11-room Dutch Colonial home in in Chappaqua, New York, located in the wooded suburbs of Westchester County. Around the time of that purchase, the press estimated that a permanent, taxpayer-funded security system worth more than $1 million would have to be installed to adequately protect the President. This circumstance eventually led to rumors that the Clintons were charging 'rent' to the federal agents assigned to protect their home (and eventually themselves): Just in case your blood pressure wasn't up enough ... As you know, the Clintons had to establish residence in New York for Hillary to run for the Senate. So they bought that big house-BUT there was no place for Secret Service which has statuary responsibility to protect the First Family. So, a special 'safe area' was built. NOW, the Clintons are charging them rent! It just happens that their rent is about same amount as their mortgage payment! In short, we taxpayers pay for the Secret Service addition, AND the Clinton's mortgage! Such a deal, eh? What will it take for the American public to wake up? Don't you just feel like you've been suckered again, fellow taxpayers? I say let's pass this info throughout the length and breadth of this Nation to shake the American people into a heightened state of anger upon knowing they have been literally raped during their long sleep by no other than those trustees they have appointed to look after their interests ... Security measures of this level are not specific to the Clintons; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of former presidents. (In 1981, for example, the Secret Service spent several months providing round-the-clock protection, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars per day, for an empty Pacific Palisades, California, home owned by Ronald and Nancy Reagan, even though the Reagans no longer lived in or used the house, and even though it was vacant and up for sale.) The costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at the properties of current and former presidents comes from public funds, because the protection of first families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation. The Secret Service does not divulge the costs of its protective details, but it's believed to be in the range of tens of millions of dollars a year for each former president. The Clintons' home in Chappaqua is served by the White Plains office of the Secret Service, which was already well-staffed before the Clintons' home purchase (largely because many consulates maintain houses in the area). The arrival of the First Family shifted the office's workload from 90% investigative and 10% protective to 80% protective and 20% investigative. The office was there before the Clintons bought into the neighborhood, and it will continue to be there even if the Clintons sell the house. In 1994 Congress changed the rules governing protection of former Presidents, limiting future ex-Chief Executives to only ten years' worth of protection after they leave office (with the exemption of then-President Bill Clinton). However, that rules change was overturned in 2013 by a measure that restored Secret Service protection to all former U.S. presidents and first ladies throughout their lifetimes, as well as for the children of former presidents until they are 16 years old. (Former presidents and first ladies are free to relinquish this Secret Service protection, as Richard Nixon did in 1985.) The Clintons have always been subject to rumors of the 'Slick Willy' variety; that is, ones which play upon a recurrent theme of their taking advantage of loopholes and benefits they've a legal, but not moral, right to. In the world of popular lore, they are often perceived as candy grabbers, greedy little children set loose in an enormous sweets shop funded by the taxpayer. This rumor is another of this kind, an expression of widely-held public opinion. It's gossip, but it's what the public is thinking, set down in the form of a story. There was a kernel of truth underlying the gossip here, but that kernel has been so distorted that it hardly qualifies as the truth any more. As Lloyd Grove reported in the Washington Post: It is a standard arrangement that the Secret Service provide payment to homeowners for space used by the agency in such situations. The Clintons did not take it upon themselves to 'charge the Secret Service rent.' The amount provided is based on a government formula, not set by the homeowner, and in the Clintons' case this amount was $1,100. (Note that this figure was not chosen by the Clintons, and it was well short of their monthly mortgage payment.) Most important, although regulations call for the payment of this amount, the Clintons did not in fact accept any money from the Secret Service. Versions of this rumor circulated in January 2008 included the following addendum: If Hillary wins in 2008 and Bill is 'appointed' to fill her Senate seat and either live to retire 'they' (together or alone) would get two US Presidential retirement checks, two US Senate retirement checks, and a retirement check from the State of Arkansas. About the only thing they MIGHT NOT get is a Social Security check....but I wouldn't bet on it.... I understand ole Bill has earned $40,000,000 in the past six years. What a guy! AND THE REST OF THE STORY... Hilarious Rotten Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under the 'Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan,' which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies. (Would it not be nice if all Americans were pension eligible after only 4 years?) If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that? The (false) claim that anyone who serves even a single term in Congress is eligible to collect the equivalent of a full congressional salary for life is based on a misunderstanding of the congressional pension plan. | In short, we taxpayers pay for the Secret Service addition, AND the Clinton's mortgage! Such a deal, eh? What will it take for the American public to wake up? Don't you just feel like you've been suckered again, fellow taxpayers? I say let's pass this info throughout the length and breadth of this Nation to shake the American people into a heightened state of anger upon knowing they have been literally raped during their long sleep by no other than those trustees they have appointed to look after their interests ... Security measures of this level are not specific to the Clintons; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of former presidents. (In 1981, for example, the Secret Service spent several months providing round-the-clock protection, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars per day, for an empty Pacific Palisades, California, home owned by Ronald and Nancy Reagan, even though the Reagans no longer lived in or used the house, and even though it was vacant and up for sale.) The costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at the properties of current and former presidents comes from public funds, because the protection of first families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation. The Secret Service does not divulge the costs of its protective details, but it's believed to be in the range of tens of millions of dollars a year for each former president. The Clintons' home in Chappaqua is served by the White Plains office of the Secret Service, which was already well-staffed before the Clintons' home purchase (largely because many consulates maintain houses in the area). The arrival of the First Family shifted the office's workload from 90% investigative and 10% protective to 80% protective and 20% investigative. The office was there before the Clintons bought into the neighborhood, and it will continue to be there even if the Clintons sell the house. In 1994 Congress changed the rules governing protection of former Presidents, limiting future ex-Chief Executives to only ten years' worth of protection after they leave office (with the exemption of then-President Bill Clinton). However, that rules change was overturned in 2013 by a measure that restored Secret Service protection to all former U.S. presidents and first ladies throughout their lifetimes, as well as for the children of former presidents until they are 16 years old. (Former presidents and first ladies are free to relinquish this Secret Service protection, as Richard Nixon did in 1985.) The Clintons have always been subject to rumors of the 'Slick Willy' variety; that is, ones which play upon a recurrent theme of their taking advantage of loopholes and benefits they've a legal, but not moral, right to. In the world of popular lore, they are often perceived as candy grabbers, greedy little children set loose in an enormous sweets shop funded by the taxpayer. This rumor is another of this kind, an expression of widely-held public opinion. It's gossip, but it's what the public is thinking, set down in the form of a story. There was a kernel of truth underlying the gossip here, but that kernel has been so distorted that it hardly qualifies as the truth any more. As Lloyd Grove reported in the Washington Post: It is a standard arrangement that the Secret Service provide payment to homeowners for space used by the agency in such situations. The Clintons did not take it upon themselves to 'charge the Secret Service rent.' The amount provided is based on a government formula, not set by the homeowner, and in the Clintons' case this amount was $1,100. (Note that this figure was not chosen by the Clintons, and it was well short of their monthly mortgage payment.) Most important, although regulations call for the payment of this amount, the Clintons did not in fact accept any money from the Secret Service. Versions of this rumor circulated in January 2008 included the following addendum: If Hillary wins in 2008 and Bill is 'appointed' to fill her Senate seat and either live to retire 'they' (together or alone) would get two US Presidential retirement checks, two US Senate retirement checks, and a retirement check from the State of Arkansas. About the only thing they MIGHT NOT get is a Social Security check....but I wouldn't bet on it.... I understand ole Bill has earned $40,000,000 in the past six years. What a guy! AND THE REST OF THE STORY... Hilarious Rotten Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under the 'Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan,' which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies. (Would it not be nice if all Americans were pension eligible after only 4 years?) If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that? The (false) claim that anyone who serves even a single term in Congress is eligible to collect the equivalent of a full congressional salary for life is based on a misunderstanding of the congressional pension plan. | [
"14607-proof-05-shutterstock_242333638-2.jpg"
]
|
A new Facebook feature enabling users to report problems by shaking their phones has caused some users to be inadvertently reported for abuse and suspended. | Contradiction | Did you know Facebook's mobile app has a new feature that allows users to report problems by shaking their phones? No? Neither did we, until readers alerted us to a viral Facebook post claiming that a new 'shake-to-report' feature was inadvertently landing some people in 'Facebook jail' (meaning their accounts had been suspended). Warnings such as this one started to appear online in mid-June 2019: Here's the text of the post, minus emojis: PSA FACEBOOK NEEDS TO STOP AVOID FB JAIL I shook my phone and it's a REAL thing! It took me a little bit, but it really is a thing! I turned mine off! Your public service announcement for today: The recent FB update added this new feature for mobile fb users. Since this update - some people have landed in FB jail multiple times (yes, it's a real place and there's no fair trial or bail out options!) One has been in & out for over a week now It seems many of us are accidentally 'reporting a problem' and getting our friends thrown in jail. How can you fix it? When you're in FB, shake your phone around until this shows up. Then slide that 'shake phone to report a problem' button to OFF! It's CRAZY that none of us knew this had been added and that it was automatically ON with the update. Fix your phones - Let's keep our friends (and me lol) out of FB jail! This is no joke shake your phone! Not fast or hard. I just removed mine. 'Shake to Report' Is a Real Feature With little-to-no fanfare, Facebook began rolling out a new 'shake-to-report' feature in their mobile app in late May 2019. The tech news website Engadget described the rollout on 28 May: Facebook wants to make reporting bugs as easy as shaking your phone. In fact, that's all you'll have to do. Thanks to a new feature, when you encounter a bug, you can simply shake your phone and file a report through a pop-up menu that will appear on the screen. The 'shake to report' method was previously available as an opt-in feature on iOS, and it will soon be a default setting on both iOS and Android. You'll still be able to report bugs through Facebook's Help & Support menu, but the company says it's hoping this new method will be easier to use. In addition to reporting when News Feed doesn't load or a video won't play, Facebook also wants users to report when they can't figure out how to complete an action, like how to delete a story. Facebook is rolling this out to a small percentage of users globally, but within the next two weeks, it should be available to everyone. Facebook confirmed all this in an email to Snopes.com, including that 'shake to report' is enabled by default. The easiest way to find out if you have it is to run the Facebook app, then give your phone a gentle shake. A pop-up screen should appear giving you the option of reporting a problem or disabling the shake-to-report feature altogether: (You can access the same screen via the main Facebook app menu, under Help & Support > Report a Problem.) What This Doesn't Mean There are two more things to notice about the screen 'Shake phone to report a problem': First, it doesn't automatically send a report to Facebook. It provides a link to a report form requiring the user to explain the problem. That means a report can't be sent accidentally. Second, it clearly says that the shake-to-report feature is to report 'something isn't working,' not to report abusive posts or other terms-of-service violations. Note that a link is offered at the bottom to call up instructions for reporting abuse (see Facebook's help page for those instructions). That means you can't use the shake-to-report feature for issues other than technical ones. In summary, is the 'shake-to-report' feature real? Yes, and if it has been rolled out to your app, it's automatically enabled. You can disable it (if you wish to) by shaking your phone to call up the screen and turning it off, or by doing the same via the app's Help & Support menu. Is it possible to inadvertently send reports or suspend someone's account by using the feature? No, that's not how it works. You might want to share this information with friends who are spreading the rumor. | In summary, is the 'shake-to-report' feature real? Yes, and if it has been rolled out to your app, it's automatically enabled. You can disable it (if you wish to) by shaking your phone to call up the screen and turning it off, or by doing the same via the app's Help & Support menu. Is it possible to inadvertently send reports or suspend someone's account by using the feature? No, that's not how it works. You might want to share this information with friends who are spreading the rumor. | [
"14641-proof-05-facebook_security_feature.jpg"
]
|
A new Facebook feature enabling users to report problems by shaking their phones has caused some users to be inadvertently reported for abuse and suspended. | Contradiction | Did you know Facebook's mobile app has a new feature that allows users to report problems by shaking their phones? No? Neither did we, until readers alerted us to a viral Facebook post claiming that a new 'shake-to-report' feature was inadvertently landing some people in 'Facebook jail' (meaning their accounts had been suspended). Warnings such as this one started to appear online in mid-June 2019: Here's the text of the post, minus emojis: PSA FACEBOOK NEEDS TO STOP AVOID FB JAIL I shook my phone and it's a REAL thing! It took me a little bit, but it really is a thing! I turned mine off! Your public service announcement for today: The recent FB update added this new feature for mobile fb users. Since this update - some people have landed in FB jail multiple times (yes, it's a real place and there's no fair trial or bail out options!) One has been in & out for over a week now It seems many of us are accidentally 'reporting a problem' and getting our friends thrown in jail. How can you fix it? When you're in FB, shake your phone around until this shows up. Then slide that 'shake phone to report a problem' button to OFF! It's CRAZY that none of us knew this had been added and that it was automatically ON with the update. Fix your phones - Let's keep our friends (and me lol) out of FB jail! This is no joke shake your phone! Not fast or hard. I just removed mine. 'Shake to Report' Is a Real Feature With little-to-no fanfare, Facebook began rolling out a new 'shake-to-report' feature in their mobile app in late May 2019. The tech news website Engadget described the rollout on 28 May: Facebook wants to make reporting bugs as easy as shaking your phone. In fact, that's all you'll have to do. Thanks to a new feature, when you encounter a bug, you can simply shake your phone and file a report through a pop-up menu that will appear on the screen. The 'shake to report' method was previously available as an opt-in feature on iOS, and it will soon be a default setting on both iOS and Android. You'll still be able to report bugs through Facebook's Help & Support menu, but the company says it's hoping this new method will be easier to use. In addition to reporting when News Feed doesn't load or a video won't play, Facebook also wants users to report when they can't figure out how to complete an action, like how to delete a story. Facebook is rolling this out to a small percentage of users globally, but within the next two weeks, it should be available to everyone. Facebook confirmed all this in an email to Snopes.com, including that 'shake to report' is enabled by default. The easiest way to find out if you have it is to run the Facebook app, then give your phone a gentle shake. A pop-up screen should appear giving you the option of reporting a problem or disabling the shake-to-report feature altogether: (You can access the same screen via the main Facebook app menu, under Help & Support > Report a Problem.) What This Doesn't Mean There are two more things to notice about the screen 'Shake phone to report a problem': First, it doesn't automatically send a report to Facebook. It provides a link to a report form requiring the user to explain the problem. That means a report can't be sent accidentally. Second, it clearly says that the shake-to-report feature is to report 'something isn't working,' not to report abusive posts or other terms-of-service violations. Note that a link is offered at the bottom to call up instructions for reporting abuse (see Facebook's help page for those instructions). That means you can't use the shake-to-report feature for issues other than technical ones. In summary, is the 'shake-to-report' feature real? Yes, and if it has been rolled out to your app, it's automatically enabled. You can disable it (if you wish to) by shaking your phone to call up the screen and turning it off, or by doing the same via the app's Help & Support menu. Is it possible to inadvertently send reports or suspend someone's account by using the feature? No, that's not how it works. You might want to share this information with friends who are spreading the rumor. | In summary, is the 'shake-to-report' feature real? Yes, and if it has been rolled out to your app, it's automatically enabled. You can disable it (if you wish to) by shaking your phone to call up the screen and turning it off, or by doing the same via the app's Help & Support menu. Is it possible to inadvertently send reports or suspend someone's account by using the feature? No, that's not how it works. You might want to share this information with friends who are spreading the rumor. | [
"14641-proof-05-facebook_security_feature.jpg"
]
|
The abandoned Bennett School for Girls was also once a 'mega-mansion for the rich and famous. | Contradiction | The abandoned Bennett College has fascinated urban explorers for years. Photographs captured on the old property, also known as Bennett School for Girls, showed the impressive but deteriorating architecture from the 19th century. It's located in Millbrook, New York. The drive north from New York City is estimated at over two hours. The property closed in 1978. (Courtesy: stevenbley/Flickr) A Misleading Ad Since at least April 2021, an online advertisement displayed a picture of the abandoned Bennett College. It claimed: 'Former Mega-Mansions of The Rich and Famous Now Worthless.' Who would have thought architecture from 1893 could be advertising clickbait in 2021? However, this was misleading. The photograph of the old school was used as clickbait. It was never a private mansion 'of the rich and famous.' This wasn't the first time we've seen an online advertisement use something viewed as beautiful from the past to lure readers in the 21st century. We previously reported that advertisers had done the same with early 20th-century actress and model Evelyn Nesbit. The History of Bennett School for Girls Bennett College closed in 1978 and has been abandoned ever since. While it's true that the school as an institution opened in 1890, it wasn't until 1907 that it moved to Millbrook. The property was originally known as Halcyon Hall, a 200-room luxury hotel that opened on Sept. 16, 1893. It was designed by New York City architect James Ware. In 2009, the Poughkeepsie Journal reported that 'the five-story, Queen Anne Tudor-style structure boasted a cobblestone foundation, leaded glass windows, and patterned wood shingles.' Because a railroad line was introduced into the Millbrook community in 1870, the hotel was built with the hope of attracting visitors traveling from the city. 'When guests arrived by rail they were picked up by carriage, but during their stay the hotel was close enough to the village to allow them to walk to it,' Millbrook historian David Greenwood said. The hotel never lived up to its expectations and floundered until May Bennett, who founded the Bennett School for Girls in Irvington in 1890, purchased the 22-acre Millbrook site and relocated the school there in 1907. 'It was an ideal location for what eventually became the Bennett College campus,' Greenwood said. 'In addition to the hotel rooms for dormitory space, Halcyon Hall had the dining room and other large areas that lent itself to what was needed as a girls school. Bennett also purchased a number of surrounding buildings, which were converted into faculty housing and a library. The newspaper published that it eventually closed in 1978 after coeducation became more normalized. The buildings have been deteriorating for decades. (Courtesy: stevenbley/Flickr) Another reason it met its end was that its leadership tried and failed to convert the institution to a four-year college. This purportedly caused 'additional financial distress.' More photographs of the history of the abandoned Bennett College were published by The Poughkeepsie Journal. The Bennett College Property as of 2020 In late 2020, a YouTube user flew a drone over the old buildings and recorded sweeping shots in stunning 4K quality. Another YouTuber by the name of TheUnknownCameraman visited the property in 2013 and recorded video inside the buildings. In sum, an online advertisement tried to use an unrelated photograph of the abandoned Bennett College to draw in readers for a lengthy slideshow article. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | In sum, an online advertisement tried to use an unrelated photograph of the abandoned Bennett College to draw in readers for a lengthy slideshow article. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising 'arbitrage.' The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. | [
"14648-proof-03-bennett-college-inside-scaled.jpg",
"14648-proof-04-bennett-featured.jpg",
"14648-proof-05-theater-bennett.jpg"
]
|
A video shows a piece of 5G equipment with 'COV-19' inscribed on it. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In May 2020, a video emerged and circulated widely on social media that supposedly shows a person revealing the shocking discovery that the word 'COV-19' was inscribed on a piece of 5G equipment: But the piece of equipment featured in this video did not come from a 5G tower. This is actually a circuit board from an old set-top television box. The word 'COV-19' is also inauthentic. The above-displayed video deals with a widespread (and repeatedly debunked) conspiracy theory that the COVID-19 coronavirus disease was being spread by 5G cellular towers. This is not true. This conspiracy theory is a blend of two other false notions about mobile technology and the COVID-19 global pandemic. First, some people have been expressing concern over the impact of mobile technology on human health for years. These concerns are largely overblown, however, as research from such entities as the World Health Organization has shown that 'no adverse health effect has been causally linked with exposure to wireless technologies.' Second, a number of conspiracy theories concerning the origins of COVID-19 have been floated since the beginning of the pandemic, including the far-fetched idea that the disease was a 'bio-weapon.' This, again, is not true. At some point, conspiracy theorists started to tap into general fears about mobile technology in order to spread unfounded rumors about the spread of COVID-19. The man in this video claims he is not an adherent of these conspiracy theories, but mentions that he also can't explain why 'COV-19' was written on a piece of 5G equipment. He states: 'I don't really know any product by any company that produces circuitry like this that has the brand name COV-19, but that's what it says on the fucking circuit board. I'm not a fucking conspiracy theorist, but obviously I've read all that stuff online about coronavirus and COVID-19, but why the fuck are they putting circuitry like that in towers like that?' But this piece of equipment was not taken from a 5G tower, and the word 'COV-19' was likely added to this circuit board in an attempt to falsify 'evidence' for this conspiracy theory. While this video never provides a truly clear glimpse of this piece of equipment, we were able to glean some details by taking screenshots from the video. At one point, for instance, the name of the company that actually manufactured this device (Hannstar) can be seen: Hannstar does not manufacture 5G equipment. Hannstar is a Taiwan-based company that makes television parts and computer monitors. We reached out to Hannstar for help identifying this specific piece of equipment and will update this article if more information becomes available. Reuters reported that this circuit board was taken from an old Virgin Media box for cable television. A spokesperson for Virgin Media confirmed to the news outlet where this circuit board came from, saying: 'That is a board from a very old set top TV box and which never featured any component parts inscribed/stamped/printed or otherwise with COV 19. It has absolutely no relation with any mobile network infrastructure, including that used for 5G.' In addition to the word 'Hannstar' being visible on this device and a Virgin Media spokesperson identifying this item as an old TV circuit board, this board also features ports related to television, not mobile technology, such as a SCART plug, a 21-pin connector for connecting pieces of audio-visual equipment: In sum, this video does not show 'COV-19' inscribed on a piece of 5G equipment but rather a person holding an old circuit board for a television that had 'COV-19' added to it. That is why this claim is rated 'False.' | In sum, this video does not show 'COV-19' inscribed on a piece of 5G equipment but rather a person holding an old circuit board for a television that had 'COV-19' added to it. That is why this claim is rated 'False.' | []
|
A video shows a piece of 5G equipment with 'COV-19' inscribed on it. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In May 2020, a video emerged and circulated widely on social media that supposedly shows a person revealing the shocking discovery that the word 'COV-19' was inscribed on a piece of 5G equipment: But the piece of equipment featured in this video did not come from a 5G tower. This is actually a circuit board from an old set-top television box. The word 'COV-19' is also inauthentic. The above-displayed video deals with a widespread (and repeatedly debunked) conspiracy theory that the COVID-19 coronavirus disease was being spread by 5G cellular towers. This is not true. This conspiracy theory is a blend of two other false notions about mobile technology and the COVID-19 global pandemic. First, some people have been expressing concern over the impact of mobile technology on human health for years. These concerns are largely overblown, however, as research from such entities as the World Health Organization has shown that 'no adverse health effect has been causally linked with exposure to wireless technologies.' Second, a number of conspiracy theories concerning the origins of COVID-19 have been floated since the beginning of the pandemic, including the far-fetched idea that the disease was a 'bio-weapon.' This, again, is not true. At some point, conspiracy theorists started to tap into general fears about mobile technology in order to spread unfounded rumors about the spread of COVID-19. The man in this video claims he is not an adherent of these conspiracy theories, but mentions that he also can't explain why 'COV-19' was written on a piece of 5G equipment. He states: 'I don't really know any product by any company that produces circuitry like this that has the brand name COV-19, but that's what it says on the fucking circuit board. I'm not a fucking conspiracy theorist, but obviously I've read all that stuff online about coronavirus and COVID-19, but why the fuck are they putting circuitry like that in towers like that?' But this piece of equipment was not taken from a 5G tower, and the word 'COV-19' was likely added to this circuit board in an attempt to falsify 'evidence' for this conspiracy theory. While this video never provides a truly clear glimpse of this piece of equipment, we were able to glean some details by taking screenshots from the video. At one point, for instance, the name of the company that actually manufactured this device (Hannstar) can be seen: Hannstar does not manufacture 5G equipment. Hannstar is a Taiwan-based company that makes television parts and computer monitors. We reached out to Hannstar for help identifying this specific piece of equipment and will update this article if more information becomes available. Reuters reported that this circuit board was taken from an old Virgin Media box for cable television. A spokesperson for Virgin Media confirmed to the news outlet where this circuit board came from, saying: 'That is a board from a very old set top TV box and which never featured any component parts inscribed/stamped/printed or otherwise with COV 19. It has absolutely no relation with any mobile network infrastructure, including that used for 5G.' In addition to the word 'Hannstar' being visible on this device and a Virgin Media spokesperson identifying this item as an old TV circuit board, this board also features ports related to television, not mobile technology, such as a SCART plug, a 21-pin connector for connecting pieces of audio-visual equipment: In sum, this video does not show 'COV-19' inscribed on a piece of 5G equipment but rather a person holding an old circuit board for a television that had 'COV-19' added to it. That is why this claim is rated 'False.' | In sum, this video does not show 'COV-19' inscribed on a piece of 5G equipment but rather a person holding an old circuit board for a television that had 'COV-19' added to it. That is why this claim is rated 'False.' | []
|
Government officials, law enforcement, billionaires, or antifa groups nefariously placed pallets of bricks at protest sites in U.S. cities to stoke violence during June 2020 demonstrations against police brutality. | Contradiction | As American cities erupted in protests against racism and police brutality following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020, social media users began spreading posts alleging that some group - or person - with nefarious intentions had coordinated a scheme to incite and abet violence during the demonstrations by pre-placing piles of bricks along protest routes. The claim could be summarized like this: Government officials, law enforcement, billionaires, or protesters themselves had strategically placed caches of cinder blocks in cities nationwide - including Boston, Dallas, Kansas City, and New York City - so protesters could quickly grab the bricks and break windows or cause other property damage. Among the most popular posts was a video of someone who recorded a pile of bricks purportedly near a Dallas courthouse and called the pallets a 'setup' while another person claimed, 'they put them there on purpose, bro.'' It is unequivocally true that protesters in many major U.S. cities used bricks to cause destruction (or, in some cases, to injure police) during the protests against police brutality following the death of George Floyd - a 46-year-old, unarmed black man who died after a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes. But less is known about where, or from whom, the protesters got the bricks, and if the rumors on social media alleging a coordinated scheme on behalf of government, activists, or a powerful figure had any truth. What follows is a multi-prong examination into the claim. First, we describe the different groups behind the assertion, and then we investigate this specific theory: that the government, police, or another powerful entity formed a scheme to pre-place the bricks along protest routes so officers could retaliate against people who used them or to incite destruction. Lastly, we examine the possibility that the bricks were strategically placed on streets by protesters themselves. Who Is Making the Claim? An array of people claimed pallets of bricks appeared in protest hot spots as some nefarious scheme, essentially forming three distinct groups that blamed different entities or people for the alleged conspiracy. First, some people said police officers or government authorities pre-placed the stacks of bricks to create what protesters called a 'trap' set up by officers to quickly catch anyone who used them and have a reason to use excessive force. Many believers of that theory used the hashtag #baitbricks on social media to spread awareness of the alleged government-run scheme and circulated the below-displayed poster as a safety message for protesters: Other people were less specific with where, or on whom, they were placing blame for the alleged conspiracy to undermine Americans during the protests, and the perpetrators' rationale. They included followers of the QAnon movement and accounts that suggested without any proof that billionaire investor Warren Buffet, Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, or financier George Soros owned the bricks and created a master plan to instigate violence. For instance, the Twitter account of an anti-vaccine advocate claimed in a June 2 video that went viral: The brick pallets are being dropped off for the rioters and antifa by Acme brick company - guess who owns ACME brick company, Berkshire Hathaway and Bill Gates recently stepped down from the board. It's also owned by the Marmon Group in Chicago who was founded by none other than Jay and Robert Pritzker and Berkshire Hathaway. Welcome to the rabbit hole. While the videographer did accurately state that Berkshire Hathaway owns the brick manufacturer, that Gates stepped down from Hathaway's board in March 2020, and that Hathaway owns the industrial holding company Marmon Group in Chicago that Jay Pritzker and Robert Pritzker founded, no evidence suggests any truth behind the video's underlying claim: that Acme Brick Company, the nation's largest brick maker, was indeed coordinating brick drop-offs for protesters. That brings us to our next point: Some accounts believed antifa (short for anti-fascist) activists - who include a variety of leftist groups that fight white supremacy and neo-Nazis - distributed the bricks on streets where they knew they would be protesting for easy access in the heat of the moment. Among that group of skeptics was a Twitter account with more than 145,000 followers to promote 'Felccas Talks' - a pro-U.S. President Donald Trump media campaign - which tweeted the following, aiming to raise suspicion among his fans that bricks seemed too convenient for protesters to simply discover: By June 1, the Daily Mail, FOXNews, and Breitbart had published stories on the phenomenon, articles that essentially recirculated the claims from social media users without attempting to examine from where the bricks originated. Had Pallets of Bricks Appeared at Protest Sites? Considering the variety and amount of video and photographic evidence that shows bricks in areas where protesters were planning to gather, or already had, we can conclusively state: Yes, pallets of bricks were indeed along protest routes in multiple U.S. cities in late May and early June 2020. But how they got there, in many cases, was less exciting than what conspiracists claimed. Per video footage, Google Maps, and other evidence, stockpiles of bricks in several cities with protests had been placed on streets long before the demonstrations following Floyd's death began, as part of a construction project in the area, or else the bricks had a destination that wasn't a protest site. In regards to that latter point, a video that was viewed more than 3.2 million times in just days (even after the user who apparently captured the footage deleted it) showed police officers in Boston preparing bricks in the bed of a pickup to allegedly drop off at protest sites, according to claims online. One Instagram caption to the footage read: They are trying to delegitimize protests and trick people into using the bricks. If people start throwing the bricks, they can use excessive force, and worse. #blacklivesmatter #acab #baitbricks But according to police authorities, viewers misinterpreted what police were doing with the bricks and where they were taking them. Per the Northeastern University Police Department (NUPD), which provides security and law enforcement for the Boston campus, the officers in the video are part of the campus force and were on a routine patrol on June 1 when they discovered a damaged brick sidewalk on a popular corridor. To prevent pedestrians from injuring themselves, the officers said they picked up the bricks, returned them to NUPD headquarters (shown in the video), and notified the city's police force about the sidewalk damage. The agency said on Twitter: Along the same lines of what appeared to be viral misinterpretations, the below-displayed photos made the rounds on social media, apparently referencing locations in Dallas. But by studying Google Map footage and other evidence related to the claim, a team of NBC journalists determined the photographs actually documented vehicles removing bricks - not leaving them on streets like the claim asserted - and the bricks had been in that location since February 2020, months before Floyd's death. A similar misunderstanding seemed to have transpired over a video titled 'Los Angeles Resident Finds Stash of Rocks by Bus Stop ... Antifa Terrorism' that shows crates of bricks along Ventura Boulevard in Sherman Oaks, California, and includes audio of the videographer saying: This whole fucking boulevard is just right, right for the fucking taking. These people are going to have a field day here. ...Everything down this whole entire boulevard is full of glass and full of stores and shopping, and you've got a shitload of bricks right there. However, a Jewish community center on the street, Chabad of Sherman Oaks, said that claim was false, and that the center was responsible for installing the crates months before the protests began as a security precaution to protect the building. A Facebook post by the synagogue said: Here is the truth: THESE ARE SECURITY BARRIERS and have been here for almost a year! Nevertheless to alleviate peoples concern that they may be vandalized and used by rioters, they were temporarily removed... Some Reports Appeared to Be Related to Construction, Not to the Demonstrations In New York City, the claim surfaced via the below-displayed tweet, which includes a video that's been viewed more than 3.7 million times and depicts protesters in Manhattan removing barricades surrounding a stack of bricks and then taking from the stockpile. The video stops before viewers see what they do with the cinder blocks, but people can be heard celebrating them. But according to our examination of the footage, construction scaffolding is nearby, suggesting that the bricks were part of an on-going construction project rather than some organized scheme. Also, a Google Map image from June 2019 confirms the presence of scaffolding and that the site is under construction. Similarly, in Frisco, Texas, where tweets claimed multiple pallets of bricks had been 'planted' near where protests were scheduled, construction crews were seen covering the bricks with tarps as an effort to keep them to complete a purported highway project - not some strategic plan to instigate protesters. In response to another report in that city, the Frisco Police Department said a pile was part of a housing construction project near protesters' scheduled route, and police removed those stacks from the area to avoid any temptation by protesters. Frisco police Sgt. Evan Mattei told The Associated Press: 'At this point, our department has no intelligence to suggest that any bricks have been placed on this specific route in advance of this protest for violent purposes.' On that same point, the San Francisco Police Department said pallets of bricks that social media users believed to be 'an attempt to escalate our protest' were part of a construction project, and the department asked the contractor to remove them from the street. A similar story played out in Fort Myers, Florida, where city officials told the local NBC news station the bricks in question were part of a project to install optic fiber in the area. 'The bricks have been here for a long time,' said a resident, who works in the downtown area. Meanwhile, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, someone recorded a video in which viewers can see protesters and what the narrator called 'some random-ass bricks' near them. But those stacks, too, had apparently been in the area before demonstrations began and were part of a project to improve the walkway for pedestrians. A video that was uploaded to YouTube on May 24 (the day before Floyd's death) about the city's reopening during the COVID-19 pandemic confirmed this theory (it shows the bricks), as well as a 2018 document called 'Fayetteville comprehensive pedestrian plan' that listed the site as one in need of crosswalk and signal improvements. Additionally, BBC misinformation specialists confirmed with the city of Fayetteville that construction crews had placed the bricks on the sidewalk recently for restoration work. Might Protesters Have Purposefully Placed Stockpiles of Bricks on Streets? Those misunderstandings aside, at least two government-run departments - the Kansas City Police and Houston Public Works - said they had received and investigated reports of 'bricks and rocks' during the demonstrations. The former agency - without providing photographic evidence or further details - suggested the 'stashes' were purposefully placed 'to be used during a riot,' essentially suggesting an effort by someone or a group to cause property destruction with the cinder blocks. Furthermore, in reference to the claims that protesters, perhaps those who consider themselves anti-fascists, had pre-placed the bricks, it is important to note that not all activists who resist fascism use weapons or cause property destruction during protests. However, some antifa members believe any violence that does occur during protests is a form of self-defense to combat extreme right-wing ideologies. 'Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,' which historian Mark Bray published in 2017 and explores the movement since the 1920s, includes several instances during protests in which followers of the leftist ideas hurled bricks or had the cinder blocks thrown at them. One group in a newsletter described its activism strategy as: In sum, since no evidence suggests there was a coordinated effort on behalf of government entities or billionaires to pre-place bricks on protest routes to incite violence during the 2020 demonstrations against police brutality, and considering the amount and variety of proof that showed many of the reports of suspicious bricks on social media were misunderstandings, we rate this claim 'Mostly False' - with the caveat that it is possible that antifa members or other protesters could have strategically placed bricks in easily accessible spots to facilitate causing property damage. | In sum, since no evidence suggests there was a coordinated effort on behalf of government entities or billionaires to pre-place bricks on protest routes to incite violence during the 2020 demonstrations against police brutality, and considering the amount and variety of proof that showed many of the reports of suspicious bricks on social media were misunderstandings, we rate this claim 'Mostly False' - with the caveat that it is possible that antifa members or other protesters could have strategically placed bricks in easily accessible spots to facilitate causing property damage. | [
"14769-proof-16-EZgOIR1XQAEjp-Z.jpeg"
]
|
Government officials, law enforcement, billionaires, or antifa groups nefariously placed pallets of bricks at protest sites in U.S. cities to stoke violence during June 2020 demonstrations against police brutality. | Contradiction | As American cities erupted in protests against racism and police brutality following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020, social media users began spreading posts alleging that some group - or person - with nefarious intentions had coordinated a scheme to incite and abet violence during the demonstrations by pre-placing piles of bricks along protest routes. The claim could be summarized like this: Government officials, law enforcement, billionaires, or protesters themselves had strategically placed caches of cinder blocks in cities nationwide - including Boston, Dallas, Kansas City, and New York City - so protesters could quickly grab the bricks and break windows or cause other property damage. Among the most popular posts was a video of someone who recorded a pile of bricks purportedly near a Dallas courthouse and called the pallets a 'setup' while another person claimed, 'they put them there on purpose, bro.'' It is unequivocally true that protesters in many major U.S. cities used bricks to cause destruction (or, in some cases, to injure police) during the protests against police brutality following the death of George Floyd - a 46-year-old, unarmed black man who died after a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes. But less is known about where, or from whom, the protesters got the bricks, and if the rumors on social media alleging a coordinated scheme on behalf of government, activists, or a powerful figure had any truth. What follows is a multi-prong examination into the claim. First, we describe the different groups behind the assertion, and then we investigate this specific theory: that the government, police, or another powerful entity formed a scheme to pre-place the bricks along protest routes so officers could retaliate against people who used them or to incite destruction. Lastly, we examine the possibility that the bricks were strategically placed on streets by protesters themselves. Who Is Making the Claim? An array of people claimed pallets of bricks appeared in protest hot spots as some nefarious scheme, essentially forming three distinct groups that blamed different entities or people for the alleged conspiracy. First, some people said police officers or government authorities pre-placed the stacks of bricks to create what protesters called a 'trap' set up by officers to quickly catch anyone who used them and have a reason to use excessive force. Many believers of that theory used the hashtag #baitbricks on social media to spread awareness of the alleged government-run scheme and circulated the below-displayed poster as a safety message for protesters: Other people were less specific with where, or on whom, they were placing blame for the alleged conspiracy to undermine Americans during the protests, and the perpetrators' rationale. They included followers of the QAnon movement and accounts that suggested without any proof that billionaire investor Warren Buffet, Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, or financier George Soros owned the bricks and created a master plan to instigate violence. For instance, the Twitter account of an anti-vaccine advocate claimed in a June 2 video that went viral: The brick pallets are being dropped off for the rioters and antifa by Acme brick company - guess who owns ACME brick company, Berkshire Hathaway and Bill Gates recently stepped down from the board. It's also owned by the Marmon Group in Chicago who was founded by none other than Jay and Robert Pritzker and Berkshire Hathaway. Welcome to the rabbit hole. While the videographer did accurately state that Berkshire Hathaway owns the brick manufacturer, that Gates stepped down from Hathaway's board in March 2020, and that Hathaway owns the industrial holding company Marmon Group in Chicago that Jay Pritzker and Robert Pritzker founded, no evidence suggests any truth behind the video's underlying claim: that Acme Brick Company, the nation's largest brick maker, was indeed coordinating brick drop-offs for protesters. That brings us to our next point: Some accounts believed antifa (short for anti-fascist) activists - who include a variety of leftist groups that fight white supremacy and neo-Nazis - distributed the bricks on streets where they knew they would be protesting for easy access in the heat of the moment. Among that group of skeptics was a Twitter account with more than 145,000 followers to promote 'Felccas Talks' - a pro-U.S. President Donald Trump media campaign - which tweeted the following, aiming to raise suspicion among his fans that bricks seemed too convenient for protesters to simply discover: By June 1, the Daily Mail, FOXNews, and Breitbart had published stories on the phenomenon, articles that essentially recirculated the claims from social media users without attempting to examine from where the bricks originated. Had Pallets of Bricks Appeared at Protest Sites? Considering the variety and amount of video and photographic evidence that shows bricks in areas where protesters were planning to gather, or already had, we can conclusively state: Yes, pallets of bricks were indeed along protest routes in multiple U.S. cities in late May and early June 2020. But how they got there, in many cases, was less exciting than what conspiracists claimed. Per video footage, Google Maps, and other evidence, stockpiles of bricks in several cities with protests had been placed on streets long before the demonstrations following Floyd's death began, as part of a construction project in the area, or else the bricks had a destination that wasn't a protest site. In regards to that latter point, a video that was viewed more than 3.2 million times in just days (even after the user who apparently captured the footage deleted it) showed police officers in Boston preparing bricks in the bed of a pickup to allegedly drop off at protest sites, according to claims online. One Instagram caption to the footage read: They are trying to delegitimize protests and trick people into using the bricks. If people start throwing the bricks, they can use excessive force, and worse. #blacklivesmatter #acab #baitbricks But according to police authorities, viewers misinterpreted what police were doing with the bricks and where they were taking them. Per the Northeastern University Police Department (NUPD), which provides security and law enforcement for the Boston campus, the officers in the video are part of the campus force and were on a routine patrol on June 1 when they discovered a damaged brick sidewalk on a popular corridor. To prevent pedestrians from injuring themselves, the officers said they picked up the bricks, returned them to NUPD headquarters (shown in the video), and notified the city's police force about the sidewalk damage. The agency said on Twitter: Along the same lines of what appeared to be viral misinterpretations, the below-displayed photos made the rounds on social media, apparently referencing locations in Dallas. But by studying Google Map footage and other evidence related to the claim, a team of NBC journalists determined the photographs actually documented vehicles removing bricks - not leaving them on streets like the claim asserted - and the bricks had been in that location since February 2020, months before Floyd's death. A similar misunderstanding seemed to have transpired over a video titled 'Los Angeles Resident Finds Stash of Rocks by Bus Stop ... Antifa Terrorism' that shows crates of bricks along Ventura Boulevard in Sherman Oaks, California, and includes audio of the videographer saying: This whole fucking boulevard is just right, right for the fucking taking. These people are going to have a field day here. ...Everything down this whole entire boulevard is full of glass and full of stores and shopping, and you've got a shitload of bricks right there. However, a Jewish community center on the street, Chabad of Sherman Oaks, said that claim was false, and that the center was responsible for installing the crates months before the protests began as a security precaution to protect the building. A Facebook post by the synagogue said: Here is the truth: THESE ARE SECURITY BARRIERS and have been here for almost a year! Nevertheless to alleviate peoples concern that they may be vandalized and used by rioters, they were temporarily removed... Some Reports Appeared to Be Related to Construction, Not to the Demonstrations In New York City, the claim surfaced via the below-displayed tweet, which includes a video that's been viewed more than 3.7 million times and depicts protesters in Manhattan removing barricades surrounding a stack of bricks and then taking from the stockpile. The video stops before viewers see what they do with the cinder blocks, but people can be heard celebrating them. But according to our examination of the footage, construction scaffolding is nearby, suggesting that the bricks were part of an on-going construction project rather than some organized scheme. Also, a Google Map image from June 2019 confirms the presence of scaffolding and that the site is under construction. Similarly, in Frisco, Texas, where tweets claimed multiple pallets of bricks had been 'planted' near where protests were scheduled, construction crews were seen covering the bricks with tarps as an effort to keep them to complete a purported highway project - not some strategic plan to instigate protesters. In response to another report in that city, the Frisco Police Department said a pile was part of a housing construction project near protesters' scheduled route, and police removed those stacks from the area to avoid any temptation by protesters. Frisco police Sgt. Evan Mattei told The Associated Press: 'At this point, our department has no intelligence to suggest that any bricks have been placed on this specific route in advance of this protest for violent purposes.' On that same point, the San Francisco Police Department said pallets of bricks that social media users believed to be 'an attempt to escalate our protest' were part of a construction project, and the department asked the contractor to remove them from the street. A similar story played out in Fort Myers, Florida, where city officials told the local NBC news station the bricks in question were part of a project to install optic fiber in the area. 'The bricks have been here for a long time,' said a resident, who works in the downtown area. Meanwhile, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, someone recorded a video in which viewers can see protesters and what the narrator called 'some random-ass bricks' near them. But those stacks, too, had apparently been in the area before demonstrations began and were part of a project to improve the walkway for pedestrians. A video that was uploaded to YouTube on May 24 (the day before Floyd's death) about the city's reopening during the COVID-19 pandemic confirmed this theory (it shows the bricks), as well as a 2018 document called 'Fayetteville comprehensive pedestrian plan' that listed the site as one in need of crosswalk and signal improvements. Additionally, BBC misinformation specialists confirmed with the city of Fayetteville that construction crews had placed the bricks on the sidewalk recently for restoration work. Might Protesters Have Purposefully Placed Stockpiles of Bricks on Streets? Those misunderstandings aside, at least two government-run departments - the Kansas City Police and Houston Public Works - said they had received and investigated reports of 'bricks and rocks' during the demonstrations. The former agency - without providing photographic evidence or further details - suggested the 'stashes' were purposefully placed 'to be used during a riot,' essentially suggesting an effort by someone or a group to cause property destruction with the cinder blocks. Furthermore, in reference to the claims that protesters, perhaps those who consider themselves anti-fascists, had pre-placed the bricks, it is important to note that not all activists who resist fascism use weapons or cause property destruction during protests. However, some antifa members believe any violence that does occur during protests is a form of self-defense to combat extreme right-wing ideologies. 'Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,' which historian Mark Bray published in 2017 and explores the movement since the 1920s, includes several instances during protests in which followers of the leftist ideas hurled bricks or had the cinder blocks thrown at them. One group in a newsletter described its activism strategy as: In sum, since no evidence suggests there was a coordinated effort on behalf of government entities or billionaires to pre-place bricks on protest routes to incite violence during the 2020 demonstrations against police brutality, and considering the amount and variety of proof that showed many of the reports of suspicious bricks on social media were misunderstandings, we rate this claim 'Mostly False' - with the caveat that it is possible that antifa members or other protesters could have strategically placed bricks in easily accessible spots to facilitate causing property damage. | In sum, since no evidence suggests there was a coordinated effort on behalf of government entities or billionaires to pre-place bricks on protest routes to incite violence during the 2020 demonstrations against police brutality, and considering the amount and variety of proof that showed many of the reports of suspicious bricks on social media were misunderstandings, we rate this claim 'Mostly False' - with the caveat that it is possible that antifa members or other protesters could have strategically placed bricks in easily accessible spots to facilitate causing property damage. | [
"14769-proof-16-EZgOIR1XQAEjp-Z.jpeg"
]
|
Government officials, law enforcement, billionaires, or antifa groups nefariously placed pallets of bricks at protest sites in U.S. cities to stoke violence during June 2020 demonstrations against police brutality. | Contradiction | As American cities erupted in protests against racism and police brutality following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020, social media users began spreading posts alleging that some group - or person - with nefarious intentions had coordinated a scheme to incite and abet violence during the demonstrations by pre-placing piles of bricks along protest routes. The claim could be summarized like this: Government officials, law enforcement, billionaires, or protesters themselves had strategically placed caches of cinder blocks in cities nationwide - including Boston, Dallas, Kansas City, and New York City - so protesters could quickly grab the bricks and break windows or cause other property damage. Among the most popular posts was a video of someone who recorded a pile of bricks purportedly near a Dallas courthouse and called the pallets a 'setup' while another person claimed, 'they put them there on purpose, bro.'' It is unequivocally true that protesters in many major U.S. cities used bricks to cause destruction (or, in some cases, to injure police) during the protests against police brutality following the death of George Floyd - a 46-year-old, unarmed black man who died after a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes. But less is known about where, or from whom, the protesters got the bricks, and if the rumors on social media alleging a coordinated scheme on behalf of government, activists, or a powerful figure had any truth. What follows is a multi-prong examination into the claim. First, we describe the different groups behind the assertion, and then we investigate this specific theory: that the government, police, or another powerful entity formed a scheme to pre-place the bricks along protest routes so officers could retaliate against people who used them or to incite destruction. Lastly, we examine the possibility that the bricks were strategically placed on streets by protesters themselves. Who Is Making the Claim? An array of people claimed pallets of bricks appeared in protest hot spots as some nefarious scheme, essentially forming three distinct groups that blamed different entities or people for the alleged conspiracy. First, some people said police officers or government authorities pre-placed the stacks of bricks to create what protesters called a 'trap' set up by officers to quickly catch anyone who used them and have a reason to use excessive force. Many believers of that theory used the hashtag #baitbricks on social media to spread awareness of the alleged government-run scheme and circulated the below-displayed poster as a safety message for protesters: Other people were less specific with where, or on whom, they were placing blame for the alleged conspiracy to undermine Americans during the protests, and the perpetrators' rationale. They included followers of the QAnon movement and accounts that suggested without any proof that billionaire investor Warren Buffet, Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, or financier George Soros owned the bricks and created a master plan to instigate violence. For instance, the Twitter account of an anti-vaccine advocate claimed in a June 2 video that went viral: The brick pallets are being dropped off for the rioters and antifa by Acme brick company - guess who owns ACME brick company, Berkshire Hathaway and Bill Gates recently stepped down from the board. It's also owned by the Marmon Group in Chicago who was founded by none other than Jay and Robert Pritzker and Berkshire Hathaway. Welcome to the rabbit hole. While the videographer did accurately state that Berkshire Hathaway owns the brick manufacturer, that Gates stepped down from Hathaway's board in March 2020, and that Hathaway owns the industrial holding company Marmon Group in Chicago that Jay Pritzker and Robert Pritzker founded, no evidence suggests any truth behind the video's underlying claim: that Acme Brick Company, the nation's largest brick maker, was indeed coordinating brick drop-offs for protesters. That brings us to our next point: Some accounts believed antifa (short for anti-fascist) activists - who include a variety of leftist groups that fight white supremacy and neo-Nazis - distributed the bricks on streets where they knew they would be protesting for easy access in the heat of the moment. Among that group of skeptics was a Twitter account with more than 145,000 followers to promote 'Felccas Talks' - a pro-U.S. President Donald Trump media campaign - which tweeted the following, aiming to raise suspicion among his fans that bricks seemed too convenient for protesters to simply discover: By June 1, the Daily Mail, FOXNews, and Breitbart had published stories on the phenomenon, articles that essentially recirculated the claims from social media users without attempting to examine from where the bricks originated. Had Pallets of Bricks Appeared at Protest Sites? Considering the variety and amount of video and photographic evidence that shows bricks in areas where protesters were planning to gather, or already had, we can conclusively state: Yes, pallets of bricks were indeed along protest routes in multiple U.S. cities in late May and early June 2020. But how they got there, in many cases, was less exciting than what conspiracists claimed. Per video footage, Google Maps, and other evidence, stockpiles of bricks in several cities with protests had been placed on streets long before the demonstrations following Floyd's death began, as part of a construction project in the area, or else the bricks had a destination that wasn't a protest site. In regards to that latter point, a video that was viewed more than 3.2 million times in just days (even after the user who apparently captured the footage deleted it) showed police officers in Boston preparing bricks in the bed of a pickup to allegedly drop off at protest sites, according to claims online. One Instagram caption to the footage read: They are trying to delegitimize protests and trick people into using the bricks. If people start throwing the bricks, they can use excessive force, and worse. #blacklivesmatter #acab #baitbricks But according to police authorities, viewers misinterpreted what police were doing with the bricks and where they were taking them. Per the Northeastern University Police Department (NUPD), which provides security and law enforcement for the Boston campus, the officers in the video are part of the campus force and were on a routine patrol on June 1 when they discovered a damaged brick sidewalk on a popular corridor. To prevent pedestrians from injuring themselves, the officers said they picked up the bricks, returned them to NUPD headquarters (shown in the video), and notified the city's police force about the sidewalk damage. The agency said on Twitter: Along the same lines of what appeared to be viral misinterpretations, the below-displayed photos made the rounds on social media, apparently referencing locations in Dallas. But by studying Google Map footage and other evidence related to the claim, a team of NBC journalists determined the photographs actually documented vehicles removing bricks - not leaving them on streets like the claim asserted - and the bricks had been in that location since February 2020, months before Floyd's death. A similar misunderstanding seemed to have transpired over a video titled 'Los Angeles Resident Finds Stash of Rocks by Bus Stop ... Antifa Terrorism' that shows crates of bricks along Ventura Boulevard in Sherman Oaks, California, and includes audio of the videographer saying: This whole fucking boulevard is just right, right for the fucking taking. These people are going to have a field day here. ...Everything down this whole entire boulevard is full of glass and full of stores and shopping, and you've got a shitload of bricks right there. However, a Jewish community center on the street, Chabad of Sherman Oaks, said that claim was false, and that the center was responsible for installing the crates months before the protests began as a security precaution to protect the building. A Facebook post by the synagogue said: Here is the truth: THESE ARE SECURITY BARRIERS and have been here for almost a year! Nevertheless to alleviate peoples concern that they may be vandalized and used by rioters, they were temporarily removed... Some Reports Appeared to Be Related to Construction, Not to the Demonstrations In New York City, the claim surfaced via the below-displayed tweet, which includes a video that's been viewed more than 3.7 million times and depicts protesters in Manhattan removing barricades surrounding a stack of bricks and then taking from the stockpile. The video stops before viewers see what they do with the cinder blocks, but people can be heard celebrating them. But according to our examination of the footage, construction scaffolding is nearby, suggesting that the bricks were part of an on-going construction project rather than some organized scheme. Also, a Google Map image from June 2019 confirms the presence of scaffolding and that the site is under construction. Similarly, in Frisco, Texas, where tweets claimed multiple pallets of bricks had been 'planted' near where protests were scheduled, construction crews were seen covering the bricks with tarps as an effort to keep them to complete a purported highway project - not some strategic plan to instigate protesters. In response to another report in that city, the Frisco Police Department said a pile was part of a housing construction project near protesters' scheduled route, and police removed those stacks from the area to avoid any temptation by protesters. Frisco police Sgt. Evan Mattei told The Associated Press: 'At this point, our department has no intelligence to suggest that any bricks have been placed on this specific route in advance of this protest for violent purposes.' On that same point, the San Francisco Police Department said pallets of bricks that social media users believed to be 'an attempt to escalate our protest' were part of a construction project, and the department asked the contractor to remove them from the street. A similar story played out in Fort Myers, Florida, where city officials told the local NBC news station the bricks in question were part of a project to install optic fiber in the area. 'The bricks have been here for a long time,' said a resident, who works in the downtown area. Meanwhile, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, someone recorded a video in which viewers can see protesters and what the narrator called 'some random-ass bricks' near them. But those stacks, too, had apparently been in the area before demonstrations began and were part of a project to improve the walkway for pedestrians. A video that was uploaded to YouTube on May 24 (the day before Floyd's death) about the city's reopening during the COVID-19 pandemic confirmed this theory (it shows the bricks), as well as a 2018 document called 'Fayetteville comprehensive pedestrian plan' that listed the site as one in need of crosswalk and signal improvements. Additionally, BBC misinformation specialists confirmed with the city of Fayetteville that construction crews had placed the bricks on the sidewalk recently for restoration work. Might Protesters Have Purposefully Placed Stockpiles of Bricks on Streets? Those misunderstandings aside, at least two government-run departments - the Kansas City Police and Houston Public Works - said they had received and investigated reports of 'bricks and rocks' during the demonstrations. The former agency - without providing photographic evidence or further details - suggested the 'stashes' were purposefully placed 'to be used during a riot,' essentially suggesting an effort by someone or a group to cause property destruction with the cinder blocks. Furthermore, in reference to the claims that protesters, perhaps those who consider themselves anti-fascists, had pre-placed the bricks, it is important to note that not all activists who resist fascism use weapons or cause property destruction during protests. However, some antifa members believe any violence that does occur during protests is a form of self-defense to combat extreme right-wing ideologies. 'Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,' which historian Mark Bray published in 2017 and explores the movement since the 1920s, includes several instances during protests in which followers of the leftist ideas hurled bricks or had the cinder blocks thrown at them. One group in a newsletter described its activism strategy as: In sum, since no evidence suggests there was a coordinated effort on behalf of government entities or billionaires to pre-place bricks on protest routes to incite violence during the 2020 demonstrations against police brutality, and considering the amount and variety of proof that showed many of the reports of suspicious bricks on social media were misunderstandings, we rate this claim 'Mostly False' - with the caveat that it is possible that antifa members or other protesters could have strategically placed bricks in easily accessible spots to facilitate causing property damage. | In sum, since no evidence suggests there was a coordinated effort on behalf of government entities or billionaires to pre-place bricks on protest routes to incite violence during the 2020 demonstrations against police brutality, and considering the amount and variety of proof that showed many of the reports of suspicious bricks on social media were misunderstandings, we rate this claim 'Mostly False' - with the caveat that it is possible that antifa members or other protesters could have strategically placed bricks in easily accessible spots to facilitate causing property damage. | [
"14769-proof-16-EZgOIR1XQAEjp-Z.jpeg"
]
|
Government officials, law enforcement, billionaires, or antifa groups nefariously placed pallets of bricks at protest sites in U.S. cities to stoke violence during June 2020 demonstrations against police brutality. | Contradiction | As American cities erupted in protests against racism and police brutality following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020, social media users began spreading posts alleging that some group - or person - with nefarious intentions had coordinated a scheme to incite and abet violence during the demonstrations by pre-placing piles of bricks along protest routes. The claim could be summarized like this: Government officials, law enforcement, billionaires, or protesters themselves had strategically placed caches of cinder blocks in cities nationwide - including Boston, Dallas, Kansas City, and New York City - so protesters could quickly grab the bricks and break windows or cause other property damage. Among the most popular posts was a video of someone who recorded a pile of bricks purportedly near a Dallas courthouse and called the pallets a 'setup' while another person claimed, 'they put them there on purpose, bro.'' It is unequivocally true that protesters in many major U.S. cities used bricks to cause destruction (or, in some cases, to injure police) during the protests against police brutality following the death of George Floyd - a 46-year-old, unarmed black man who died after a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes. But less is known about where, or from whom, the protesters got the bricks, and if the rumors on social media alleging a coordinated scheme on behalf of government, activists, or a powerful figure had any truth. What follows is a multi-prong examination into the claim. First, we describe the different groups behind the assertion, and then we investigate this specific theory: that the government, police, or another powerful entity formed a scheme to pre-place the bricks along protest routes so officers could retaliate against people who used them or to incite destruction. Lastly, we examine the possibility that the bricks were strategically placed on streets by protesters themselves. Who Is Making the Claim? An array of people claimed pallets of bricks appeared in protest hot spots as some nefarious scheme, essentially forming three distinct groups that blamed different entities or people for the alleged conspiracy. First, some people said police officers or government authorities pre-placed the stacks of bricks to create what protesters called a 'trap' set up by officers to quickly catch anyone who used them and have a reason to use excessive force. Many believers of that theory used the hashtag #baitbricks on social media to spread awareness of the alleged government-run scheme and circulated the below-displayed poster as a safety message for protesters: Other people were less specific with where, or on whom, they were placing blame for the alleged conspiracy to undermine Americans during the protests, and the perpetrators' rationale. They included followers of the QAnon movement and accounts that suggested without any proof that billionaire investor Warren Buffet, Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, or financier George Soros owned the bricks and created a master plan to instigate violence. For instance, the Twitter account of an anti-vaccine advocate claimed in a June 2 video that went viral: The brick pallets are being dropped off for the rioters and antifa by Acme brick company - guess who owns ACME brick company, Berkshire Hathaway and Bill Gates recently stepped down from the board. It's also owned by the Marmon Group in Chicago who was founded by none other than Jay and Robert Pritzker and Berkshire Hathaway. Welcome to the rabbit hole. While the videographer did accurately state that Berkshire Hathaway owns the brick manufacturer, that Gates stepped down from Hathaway's board in March 2020, and that Hathaway owns the industrial holding company Marmon Group in Chicago that Jay Pritzker and Robert Pritzker founded, no evidence suggests any truth behind the video's underlying claim: that Acme Brick Company, the nation's largest brick maker, was indeed coordinating brick drop-offs for protesters. That brings us to our next point: Some accounts believed antifa (short for anti-fascist) activists - who include a variety of leftist groups that fight white supremacy and neo-Nazis - distributed the bricks on streets where they knew they would be protesting for easy access in the heat of the moment. Among that group of skeptics was a Twitter account with more than 145,000 followers to promote 'Felccas Talks' - a pro-U.S. President Donald Trump media campaign - which tweeted the following, aiming to raise suspicion among his fans that bricks seemed too convenient for protesters to simply discover: By June 1, the Daily Mail, FOXNews, and Breitbart had published stories on the phenomenon, articles that essentially recirculated the claims from social media users without attempting to examine from where the bricks originated. Had Pallets of Bricks Appeared at Protest Sites? Considering the variety and amount of video and photographic evidence that shows bricks in areas where protesters were planning to gather, or already had, we can conclusively state: Yes, pallets of bricks were indeed along protest routes in multiple U.S. cities in late May and early June 2020. But how they got there, in many cases, was less exciting than what conspiracists claimed. Per video footage, Google Maps, and other evidence, stockpiles of bricks in several cities with protests had been placed on streets long before the demonstrations following Floyd's death began, as part of a construction project in the area, or else the bricks had a destination that wasn't a protest site. In regards to that latter point, a video that was viewed more than 3.2 million times in just days (even after the user who apparently captured the footage deleted it) showed police officers in Boston preparing bricks in the bed of a pickup to allegedly drop off at protest sites, according to claims online. One Instagram caption to the footage read: They are trying to delegitimize protests and trick people into using the bricks. If people start throwing the bricks, they can use excessive force, and worse. #blacklivesmatter #acab #baitbricks But according to police authorities, viewers misinterpreted what police were doing with the bricks and where they were taking them. Per the Northeastern University Police Department (NUPD), which provides security and law enforcement for the Boston campus, the officers in the video are part of the campus force and were on a routine patrol on June 1 when they discovered a damaged brick sidewalk on a popular corridor. To prevent pedestrians from injuring themselves, the officers said they picked up the bricks, returned them to NUPD headquarters (shown in the video), and notified the city's police force about the sidewalk damage. The agency said on Twitter: Along the same lines of what appeared to be viral misinterpretations, the below-displayed photos made the rounds on social media, apparently referencing locations in Dallas. But by studying Google Map footage and other evidence related to the claim, a team of NBC journalists determined the photographs actually documented vehicles removing bricks - not leaving them on streets like the claim asserted - and the bricks had been in that location since February 2020, months before Floyd's death. A similar misunderstanding seemed to have transpired over a video titled 'Los Angeles Resident Finds Stash of Rocks by Bus Stop ... Antifa Terrorism' that shows crates of bricks along Ventura Boulevard in Sherman Oaks, California, and includes audio of the videographer saying: This whole fucking boulevard is just right, right for the fucking taking. These people are going to have a field day here. ...Everything down this whole entire boulevard is full of glass and full of stores and shopping, and you've got a shitload of bricks right there. However, a Jewish community center on the street, Chabad of Sherman Oaks, said that claim was false, and that the center was responsible for installing the crates months before the protests began as a security precaution to protect the building. A Facebook post by the synagogue said: Here is the truth: THESE ARE SECURITY BARRIERS and have been here for almost a year! Nevertheless to alleviate peoples concern that they may be vandalized and used by rioters, they were temporarily removed... Some Reports Appeared to Be Related to Construction, Not to the Demonstrations In New York City, the claim surfaced via the below-displayed tweet, which includes a video that's been viewed more than 3.7 million times and depicts protesters in Manhattan removing barricades surrounding a stack of bricks and then taking from the stockpile. The video stops before viewers see what they do with the cinder blocks, but people can be heard celebrating them. But according to our examination of the footage, construction scaffolding is nearby, suggesting that the bricks were part of an on-going construction project rather than some organized scheme. Also, a Google Map image from June 2019 confirms the presence of scaffolding and that the site is under construction. Similarly, in Frisco, Texas, where tweets claimed multiple pallets of bricks had been 'planted' near where protests were scheduled, construction crews were seen covering the bricks with tarps as an effort to keep them to complete a purported highway project - not some strategic plan to instigate protesters. In response to another report in that city, the Frisco Police Department said a pile was part of a housing construction project near protesters' scheduled route, and police removed those stacks from the area to avoid any temptation by protesters. Frisco police Sgt. Evan Mattei told The Associated Press: 'At this point, our department has no intelligence to suggest that any bricks have been placed on this specific route in advance of this protest for violent purposes.' On that same point, the San Francisco Police Department said pallets of bricks that social media users believed to be 'an attempt to escalate our protest' were part of a construction project, and the department asked the contractor to remove them from the street. A similar story played out in Fort Myers, Florida, where city officials told the local NBC news station the bricks in question were part of a project to install optic fiber in the area. 'The bricks have been here for a long time,' said a resident, who works in the downtown area. Meanwhile, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, someone recorded a video in which viewers can see protesters and what the narrator called 'some random-ass bricks' near them. But those stacks, too, had apparently been in the area before demonstrations began and were part of a project to improve the walkway for pedestrians. A video that was uploaded to YouTube on May 24 (the day before Floyd's death) about the city's reopening during the COVID-19 pandemic confirmed this theory (it shows the bricks), as well as a 2018 document called 'Fayetteville comprehensive pedestrian plan' that listed the site as one in need of crosswalk and signal improvements. Additionally, BBC misinformation specialists confirmed with the city of Fayetteville that construction crews had placed the bricks on the sidewalk recently for restoration work. Might Protesters Have Purposefully Placed Stockpiles of Bricks on Streets? Those misunderstandings aside, at least two government-run departments - the Kansas City Police and Houston Public Works - said they had received and investigated reports of 'bricks and rocks' during the demonstrations. The former agency - without providing photographic evidence or further details - suggested the 'stashes' were purposefully placed 'to be used during a riot,' essentially suggesting an effort by someone or a group to cause property destruction with the cinder blocks. Furthermore, in reference to the claims that protesters, perhaps those who consider themselves anti-fascists, had pre-placed the bricks, it is important to note that not all activists who resist fascism use weapons or cause property destruction during protests. However, some antifa members believe any violence that does occur during protests is a form of self-defense to combat extreme right-wing ideologies. 'Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,' which historian Mark Bray published in 2017 and explores the movement since the 1920s, includes several instances during protests in which followers of the leftist ideas hurled bricks or had the cinder blocks thrown at them. One group in a newsletter described its activism strategy as: In sum, since no evidence suggests there was a coordinated effort on behalf of government entities or billionaires to pre-place bricks on protest routes to incite violence during the 2020 demonstrations against police brutality, and considering the amount and variety of proof that showed many of the reports of suspicious bricks on social media were misunderstandings, we rate this claim 'Mostly False' - with the caveat that it is possible that antifa members or other protesters could have strategically placed bricks in easily accessible spots to facilitate causing property damage. | In sum, since no evidence suggests there was a coordinated effort on behalf of government entities or billionaires to pre-place bricks on protest routes to incite violence during the 2020 demonstrations against police brutality, and considering the amount and variety of proof that showed many of the reports of suspicious bricks on social media were misunderstandings, we rate this claim 'Mostly False' - with the caveat that it is possible that antifa members or other protesters could have strategically placed bricks in easily accessible spots to facilitate causing property damage. | [
"14769-proof-16-EZgOIR1XQAEjp-Z.jpeg"
]
|
The bitter almond tree was banned in America in 1995 because it treats and prevents cancer. | Contradiction | In June 2016 an image macro became newly popular (likely due to a concurrent cancer conspiracy rumor) on social media, holding that the bitter almond tree had been banned across the United States since 1995 because it contains high levels of the cancer-fighting vitamin B17 (also known as Laetrile): The claim was an old and deceptively multi-layered one, asserting that the bitter almond tree had been banned across the United States, that the ban was enacted in a particular year (1995), that the banned substance contained levels of Vitamin B17 sufficient to prevent and treat cancer, and that the unspecified powers that be explicitly and unquestionably banned the plant solely because it could save people's lives by fighting cancer. First at issue is whether bitter almond trees have been banned in the U.S. (by the Food and Drug Administration or any other agency) since 1995. We found no evidence corroborating that claim outside its widespread repetition. A 2002 Los Angeles Times item referenced that rumor and concluded by stating that the FDA had only prohibited the marketing of bitter almond products for 'unrestricted use': Paul Schrade ... fell in love with [the bitter almond's] powerful, unique flavor, which gives marzipan and almond milk their characteristic taste. Even after he was told that raw bitter almonds contained a form of cyanide and were illegal in the Unites States, Schrade was fascinated. In the United States, the lack of clear information about bitter almonds' legal status has squelched their cultivation, trade and use. No stores regularly stock bitter almonds, so cooks seeking them have had to rely, like Woods, on seedling trees growing wild along streams, roads and railroad tracks. Over the years, Schrade made dozens of inquiries to federal and state health authorities about the legality of bitter almonds, but never received a definitive answer. Recently, however, a friend steered him to a Food and Drug Administration Web site that states, 'Because of their toxicity, bitter almonds may not be marketed in the United States for unrestricted use.' The agency's regulations do, however, allow almond paste and extract manufacturers to use the nuts as long as their products do not contain more than minute, safe levels of hydrocyanic acid. The FDA clarified the agency's position recently, saying that it would allow bitter almonds to be shipped interstate to professional chefs and bakers, as long as their dishes were cooked to be nontoxic. But the agency said it would take 'appropriate action' against vendors found to be selling bitter almonds to the public in such a way that they could easily be confused with regular almonds. These actions might include issuing a warning, or seizing the product. That article also noted that California's Department of Health Services (not a federal agency) regulates the cultivation and sale of bitter almonds within the state, and that both are allowed (with some caveats): The FDA regulates interstate commerce in foodstuffs, but bitter almonds grown and sold within California fall under the jurisdiction of the state's Department of Health Services, which takes a less restrictive approach to retail sales. James Waddell, acting chief of the department's Food and Drug Branch, says that the agency has no specific regulation covering bitter almonds, but that the nuts could be sold in accordance with its rule for bitter apricot kernels, which requires packages to bear labeling stating: 'may be toxic; very low quantities may cause reactions.' The upshot is, California growers and vendors are permitted to sell properly labeled packages of bitter almonds to California consumers. This is good news to Rusty Hall ... who grows both sweet and bitter almonds, which he sells at farmers markets and by mail order ... It's not hard to find bitter almond trees in local orchards, he added, but tough to convince a processor to hull and shell the nuts: California sweet almond growers, who harvested 525,000 acres last year, regard bitter almonds as contaminants. Therefore, said Hall, he'd have to wait until the end of the season to pick and process his bitter almonds separately. In fact, the rumor that bitter almond trees have been banned (rather than any actual governmental ban on them) appears to be more of a hindrance to the growth and availability of them than any real legal prohibition does: Because of the almond industry's fear of bitter nuts, it seemed impossible that anyone would dare to grow them commercially in California. But a little more than a year ago, Schrade announced triumphantly that he had found such a source: Thomas Vetsch, a Swiss American grower from Bakersfield, had a small planting of 3-year-old bitter almond trees, which were just starting to bear, as a sideline to his 1,200 acres of sweet almonds ... Vetsch and his wife, Kim, had fallen in love under an almond tree, he said. The almond project was their dream. In addition to selling bulk almonds commercially, they have a smaller venture, Mandelin, that manufactures almond pastes. A perfectionist, he had originally planted some bitter almonds so as to be able to control all the ingredients for the pastes, normally made with imported oil of bitter almond. But when he was asked to show a visitor his bitter almond trees, his expression darkened. At a recent almond industry conference, rumors that someone in Kern County was growing bitter almonds had caused a sensation. Soon thereafter, Vetsch had fired up the chain saws. That interest in bitter almonds is centered in California is unsurprising, as 82% of all almonds consumed around the world are grown in this state. We contacted the Almond Board of California for clarification about the ostensibly murky status of bitter almond trees, and that agricultural trade group affirmed that bitter almond trees continue to grow in the state of California (albeit largely ornamentally rather than commercially): In short, in California all almond trees growing in commercial orchards produce 'sweet' varieties of almonds. The sweet or bitter flavor of an almond variety depends on the genetics of the parent tree in the orchard. A 'sweet' almond tree produces sweet almonds. A 'bitter' almond tree produces bitter almonds, which are extremely bitter! Bitter almond trees are sometimes planted as ornamental trees in home gardens in California. In other parts of the world, bitter almond trees are more common and are harvested commercially. Bitter almonds are used mainly in the production of almond pastes and almond flavor extracts. The retail sale of bitter almonds is illegal in the U.S.; almond snack products sold at retail would all be sweet varieties. What the FDA has targeted is not bitter almond trees themselves, but those who use its derivative products to peddle Laetrile to cancer patients, as a 2004 agency press release explained: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the outcome of its investigative efforts by the Office of Criminal Investigations, conducted jointly with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Eastern District of New York and the New York Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), to bring to justice a businessman who had victimized cancer patients by heavily advertising and selling Laetrile, a highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer. Jason Vale, president of the New York-based Christian Brothers Contracting Corp., was sentenced on June 18, 2004 to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release by a United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York. 'There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective,' said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. 'This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines.' Following the investigation by FDA, the USAO, and the USPIS, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York placed Vale's illegal sales and promotion of Laetrile - also known as amygdalin, 'Vitamin B-17', or apricot pits - under injunction in April 2000. Defying the court order, Vale set up a shell corporation in Arizona, and continued to ship the product from the basement of his own home to customers passed on to him by his New York firm. For these activities, Vale was found guilty 11 months ago of three counts of criminal contempt, and ordered to be held without bail pending his sentencing. Last week, the court also found that Vale, who had made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of Laetrile, had committed fraud in his marketing of Laetrile. In addition, Vale defrauded the U.S. government by claiming that he qualified for Legal Aid. As a result, Vale was ordered to reimburse the government $31,000 for the costs of his appointed defense attorney. Coincidentally, the rumor that the FDA had 'banned bitter almond trees' expressly because 'they contain an [anti-cancer compound]' cropped up around the same time that particular crackdown occurred. As as the FDA's press release made quite clear, the compound issue of toxicity and false information about cancer treatments and cures were their issues of concern. In the 2004 release, the FDA highlighted instances wherein cancer patients had relied on Laetrile to a point where their illnesses were no longer treatable, and prosecution of those peddling the substance were aimed at preventing poisoning and ensuring cancer patients weren't duped into purchasing ineffective supplements. The National Cancer Institute similarly holds that 'Laetrile has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies,' and as far back as 1981 researchers noted that: Despite the promoters' contrary claims, laetrile must be one of the most thoroughly studied compounds never to have qualified for FDA approval for human investigation under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 23 different animal tumor models, laetrile has consistently failed to demonstrate any reproducible benefit. These represent all of the standard animal tumor systems and many of these studies have been carried out with extraordinary meticulousness. All currently recognized anticancer drugs have shown effectiveness in at least some of these models ... it would implicitly seem [laetrile proponents] agree laetrile cannot be shown to be effective in animal studies. The goverment's enacting a nation-wide ban on an agricultural product simply because its derivatives could be useful in preventing or fighting cancer makes no sense whatsoever outside of alternative medicine conspiracy circles who regularly assert that a power 'cancer industry' suppresses cancer cures from reaching the public in order to generate more profits for those involved in current forms of cancer diagnosis and treatment. If the U.S. had outlawed bitter almonds solely because of their efficacy in treating cancer, then we would be seeing streams of American cancer patients heading for foreign countries with no such regulation to receive treatment, but we don't. Laetrile has long since been exposed as a quack cure, not a legitimate cancer treatment. On 1 July 2016, an FDA representative responded to our inquiry and confirmed that agency doesn't have the authority to 'outlaw' vegetation of any description from growing inside the United States. The scope of their regulatory practice pertains solely to foods, drugs, and the manner in which substances are marketed, with a 2014 voluntary recall of organic raw almonds (for elevated content of naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide) serving as an example of the jurisdiction the FDA exercises with respect to food safety. It is neither true that the FDA has banned bitter almond trees nor suppressed use of the fruit they yield. Bitter almond trees are grown agriculturally in California, and although the sale of their seeds is somewhat restricted, that restriction is aimed at both preventing the peddling of an ineffective derivative to cancer patients and to protect consumers from ingesting high levels of toxic hydrocyanic acid. | In short, in California all almond trees growing in commercial orchards produce 'sweet' varieties of almonds. The sweet or bitter flavor of an almond variety depends on the genetics of the parent tree in the orchard. A 'sweet' almond tree produces sweet almonds. A 'bitter' almond tree produces bitter almonds, which are extremely bitter! Bitter almond trees are sometimes planted as ornamental trees in home gardens in California. In other parts of the world, bitter almond trees are more common and are harvested commercially. Bitter almonds are used mainly in the production of almond pastes and almond flavor extracts. The retail sale of bitter almonds is illegal in the U.S.; almond snack products sold at retail would all be sweet varieties. What the FDA has targeted is not bitter almond trees themselves, but those who use its derivative products to peddle Laetrile to cancer patients, as a 2004 agency press release explained: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the outcome of its investigative efforts by the Office of Criminal Investigations, conducted jointly with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Eastern District of New York and the New York Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), to bring to justice a businessman who had victimized cancer patients by heavily advertising and selling Laetrile, a highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer. Jason Vale, president of the New York-based Christian Brothers Contracting Corp., was sentenced on June 18, 2004 to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release by a United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York. 'There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective,' said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. 'This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines.' Following the investigation by FDA, the USAO, and the USPIS, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York placed Vale's illegal sales and promotion of Laetrile - also known as amygdalin, 'Vitamin B-17', or apricot pits - under injunction in April 2000. Defying the court order, Vale set up a shell corporation in Arizona, and continued to ship the product from the basement of his own home to customers passed on to him by his New York firm. For these activities, Vale was found guilty 11 months ago of three counts of criminal contempt, and ordered to be held without bail pending his sentencing. Last week, the court also found that Vale, who had made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of Laetrile, had committed fraud in his marketing of Laetrile. In addition, Vale defrauded the U.S. government by claiming that he qualified for Legal Aid. As a result, Vale was ordered to reimburse the government $31,000 for the costs of his appointed defense attorney. Coincidentally, the rumor that the FDA had 'banned bitter almond trees' expressly because 'they contain an [anti-cancer compound]' cropped up around the same time that particular crackdown occurred. As as the FDA's press release made quite clear, the compound issue of toxicity and false information about cancer treatments and cures were their issues of concern. In the 2004 release, the FDA highlighted instances wherein cancer patients had relied on Laetrile to a point where their illnesses were no longer treatable, and prosecution of those peddling the substance were aimed at preventing poisoning and ensuring cancer patients weren't duped into purchasing ineffective supplements. The National Cancer Institute similarly holds that 'Laetrile has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies,' and as far back as 1981 researchers noted that: Despite the promoters' contrary claims, laetrile must be one of the most thoroughly studied compounds never to have qualified for FDA approval for human investigation under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 23 different animal tumor models, laetrile has consistently failed to demonstrate any reproducible benefit. These represent all of the standard animal tumor systems and many of these studies have been carried out with extraordinary meticulousness. All currently recognized anticancer drugs have shown effectiveness in at least some of these models ... it would implicitly seem [laetrile proponents] agree laetrile cannot be shown to be effective in animal studies. The goverment's enacting a nation-wide ban on an agricultural product simply because its derivatives could be useful in preventing or fighting cancer makes no sense whatsoever outside of alternative medicine conspiracy circles who regularly assert that a power 'cancer industry' suppresses cancer cures from reaching the public in order to generate more profits for those involved in current forms of cancer diagnosis and treatment. If the U.S. had outlawed bitter almonds solely because of their efficacy in treating cancer, then we would be seeing streams of American cancer patients heading for foreign countries with no such regulation to receive treatment, but we don't. Laetrile has long since been exposed as a quack cure, not a legitimate cancer treatment. On 1 July 2016, an FDA representative responded to our inquiry and confirmed that agency doesn't have the authority to 'outlaw' vegetation of any description from growing inside the United States. The scope of their regulatory practice pertains solely to foods, drugs, and the manner in which substances are marketed, with a 2014 voluntary recall of organic raw almonds (for elevated content of naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide) serving as an example of the jurisdiction the FDA exercises with respect to food safety. It is neither true that the FDA has banned bitter almond trees nor suppressed use of the fruit they yield. Bitter almond trees are grown agriculturally in California, and although the sale of their seeds is somewhat restricted, that restriction is aimed at both preventing the peddling of an ineffective derivative to cancer patients and to protect consumers from ingesting high levels of toxic hydrocyanic acid. | []
|
The bitter almond tree was banned in America in 1995 because it treats and prevents cancer. | Contradiction | In June 2016 an image macro became newly popular (likely due to a concurrent cancer conspiracy rumor) on social media, holding that the bitter almond tree had been banned across the United States since 1995 because it contains high levels of the cancer-fighting vitamin B17 (also known as Laetrile): The claim was an old and deceptively multi-layered one, asserting that the bitter almond tree had been banned across the United States, that the ban was enacted in a particular year (1995), that the banned substance contained levels of Vitamin B17 sufficient to prevent and treat cancer, and that the unspecified powers that be explicitly and unquestionably banned the plant solely because it could save people's lives by fighting cancer. First at issue is whether bitter almond trees have been banned in the U.S. (by the Food and Drug Administration or any other agency) since 1995. We found no evidence corroborating that claim outside its widespread repetition. A 2002 Los Angeles Times item referenced that rumor and concluded by stating that the FDA had only prohibited the marketing of bitter almond products for 'unrestricted use': Paul Schrade ... fell in love with [the bitter almond's] powerful, unique flavor, which gives marzipan and almond milk their characteristic taste. Even after he was told that raw bitter almonds contained a form of cyanide and were illegal in the Unites States, Schrade was fascinated. In the United States, the lack of clear information about bitter almonds' legal status has squelched their cultivation, trade and use. No stores regularly stock bitter almonds, so cooks seeking them have had to rely, like Woods, on seedling trees growing wild along streams, roads and railroad tracks. Over the years, Schrade made dozens of inquiries to federal and state health authorities about the legality of bitter almonds, but never received a definitive answer. Recently, however, a friend steered him to a Food and Drug Administration Web site that states, 'Because of their toxicity, bitter almonds may not be marketed in the United States for unrestricted use.' The agency's regulations do, however, allow almond paste and extract manufacturers to use the nuts as long as their products do not contain more than minute, safe levels of hydrocyanic acid. The FDA clarified the agency's position recently, saying that it would allow bitter almonds to be shipped interstate to professional chefs and bakers, as long as their dishes were cooked to be nontoxic. But the agency said it would take 'appropriate action' against vendors found to be selling bitter almonds to the public in such a way that they could easily be confused with regular almonds. These actions might include issuing a warning, or seizing the product. That article also noted that California's Department of Health Services (not a federal agency) regulates the cultivation and sale of bitter almonds within the state, and that both are allowed (with some caveats): The FDA regulates interstate commerce in foodstuffs, but bitter almonds grown and sold within California fall under the jurisdiction of the state's Department of Health Services, which takes a less restrictive approach to retail sales. James Waddell, acting chief of the department's Food and Drug Branch, says that the agency has no specific regulation covering bitter almonds, but that the nuts could be sold in accordance with its rule for bitter apricot kernels, which requires packages to bear labeling stating: 'may be toxic; very low quantities may cause reactions.' The upshot is, California growers and vendors are permitted to sell properly labeled packages of bitter almonds to California consumers. This is good news to Rusty Hall ... who grows both sweet and bitter almonds, which he sells at farmers markets and by mail order ... It's not hard to find bitter almond trees in local orchards, he added, but tough to convince a processor to hull and shell the nuts: California sweet almond growers, who harvested 525,000 acres last year, regard bitter almonds as contaminants. Therefore, said Hall, he'd have to wait until the end of the season to pick and process his bitter almonds separately. In fact, the rumor that bitter almond trees have been banned (rather than any actual governmental ban on them) appears to be more of a hindrance to the growth and availability of them than any real legal prohibition does: Because of the almond industry's fear of bitter nuts, it seemed impossible that anyone would dare to grow them commercially in California. But a little more than a year ago, Schrade announced triumphantly that he had found such a source: Thomas Vetsch, a Swiss American grower from Bakersfield, had a small planting of 3-year-old bitter almond trees, which were just starting to bear, as a sideline to his 1,200 acres of sweet almonds ... Vetsch and his wife, Kim, had fallen in love under an almond tree, he said. The almond project was their dream. In addition to selling bulk almonds commercially, they have a smaller venture, Mandelin, that manufactures almond pastes. A perfectionist, he had originally planted some bitter almonds so as to be able to control all the ingredients for the pastes, normally made with imported oil of bitter almond. But when he was asked to show a visitor his bitter almond trees, his expression darkened. At a recent almond industry conference, rumors that someone in Kern County was growing bitter almonds had caused a sensation. Soon thereafter, Vetsch had fired up the chain saws. That interest in bitter almonds is centered in California is unsurprising, as 82% of all almonds consumed around the world are grown in this state. We contacted the Almond Board of California for clarification about the ostensibly murky status of bitter almond trees, and that agricultural trade group affirmed that bitter almond trees continue to grow in the state of California (albeit largely ornamentally rather than commercially): In short, in California all almond trees growing in commercial orchards produce 'sweet' varieties of almonds. The sweet or bitter flavor of an almond variety depends on the genetics of the parent tree in the orchard. A 'sweet' almond tree produces sweet almonds. A 'bitter' almond tree produces bitter almonds, which are extremely bitter! Bitter almond trees are sometimes planted as ornamental trees in home gardens in California. In other parts of the world, bitter almond trees are more common and are harvested commercially. Bitter almonds are used mainly in the production of almond pastes and almond flavor extracts. The retail sale of bitter almonds is illegal in the U.S.; almond snack products sold at retail would all be sweet varieties. What the FDA has targeted is not bitter almond trees themselves, but those who use its derivative products to peddle Laetrile to cancer patients, as a 2004 agency press release explained: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the outcome of its investigative efforts by the Office of Criminal Investigations, conducted jointly with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Eastern District of New York and the New York Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), to bring to justice a businessman who had victimized cancer patients by heavily advertising and selling Laetrile, a highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer. Jason Vale, president of the New York-based Christian Brothers Contracting Corp., was sentenced on June 18, 2004 to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release by a United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York. 'There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective,' said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. 'This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines.' Following the investigation by FDA, the USAO, and the USPIS, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York placed Vale's illegal sales and promotion of Laetrile - also known as amygdalin, 'Vitamin B-17', or apricot pits - under injunction in April 2000. Defying the court order, Vale set up a shell corporation in Arizona, and continued to ship the product from the basement of his own home to customers passed on to him by his New York firm. For these activities, Vale was found guilty 11 months ago of three counts of criminal contempt, and ordered to be held without bail pending his sentencing. Last week, the court also found that Vale, who had made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of Laetrile, had committed fraud in his marketing of Laetrile. In addition, Vale defrauded the U.S. government by claiming that he qualified for Legal Aid. As a result, Vale was ordered to reimburse the government $31,000 for the costs of his appointed defense attorney. Coincidentally, the rumor that the FDA had 'banned bitter almond trees' expressly because 'they contain an [anti-cancer compound]' cropped up around the same time that particular crackdown occurred. As as the FDA's press release made quite clear, the compound issue of toxicity and false information about cancer treatments and cures were their issues of concern. In the 2004 release, the FDA highlighted instances wherein cancer patients had relied on Laetrile to a point where their illnesses were no longer treatable, and prosecution of those peddling the substance were aimed at preventing poisoning and ensuring cancer patients weren't duped into purchasing ineffective supplements. The National Cancer Institute similarly holds that 'Laetrile has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies,' and as far back as 1981 researchers noted that: Despite the promoters' contrary claims, laetrile must be one of the most thoroughly studied compounds never to have qualified for FDA approval for human investigation under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 23 different animal tumor models, laetrile has consistently failed to demonstrate any reproducible benefit. These represent all of the standard animal tumor systems and many of these studies have been carried out with extraordinary meticulousness. All currently recognized anticancer drugs have shown effectiveness in at least some of these models ... it would implicitly seem [laetrile proponents] agree laetrile cannot be shown to be effective in animal studies. The goverment's enacting a nation-wide ban on an agricultural product simply because its derivatives could be useful in preventing or fighting cancer makes no sense whatsoever outside of alternative medicine conspiracy circles who regularly assert that a power 'cancer industry' suppresses cancer cures from reaching the public in order to generate more profits for those involved in current forms of cancer diagnosis and treatment. If the U.S. had outlawed bitter almonds solely because of their efficacy in treating cancer, then we would be seeing streams of American cancer patients heading for foreign countries with no such regulation to receive treatment, but we don't. Laetrile has long since been exposed as a quack cure, not a legitimate cancer treatment. On 1 July 2016, an FDA representative responded to our inquiry and confirmed that agency doesn't have the authority to 'outlaw' vegetation of any description from growing inside the United States. The scope of their regulatory practice pertains solely to foods, drugs, and the manner in which substances are marketed, with a 2014 voluntary recall of organic raw almonds (for elevated content of naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide) serving as an example of the jurisdiction the FDA exercises with respect to food safety. It is neither true that the FDA has banned bitter almond trees nor suppressed use of the fruit they yield. Bitter almond trees are grown agriculturally in California, and although the sale of their seeds is somewhat restricted, that restriction is aimed at both preventing the peddling of an ineffective derivative to cancer patients and to protect consumers from ingesting high levels of toxic hydrocyanic acid. | In short, in California all almond trees growing in commercial orchards produce 'sweet' varieties of almonds. The sweet or bitter flavor of an almond variety depends on the genetics of the parent tree in the orchard. A 'sweet' almond tree produces sweet almonds. A 'bitter' almond tree produces bitter almonds, which are extremely bitter! Bitter almond trees are sometimes planted as ornamental trees in home gardens in California. In other parts of the world, bitter almond trees are more common and are harvested commercially. Bitter almonds are used mainly in the production of almond pastes and almond flavor extracts. The retail sale of bitter almonds is illegal in the U.S.; almond snack products sold at retail would all be sweet varieties. What the FDA has targeted is not bitter almond trees themselves, but those who use its derivative products to peddle Laetrile to cancer patients, as a 2004 agency press release explained: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the outcome of its investigative efforts by the Office of Criminal Investigations, conducted jointly with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Eastern District of New York and the New York Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), to bring to justice a businessman who had victimized cancer patients by heavily advertising and selling Laetrile, a highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer. Jason Vale, president of the New York-based Christian Brothers Contracting Corp., was sentenced on June 18, 2004 to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release by a United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York. 'There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective,' said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. 'This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines.' Following the investigation by FDA, the USAO, and the USPIS, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York placed Vale's illegal sales and promotion of Laetrile - also known as amygdalin, 'Vitamin B-17', or apricot pits - under injunction in April 2000. Defying the court order, Vale set up a shell corporation in Arizona, and continued to ship the product from the basement of his own home to customers passed on to him by his New York firm. For these activities, Vale was found guilty 11 months ago of three counts of criminal contempt, and ordered to be held without bail pending his sentencing. Last week, the court also found that Vale, who had made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of Laetrile, had committed fraud in his marketing of Laetrile. In addition, Vale defrauded the U.S. government by claiming that he qualified for Legal Aid. As a result, Vale was ordered to reimburse the government $31,000 for the costs of his appointed defense attorney. Coincidentally, the rumor that the FDA had 'banned bitter almond trees' expressly because 'they contain an [anti-cancer compound]' cropped up around the same time that particular crackdown occurred. As as the FDA's press release made quite clear, the compound issue of toxicity and false information about cancer treatments and cures were their issues of concern. In the 2004 release, the FDA highlighted instances wherein cancer patients had relied on Laetrile to a point where their illnesses were no longer treatable, and prosecution of those peddling the substance were aimed at preventing poisoning and ensuring cancer patients weren't duped into purchasing ineffective supplements. The National Cancer Institute similarly holds that 'Laetrile has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies,' and as far back as 1981 researchers noted that: Despite the promoters' contrary claims, laetrile must be one of the most thoroughly studied compounds never to have qualified for FDA approval for human investigation under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 23 different animal tumor models, laetrile has consistently failed to demonstrate any reproducible benefit. These represent all of the standard animal tumor systems and many of these studies have been carried out with extraordinary meticulousness. All currently recognized anticancer drugs have shown effectiveness in at least some of these models ... it would implicitly seem [laetrile proponents] agree laetrile cannot be shown to be effective in animal studies. The goverment's enacting a nation-wide ban on an agricultural product simply because its derivatives could be useful in preventing or fighting cancer makes no sense whatsoever outside of alternative medicine conspiracy circles who regularly assert that a power 'cancer industry' suppresses cancer cures from reaching the public in order to generate more profits for those involved in current forms of cancer diagnosis and treatment. If the U.S. had outlawed bitter almonds solely because of their efficacy in treating cancer, then we would be seeing streams of American cancer patients heading for foreign countries with no such regulation to receive treatment, but we don't. Laetrile has long since been exposed as a quack cure, not a legitimate cancer treatment. On 1 July 2016, an FDA representative responded to our inquiry and confirmed that agency doesn't have the authority to 'outlaw' vegetation of any description from growing inside the United States. The scope of their regulatory practice pertains solely to foods, drugs, and the manner in which substances are marketed, with a 2014 voluntary recall of organic raw almonds (for elevated content of naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide) serving as an example of the jurisdiction the FDA exercises with respect to food safety. It is neither true that the FDA has banned bitter almond trees nor suppressed use of the fruit they yield. Bitter almond trees are grown agriculturally in California, and although the sale of their seeds is somewhat restricted, that restriction is aimed at both preventing the peddling of an ineffective derivative to cancer patients and to protect consumers from ingesting high levels of toxic hydrocyanic acid. | []
|
The bitter almond tree was banned in America in 1995 because it treats and prevents cancer. | Contradiction | In June 2016 an image macro became newly popular (likely due to a concurrent cancer conspiracy rumor) on social media, holding that the bitter almond tree had been banned across the United States since 1995 because it contains high levels of the cancer-fighting vitamin B17 (also known as Laetrile): The claim was an old and deceptively multi-layered one, asserting that the bitter almond tree had been banned across the United States, that the ban was enacted in a particular year (1995), that the banned substance contained levels of Vitamin B17 sufficient to prevent and treat cancer, and that the unspecified powers that be explicitly and unquestionably banned the plant solely because it could save people's lives by fighting cancer. First at issue is whether bitter almond trees have been banned in the U.S. (by the Food and Drug Administration or any other agency) since 1995. We found no evidence corroborating that claim outside its widespread repetition. A 2002 Los Angeles Times item referenced that rumor and concluded by stating that the FDA had only prohibited the marketing of bitter almond products for 'unrestricted use': Paul Schrade ... fell in love with [the bitter almond's] powerful, unique flavor, which gives marzipan and almond milk their characteristic taste. Even after he was told that raw bitter almonds contained a form of cyanide and were illegal in the Unites States, Schrade was fascinated. In the United States, the lack of clear information about bitter almonds' legal status has squelched their cultivation, trade and use. No stores regularly stock bitter almonds, so cooks seeking them have had to rely, like Woods, on seedling trees growing wild along streams, roads and railroad tracks. Over the years, Schrade made dozens of inquiries to federal and state health authorities about the legality of bitter almonds, but never received a definitive answer. Recently, however, a friend steered him to a Food and Drug Administration Web site that states, 'Because of their toxicity, bitter almonds may not be marketed in the United States for unrestricted use.' The agency's regulations do, however, allow almond paste and extract manufacturers to use the nuts as long as their products do not contain more than minute, safe levels of hydrocyanic acid. The FDA clarified the agency's position recently, saying that it would allow bitter almonds to be shipped interstate to professional chefs and bakers, as long as their dishes were cooked to be nontoxic. But the agency said it would take 'appropriate action' against vendors found to be selling bitter almonds to the public in such a way that they could easily be confused with regular almonds. These actions might include issuing a warning, or seizing the product. That article also noted that California's Department of Health Services (not a federal agency) regulates the cultivation and sale of bitter almonds within the state, and that both are allowed (with some caveats): The FDA regulates interstate commerce in foodstuffs, but bitter almonds grown and sold within California fall under the jurisdiction of the state's Department of Health Services, which takes a less restrictive approach to retail sales. James Waddell, acting chief of the department's Food and Drug Branch, says that the agency has no specific regulation covering bitter almonds, but that the nuts could be sold in accordance with its rule for bitter apricot kernels, which requires packages to bear labeling stating: 'may be toxic; very low quantities may cause reactions.' The upshot is, California growers and vendors are permitted to sell properly labeled packages of bitter almonds to California consumers. This is good news to Rusty Hall ... who grows both sweet and bitter almonds, which he sells at farmers markets and by mail order ... It's not hard to find bitter almond trees in local orchards, he added, but tough to convince a processor to hull and shell the nuts: California sweet almond growers, who harvested 525,000 acres last year, regard bitter almonds as contaminants. Therefore, said Hall, he'd have to wait until the end of the season to pick and process his bitter almonds separately. In fact, the rumor that bitter almond trees have been banned (rather than any actual governmental ban on them) appears to be more of a hindrance to the growth and availability of them than any real legal prohibition does: Because of the almond industry's fear of bitter nuts, it seemed impossible that anyone would dare to grow them commercially in California. But a little more than a year ago, Schrade announced triumphantly that he had found such a source: Thomas Vetsch, a Swiss American grower from Bakersfield, had a small planting of 3-year-old bitter almond trees, which were just starting to bear, as a sideline to his 1,200 acres of sweet almonds ... Vetsch and his wife, Kim, had fallen in love under an almond tree, he said. The almond project was their dream. In addition to selling bulk almonds commercially, they have a smaller venture, Mandelin, that manufactures almond pastes. A perfectionist, he had originally planted some bitter almonds so as to be able to control all the ingredients for the pastes, normally made with imported oil of bitter almond. But when he was asked to show a visitor his bitter almond trees, his expression darkened. At a recent almond industry conference, rumors that someone in Kern County was growing bitter almonds had caused a sensation. Soon thereafter, Vetsch had fired up the chain saws. That interest in bitter almonds is centered in California is unsurprising, as 82% of all almonds consumed around the world are grown in this state. We contacted the Almond Board of California for clarification about the ostensibly murky status of bitter almond trees, and that agricultural trade group affirmed that bitter almond trees continue to grow in the state of California (albeit largely ornamentally rather than commercially): In short, in California all almond trees growing in commercial orchards produce 'sweet' varieties of almonds. The sweet or bitter flavor of an almond variety depends on the genetics of the parent tree in the orchard. A 'sweet' almond tree produces sweet almonds. A 'bitter' almond tree produces bitter almonds, which are extremely bitter! Bitter almond trees are sometimes planted as ornamental trees in home gardens in California. In other parts of the world, bitter almond trees are more common and are harvested commercially. Bitter almonds are used mainly in the production of almond pastes and almond flavor extracts. The retail sale of bitter almonds is illegal in the U.S.; almond snack products sold at retail would all be sweet varieties. What the FDA has targeted is not bitter almond trees themselves, but those who use its derivative products to peddle Laetrile to cancer patients, as a 2004 agency press release explained: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the outcome of its investigative efforts by the Office of Criminal Investigations, conducted jointly with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Eastern District of New York and the New York Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), to bring to justice a businessman who had victimized cancer patients by heavily advertising and selling Laetrile, a highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer. Jason Vale, president of the New York-based Christian Brothers Contracting Corp., was sentenced on June 18, 2004 to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release by a United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York. 'There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective,' said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. 'This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines.' Following the investigation by FDA, the USAO, and the USPIS, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York placed Vale's illegal sales and promotion of Laetrile - also known as amygdalin, 'Vitamin B-17', or apricot pits - under injunction in April 2000. Defying the court order, Vale set up a shell corporation in Arizona, and continued to ship the product from the basement of his own home to customers passed on to him by his New York firm. For these activities, Vale was found guilty 11 months ago of three counts of criminal contempt, and ordered to be held without bail pending his sentencing. Last week, the court also found that Vale, who had made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of Laetrile, had committed fraud in his marketing of Laetrile. In addition, Vale defrauded the U.S. government by claiming that he qualified for Legal Aid. As a result, Vale was ordered to reimburse the government $31,000 for the costs of his appointed defense attorney. Coincidentally, the rumor that the FDA had 'banned bitter almond trees' expressly because 'they contain an [anti-cancer compound]' cropped up around the same time that particular crackdown occurred. As as the FDA's press release made quite clear, the compound issue of toxicity and false information about cancer treatments and cures were their issues of concern. In the 2004 release, the FDA highlighted instances wherein cancer patients had relied on Laetrile to a point where their illnesses were no longer treatable, and prosecution of those peddling the substance were aimed at preventing poisoning and ensuring cancer patients weren't duped into purchasing ineffective supplements. The National Cancer Institute similarly holds that 'Laetrile has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies,' and as far back as 1981 researchers noted that: Despite the promoters' contrary claims, laetrile must be one of the most thoroughly studied compounds never to have qualified for FDA approval for human investigation under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 23 different animal tumor models, laetrile has consistently failed to demonstrate any reproducible benefit. These represent all of the standard animal tumor systems and many of these studies have been carried out with extraordinary meticulousness. All currently recognized anticancer drugs have shown effectiveness in at least some of these models ... it would implicitly seem [laetrile proponents] agree laetrile cannot be shown to be effective in animal studies. The goverment's enacting a nation-wide ban on an agricultural product simply because its derivatives could be useful in preventing or fighting cancer makes no sense whatsoever outside of alternative medicine conspiracy circles who regularly assert that a power 'cancer industry' suppresses cancer cures from reaching the public in order to generate more profits for those involved in current forms of cancer diagnosis and treatment. If the U.S. had outlawed bitter almonds solely because of their efficacy in treating cancer, then we would be seeing streams of American cancer patients heading for foreign countries with no such regulation to receive treatment, but we don't. Laetrile has long since been exposed as a quack cure, not a legitimate cancer treatment. On 1 July 2016, an FDA representative responded to our inquiry and confirmed that agency doesn't have the authority to 'outlaw' vegetation of any description from growing inside the United States. The scope of their regulatory practice pertains solely to foods, drugs, and the manner in which substances are marketed, with a 2014 voluntary recall of organic raw almonds (for elevated content of naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide) serving as an example of the jurisdiction the FDA exercises with respect to food safety. It is neither true that the FDA has banned bitter almond trees nor suppressed use of the fruit they yield. Bitter almond trees are grown agriculturally in California, and although the sale of their seeds is somewhat restricted, that restriction is aimed at both preventing the peddling of an ineffective derivative to cancer patients and to protect consumers from ingesting high levels of toxic hydrocyanic acid. | In short, in California all almond trees growing in commercial orchards produce 'sweet' varieties of almonds. The sweet or bitter flavor of an almond variety depends on the genetics of the parent tree in the orchard. A 'sweet' almond tree produces sweet almonds. A 'bitter' almond tree produces bitter almonds, which are extremely bitter! Bitter almond trees are sometimes planted as ornamental trees in home gardens in California. In other parts of the world, bitter almond trees are more common and are harvested commercially. Bitter almonds are used mainly in the production of almond pastes and almond flavor extracts. The retail sale of bitter almonds is illegal in the U.S.; almond snack products sold at retail would all be sweet varieties. What the FDA has targeted is not bitter almond trees themselves, but those who use its derivative products to peddle Laetrile to cancer patients, as a 2004 agency press release explained: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the outcome of its investigative efforts by the Office of Criminal Investigations, conducted jointly with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Eastern District of New York and the New York Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), to bring to justice a businessman who had victimized cancer patients by heavily advertising and selling Laetrile, a highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer. Jason Vale, president of the New York-based Christian Brothers Contracting Corp., was sentenced on June 18, 2004 to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release by a United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York. 'There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective,' said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. 'This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines.' Following the investigation by FDA, the USAO, and the USPIS, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York placed Vale's illegal sales and promotion of Laetrile - also known as amygdalin, 'Vitamin B-17', or apricot pits - under injunction in April 2000. Defying the court order, Vale set up a shell corporation in Arizona, and continued to ship the product from the basement of his own home to customers passed on to him by his New York firm. For these activities, Vale was found guilty 11 months ago of three counts of criminal contempt, and ordered to be held without bail pending his sentencing. Last week, the court also found that Vale, who had made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of Laetrile, had committed fraud in his marketing of Laetrile. In addition, Vale defrauded the U.S. government by claiming that he qualified for Legal Aid. As a result, Vale was ordered to reimburse the government $31,000 for the costs of his appointed defense attorney. Coincidentally, the rumor that the FDA had 'banned bitter almond trees' expressly because 'they contain an [anti-cancer compound]' cropped up around the same time that particular crackdown occurred. As as the FDA's press release made quite clear, the compound issue of toxicity and false information about cancer treatments and cures were their issues of concern. In the 2004 release, the FDA highlighted instances wherein cancer patients had relied on Laetrile to a point where their illnesses were no longer treatable, and prosecution of those peddling the substance were aimed at preventing poisoning and ensuring cancer patients weren't duped into purchasing ineffective supplements. The National Cancer Institute similarly holds that 'Laetrile has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies,' and as far back as 1981 researchers noted that: Despite the promoters' contrary claims, laetrile must be one of the most thoroughly studied compounds never to have qualified for FDA approval for human investigation under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 23 different animal tumor models, laetrile has consistently failed to demonstrate any reproducible benefit. These represent all of the standard animal tumor systems and many of these studies have been carried out with extraordinary meticulousness. All currently recognized anticancer drugs have shown effectiveness in at least some of these models ... it would implicitly seem [laetrile proponents] agree laetrile cannot be shown to be effective in animal studies. The goverment's enacting a nation-wide ban on an agricultural product simply because its derivatives could be useful in preventing or fighting cancer makes no sense whatsoever outside of alternative medicine conspiracy circles who regularly assert that a power 'cancer industry' suppresses cancer cures from reaching the public in order to generate more profits for those involved in current forms of cancer diagnosis and treatment. If the U.S. had outlawed bitter almonds solely because of their efficacy in treating cancer, then we would be seeing streams of American cancer patients heading for foreign countries with no such regulation to receive treatment, but we don't. Laetrile has long since been exposed as a quack cure, not a legitimate cancer treatment. On 1 July 2016, an FDA representative responded to our inquiry and confirmed that agency doesn't have the authority to 'outlaw' vegetation of any description from growing inside the United States. The scope of their regulatory practice pertains solely to foods, drugs, and the manner in which substances are marketed, with a 2014 voluntary recall of organic raw almonds (for elevated content of naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide) serving as an example of the jurisdiction the FDA exercises with respect to food safety. It is neither true that the FDA has banned bitter almond trees nor suppressed use of the fruit they yield. Bitter almond trees are grown agriculturally in California, and although the sale of their seeds is somewhat restricted, that restriction is aimed at both preventing the peddling of an ineffective derivative to cancer patients and to protect consumers from ingesting high levels of toxic hydrocyanic acid. | []
|
The bitter almond tree was banned in America in 1995 because it treats and prevents cancer. | Contradiction | In June 2016 an image macro became newly popular (likely due to a concurrent cancer conspiracy rumor) on social media, holding that the bitter almond tree had been banned across the United States since 1995 because it contains high levels of the cancer-fighting vitamin B17 (also known as Laetrile): The claim was an old and deceptively multi-layered one, asserting that the bitter almond tree had been banned across the United States, that the ban was enacted in a particular year (1995), that the banned substance contained levels of Vitamin B17 sufficient to prevent and treat cancer, and that the unspecified powers that be explicitly and unquestionably banned the plant solely because it could save people's lives by fighting cancer. First at issue is whether bitter almond trees have been banned in the U.S. (by the Food and Drug Administration or any other agency) since 1995. We found no evidence corroborating that claim outside its widespread repetition. A 2002 Los Angeles Times item referenced that rumor and concluded by stating that the FDA had only prohibited the marketing of bitter almond products for 'unrestricted use': Paul Schrade ... fell in love with [the bitter almond's] powerful, unique flavor, which gives marzipan and almond milk their characteristic taste. Even after he was told that raw bitter almonds contained a form of cyanide and were illegal in the Unites States, Schrade was fascinated. In the United States, the lack of clear information about bitter almonds' legal status has squelched their cultivation, trade and use. No stores regularly stock bitter almonds, so cooks seeking them have had to rely, like Woods, on seedling trees growing wild along streams, roads and railroad tracks. Over the years, Schrade made dozens of inquiries to federal and state health authorities about the legality of bitter almonds, but never received a definitive answer. Recently, however, a friend steered him to a Food and Drug Administration Web site that states, 'Because of their toxicity, bitter almonds may not be marketed in the United States for unrestricted use.' The agency's regulations do, however, allow almond paste and extract manufacturers to use the nuts as long as their products do not contain more than minute, safe levels of hydrocyanic acid. The FDA clarified the agency's position recently, saying that it would allow bitter almonds to be shipped interstate to professional chefs and bakers, as long as their dishes were cooked to be nontoxic. But the agency said it would take 'appropriate action' against vendors found to be selling bitter almonds to the public in such a way that they could easily be confused with regular almonds. These actions might include issuing a warning, or seizing the product. That article also noted that California's Department of Health Services (not a federal agency) regulates the cultivation and sale of bitter almonds within the state, and that both are allowed (with some caveats): The FDA regulates interstate commerce in foodstuffs, but bitter almonds grown and sold within California fall under the jurisdiction of the state's Department of Health Services, which takes a less restrictive approach to retail sales. James Waddell, acting chief of the department's Food and Drug Branch, says that the agency has no specific regulation covering bitter almonds, but that the nuts could be sold in accordance with its rule for bitter apricot kernels, which requires packages to bear labeling stating: 'may be toxic; very low quantities may cause reactions.' The upshot is, California growers and vendors are permitted to sell properly labeled packages of bitter almonds to California consumers. This is good news to Rusty Hall ... who grows both sweet and bitter almonds, which he sells at farmers markets and by mail order ... It's not hard to find bitter almond trees in local orchards, he added, but tough to convince a processor to hull and shell the nuts: California sweet almond growers, who harvested 525,000 acres last year, regard bitter almonds as contaminants. Therefore, said Hall, he'd have to wait until the end of the season to pick and process his bitter almonds separately. In fact, the rumor that bitter almond trees have been banned (rather than any actual governmental ban on them) appears to be more of a hindrance to the growth and availability of them than any real legal prohibition does: Because of the almond industry's fear of bitter nuts, it seemed impossible that anyone would dare to grow them commercially in California. But a little more than a year ago, Schrade announced triumphantly that he had found such a source: Thomas Vetsch, a Swiss American grower from Bakersfield, had a small planting of 3-year-old bitter almond trees, which were just starting to bear, as a sideline to his 1,200 acres of sweet almonds ... Vetsch and his wife, Kim, had fallen in love under an almond tree, he said. The almond project was their dream. In addition to selling bulk almonds commercially, they have a smaller venture, Mandelin, that manufactures almond pastes. A perfectionist, he had originally planted some bitter almonds so as to be able to control all the ingredients for the pastes, normally made with imported oil of bitter almond. But when he was asked to show a visitor his bitter almond trees, his expression darkened. At a recent almond industry conference, rumors that someone in Kern County was growing bitter almonds had caused a sensation. Soon thereafter, Vetsch had fired up the chain saws. That interest in bitter almonds is centered in California is unsurprising, as 82% of all almonds consumed around the world are grown in this state. We contacted the Almond Board of California for clarification about the ostensibly murky status of bitter almond trees, and that agricultural trade group affirmed that bitter almond trees continue to grow in the state of California (albeit largely ornamentally rather than commercially): In short, in California all almond trees growing in commercial orchards produce 'sweet' varieties of almonds. The sweet or bitter flavor of an almond variety depends on the genetics of the parent tree in the orchard. A 'sweet' almond tree produces sweet almonds. A 'bitter' almond tree produces bitter almonds, which are extremely bitter! Bitter almond trees are sometimes planted as ornamental trees in home gardens in California. In other parts of the world, bitter almond trees are more common and are harvested commercially. Bitter almonds are used mainly in the production of almond pastes and almond flavor extracts. The retail sale of bitter almonds is illegal in the U.S.; almond snack products sold at retail would all be sweet varieties. What the FDA has targeted is not bitter almond trees themselves, but those who use its derivative products to peddle Laetrile to cancer patients, as a 2004 agency press release explained: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the outcome of its investigative efforts by the Office of Criminal Investigations, conducted jointly with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Eastern District of New York and the New York Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), to bring to justice a businessman who had victimized cancer patients by heavily advertising and selling Laetrile, a highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer. Jason Vale, president of the New York-based Christian Brothers Contracting Corp., was sentenced on June 18, 2004 to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release by a United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York. 'There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective,' said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. 'This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines.' Following the investigation by FDA, the USAO, and the USPIS, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York placed Vale's illegal sales and promotion of Laetrile - also known as amygdalin, 'Vitamin B-17', or apricot pits - under injunction in April 2000. Defying the court order, Vale set up a shell corporation in Arizona, and continued to ship the product from the basement of his own home to customers passed on to him by his New York firm. For these activities, Vale was found guilty 11 months ago of three counts of criminal contempt, and ordered to be held without bail pending his sentencing. Last week, the court also found that Vale, who had made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of Laetrile, had committed fraud in his marketing of Laetrile. In addition, Vale defrauded the U.S. government by claiming that he qualified for Legal Aid. As a result, Vale was ordered to reimburse the government $31,000 for the costs of his appointed defense attorney. Coincidentally, the rumor that the FDA had 'banned bitter almond trees' expressly because 'they contain an [anti-cancer compound]' cropped up around the same time that particular crackdown occurred. As as the FDA's press release made quite clear, the compound issue of toxicity and false information about cancer treatments and cures were their issues of concern. In the 2004 release, the FDA highlighted instances wherein cancer patients had relied on Laetrile to a point where their illnesses were no longer treatable, and prosecution of those peddling the substance were aimed at preventing poisoning and ensuring cancer patients weren't duped into purchasing ineffective supplements. The National Cancer Institute similarly holds that 'Laetrile has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies,' and as far back as 1981 researchers noted that: Despite the promoters' contrary claims, laetrile must be one of the most thoroughly studied compounds never to have qualified for FDA approval for human investigation under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 23 different animal tumor models, laetrile has consistently failed to demonstrate any reproducible benefit. These represent all of the standard animal tumor systems and many of these studies have been carried out with extraordinary meticulousness. All currently recognized anticancer drugs have shown effectiveness in at least some of these models ... it would implicitly seem [laetrile proponents] agree laetrile cannot be shown to be effective in animal studies. The goverment's enacting a nation-wide ban on an agricultural product simply because its derivatives could be useful in preventing or fighting cancer makes no sense whatsoever outside of alternative medicine conspiracy circles who regularly assert that a power 'cancer industry' suppresses cancer cures from reaching the public in order to generate more profits for those involved in current forms of cancer diagnosis and treatment. If the U.S. had outlawed bitter almonds solely because of their efficacy in treating cancer, then we would be seeing streams of American cancer patients heading for foreign countries with no such regulation to receive treatment, but we don't. Laetrile has long since been exposed as a quack cure, not a legitimate cancer treatment. On 1 July 2016, an FDA representative responded to our inquiry and confirmed that agency doesn't have the authority to 'outlaw' vegetation of any description from growing inside the United States. The scope of their regulatory practice pertains solely to foods, drugs, and the manner in which substances are marketed, with a 2014 voluntary recall of organic raw almonds (for elevated content of naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide) serving as an example of the jurisdiction the FDA exercises with respect to food safety. It is neither true that the FDA has banned bitter almond trees nor suppressed use of the fruit they yield. Bitter almond trees are grown agriculturally in California, and although the sale of their seeds is somewhat restricted, that restriction is aimed at both preventing the peddling of an ineffective derivative to cancer patients and to protect consumers from ingesting high levels of toxic hydrocyanic acid. | In short, in California all almond trees growing in commercial orchards produce 'sweet' varieties of almonds. The sweet or bitter flavor of an almond variety depends on the genetics of the parent tree in the orchard. A 'sweet' almond tree produces sweet almonds. A 'bitter' almond tree produces bitter almonds, which are extremely bitter! Bitter almond trees are sometimes planted as ornamental trees in home gardens in California. In other parts of the world, bitter almond trees are more common and are harvested commercially. Bitter almonds are used mainly in the production of almond pastes and almond flavor extracts. The retail sale of bitter almonds is illegal in the U.S.; almond snack products sold at retail would all be sweet varieties. What the FDA has targeted is not bitter almond trees themselves, but those who use its derivative products to peddle Laetrile to cancer patients, as a 2004 agency press release explained: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the outcome of its investigative efforts by the Office of Criminal Investigations, conducted jointly with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Eastern District of New York and the New York Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), to bring to justice a businessman who had victimized cancer patients by heavily advertising and selling Laetrile, a highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer. Jason Vale, president of the New York-based Christian Brothers Contracting Corp., was sentenced on June 18, 2004 to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release by a United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York. 'There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective,' said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. 'This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines.' Following the investigation by FDA, the USAO, and the USPIS, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York placed Vale's illegal sales and promotion of Laetrile - also known as amygdalin, 'Vitamin B-17', or apricot pits - under injunction in April 2000. Defying the court order, Vale set up a shell corporation in Arizona, and continued to ship the product from the basement of his own home to customers passed on to him by his New York firm. For these activities, Vale was found guilty 11 months ago of three counts of criminal contempt, and ordered to be held without bail pending his sentencing. Last week, the court also found that Vale, who had made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of Laetrile, had committed fraud in his marketing of Laetrile. In addition, Vale defrauded the U.S. government by claiming that he qualified for Legal Aid. As a result, Vale was ordered to reimburse the government $31,000 for the costs of his appointed defense attorney. Coincidentally, the rumor that the FDA had 'banned bitter almond trees' expressly because 'they contain an [anti-cancer compound]' cropped up around the same time that particular crackdown occurred. As as the FDA's press release made quite clear, the compound issue of toxicity and false information about cancer treatments and cures were their issues of concern. In the 2004 release, the FDA highlighted instances wherein cancer patients had relied on Laetrile to a point where their illnesses were no longer treatable, and prosecution of those peddling the substance were aimed at preventing poisoning and ensuring cancer patients weren't duped into purchasing ineffective supplements. The National Cancer Institute similarly holds that 'Laetrile has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies,' and as far back as 1981 researchers noted that: Despite the promoters' contrary claims, laetrile must be one of the most thoroughly studied compounds never to have qualified for FDA approval for human investigation under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 23 different animal tumor models, laetrile has consistently failed to demonstrate any reproducible benefit. These represent all of the standard animal tumor systems and many of these studies have been carried out with extraordinary meticulousness. All currently recognized anticancer drugs have shown effectiveness in at least some of these models ... it would implicitly seem [laetrile proponents] agree laetrile cannot be shown to be effective in animal studies. The goverment's enacting a nation-wide ban on an agricultural product simply because its derivatives could be useful in preventing or fighting cancer makes no sense whatsoever outside of alternative medicine conspiracy circles who regularly assert that a power 'cancer industry' suppresses cancer cures from reaching the public in order to generate more profits for those involved in current forms of cancer diagnosis and treatment. If the U.S. had outlawed bitter almonds solely because of their efficacy in treating cancer, then we would be seeing streams of American cancer patients heading for foreign countries with no such regulation to receive treatment, but we don't. Laetrile has long since been exposed as a quack cure, not a legitimate cancer treatment. On 1 July 2016, an FDA representative responded to our inquiry and confirmed that agency doesn't have the authority to 'outlaw' vegetation of any description from growing inside the United States. The scope of their regulatory practice pertains solely to foods, drugs, and the manner in which substances are marketed, with a 2014 voluntary recall of organic raw almonds (for elevated content of naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide) serving as an example of the jurisdiction the FDA exercises with respect to food safety. It is neither true that the FDA has banned bitter almond trees nor suppressed use of the fruit they yield. Bitter almond trees are grown agriculturally in California, and although the sale of their seeds is somewhat restricted, that restriction is aimed at both preventing the peddling of an ineffective derivative to cancer patients and to protect consumers from ingesting high levels of toxic hydrocyanic acid. | []
|
The bitter almond tree was banned in America in 1995 because it treats and prevents cancer. | Contradiction | In June 2016 an image macro became newly popular (likely due to a concurrent cancer conspiracy rumor) on social media, holding that the bitter almond tree had been banned across the United States since 1995 because it contains high levels of the cancer-fighting vitamin B17 (also known as Laetrile): The claim was an old and deceptively multi-layered one, asserting that the bitter almond tree had been banned across the United States, that the ban was enacted in a particular year (1995), that the banned substance contained levels of Vitamin B17 sufficient to prevent and treat cancer, and that the unspecified powers that be explicitly and unquestionably banned the plant solely because it could save people's lives by fighting cancer. First at issue is whether bitter almond trees have been banned in the U.S. (by the Food and Drug Administration or any other agency) since 1995. We found no evidence corroborating that claim outside its widespread repetition. A 2002 Los Angeles Times item referenced that rumor and concluded by stating that the FDA had only prohibited the marketing of bitter almond products for 'unrestricted use': Paul Schrade ... fell in love with [the bitter almond's] powerful, unique flavor, which gives marzipan and almond milk their characteristic taste. Even after he was told that raw bitter almonds contained a form of cyanide and were illegal in the Unites States, Schrade was fascinated. In the United States, the lack of clear information about bitter almonds' legal status has squelched their cultivation, trade and use. No stores regularly stock bitter almonds, so cooks seeking them have had to rely, like Woods, on seedling trees growing wild along streams, roads and railroad tracks. Over the years, Schrade made dozens of inquiries to federal and state health authorities about the legality of bitter almonds, but never received a definitive answer. Recently, however, a friend steered him to a Food and Drug Administration Web site that states, 'Because of their toxicity, bitter almonds may not be marketed in the United States for unrestricted use.' The agency's regulations do, however, allow almond paste and extract manufacturers to use the nuts as long as their products do not contain more than minute, safe levels of hydrocyanic acid. The FDA clarified the agency's position recently, saying that it would allow bitter almonds to be shipped interstate to professional chefs and bakers, as long as their dishes were cooked to be nontoxic. But the agency said it would take 'appropriate action' against vendors found to be selling bitter almonds to the public in such a way that they could easily be confused with regular almonds. These actions might include issuing a warning, or seizing the product. That article also noted that California's Department of Health Services (not a federal agency) regulates the cultivation and sale of bitter almonds within the state, and that both are allowed (with some caveats): The FDA regulates interstate commerce in foodstuffs, but bitter almonds grown and sold within California fall under the jurisdiction of the state's Department of Health Services, which takes a less restrictive approach to retail sales. James Waddell, acting chief of the department's Food and Drug Branch, says that the agency has no specific regulation covering bitter almonds, but that the nuts could be sold in accordance with its rule for bitter apricot kernels, which requires packages to bear labeling stating: 'may be toxic; very low quantities may cause reactions.' The upshot is, California growers and vendors are permitted to sell properly labeled packages of bitter almonds to California consumers. This is good news to Rusty Hall ... who grows both sweet and bitter almonds, which he sells at farmers markets and by mail order ... It's not hard to find bitter almond trees in local orchards, he added, but tough to convince a processor to hull and shell the nuts: California sweet almond growers, who harvested 525,000 acres last year, regard bitter almonds as contaminants. Therefore, said Hall, he'd have to wait until the end of the season to pick and process his bitter almonds separately. In fact, the rumor that bitter almond trees have been banned (rather than any actual governmental ban on them) appears to be more of a hindrance to the growth and availability of them than any real legal prohibition does: Because of the almond industry's fear of bitter nuts, it seemed impossible that anyone would dare to grow them commercially in California. But a little more than a year ago, Schrade announced triumphantly that he had found such a source: Thomas Vetsch, a Swiss American grower from Bakersfield, had a small planting of 3-year-old bitter almond trees, which were just starting to bear, as a sideline to his 1,200 acres of sweet almonds ... Vetsch and his wife, Kim, had fallen in love under an almond tree, he said. The almond project was their dream. In addition to selling bulk almonds commercially, they have a smaller venture, Mandelin, that manufactures almond pastes. A perfectionist, he had originally planted some bitter almonds so as to be able to control all the ingredients for the pastes, normally made with imported oil of bitter almond. But when he was asked to show a visitor his bitter almond trees, his expression darkened. At a recent almond industry conference, rumors that someone in Kern County was growing bitter almonds had caused a sensation. Soon thereafter, Vetsch had fired up the chain saws. That interest in bitter almonds is centered in California is unsurprising, as 82% of all almonds consumed around the world are grown in this state. We contacted the Almond Board of California for clarification about the ostensibly murky status of bitter almond trees, and that agricultural trade group affirmed that bitter almond trees continue to grow in the state of California (albeit largely ornamentally rather than commercially): In short, in California all almond trees growing in commercial orchards produce 'sweet' varieties of almonds. The sweet or bitter flavor of an almond variety depends on the genetics of the parent tree in the orchard. A 'sweet' almond tree produces sweet almonds. A 'bitter' almond tree produces bitter almonds, which are extremely bitter! Bitter almond trees are sometimes planted as ornamental trees in home gardens in California. In other parts of the world, bitter almond trees are more common and are harvested commercially. Bitter almonds are used mainly in the production of almond pastes and almond flavor extracts. The retail sale of bitter almonds is illegal in the U.S.; almond snack products sold at retail would all be sweet varieties. What the FDA has targeted is not bitter almond trees themselves, but those who use its derivative products to peddle Laetrile to cancer patients, as a 2004 agency press release explained: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the outcome of its investigative efforts by the Office of Criminal Investigations, conducted jointly with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Eastern District of New York and the New York Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), to bring to justice a businessman who had victimized cancer patients by heavily advertising and selling Laetrile, a highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer. Jason Vale, president of the New York-based Christian Brothers Contracting Corp., was sentenced on June 18, 2004 to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release by a United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York. 'There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective,' said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. 'This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines.' Following the investigation by FDA, the USAO, and the USPIS, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York placed Vale's illegal sales and promotion of Laetrile - also known as amygdalin, 'Vitamin B-17', or apricot pits - under injunction in April 2000. Defying the court order, Vale set up a shell corporation in Arizona, and continued to ship the product from the basement of his own home to customers passed on to him by his New York firm. For these activities, Vale was found guilty 11 months ago of three counts of criminal contempt, and ordered to be held without bail pending his sentencing. Last week, the court also found that Vale, who had made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of Laetrile, had committed fraud in his marketing of Laetrile. In addition, Vale defrauded the U.S. government by claiming that he qualified for Legal Aid. As a result, Vale was ordered to reimburse the government $31,000 for the costs of his appointed defense attorney. Coincidentally, the rumor that the FDA had 'banned bitter almond trees' expressly because 'they contain an [anti-cancer compound]' cropped up around the same time that particular crackdown occurred. As as the FDA's press release made quite clear, the compound issue of toxicity and false information about cancer treatments and cures were their issues of concern. In the 2004 release, the FDA highlighted instances wherein cancer patients had relied on Laetrile to a point where their illnesses were no longer treatable, and prosecution of those peddling the substance were aimed at preventing poisoning and ensuring cancer patients weren't duped into purchasing ineffective supplements. The National Cancer Institute similarly holds that 'Laetrile has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies,' and as far back as 1981 researchers noted that: Despite the promoters' contrary claims, laetrile must be one of the most thoroughly studied compounds never to have qualified for FDA approval for human investigation under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 23 different animal tumor models, laetrile has consistently failed to demonstrate any reproducible benefit. These represent all of the standard animal tumor systems and many of these studies have been carried out with extraordinary meticulousness. All currently recognized anticancer drugs have shown effectiveness in at least some of these models ... it would implicitly seem [laetrile proponents] agree laetrile cannot be shown to be effective in animal studies. The goverment's enacting a nation-wide ban on an agricultural product simply because its derivatives could be useful in preventing or fighting cancer makes no sense whatsoever outside of alternative medicine conspiracy circles who regularly assert that a power 'cancer industry' suppresses cancer cures from reaching the public in order to generate more profits for those involved in current forms of cancer diagnosis and treatment. If the U.S. had outlawed bitter almonds solely because of their efficacy in treating cancer, then we would be seeing streams of American cancer patients heading for foreign countries with no such regulation to receive treatment, but we don't. Laetrile has long since been exposed as a quack cure, not a legitimate cancer treatment. On 1 July 2016, an FDA representative responded to our inquiry and confirmed that agency doesn't have the authority to 'outlaw' vegetation of any description from growing inside the United States. The scope of their regulatory practice pertains solely to foods, drugs, and the manner in which substances are marketed, with a 2014 voluntary recall of organic raw almonds (for elevated content of naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide) serving as an example of the jurisdiction the FDA exercises with respect to food safety. It is neither true that the FDA has banned bitter almond trees nor suppressed use of the fruit they yield. Bitter almond trees are grown agriculturally in California, and although the sale of their seeds is somewhat restricted, that restriction is aimed at both preventing the peddling of an ineffective derivative to cancer patients and to protect consumers from ingesting high levels of toxic hydrocyanic acid. | In short, in California all almond trees growing in commercial orchards produce 'sweet' varieties of almonds. The sweet or bitter flavor of an almond variety depends on the genetics of the parent tree in the orchard. A 'sweet' almond tree produces sweet almonds. A 'bitter' almond tree produces bitter almonds, which are extremely bitter! Bitter almond trees are sometimes planted as ornamental trees in home gardens in California. In other parts of the world, bitter almond trees are more common and are harvested commercially. Bitter almonds are used mainly in the production of almond pastes and almond flavor extracts. The retail sale of bitter almonds is illegal in the U.S.; almond snack products sold at retail would all be sweet varieties. What the FDA has targeted is not bitter almond trees themselves, but those who use its derivative products to peddle Laetrile to cancer patients, as a 2004 agency press release explained: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the outcome of its investigative efforts by the Office of Criminal Investigations, conducted jointly with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Eastern District of New York and the New York Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), to bring to justice a businessman who had victimized cancer patients by heavily advertising and selling Laetrile, a highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer. Jason Vale, president of the New York-based Christian Brothers Contracting Corp., was sentenced on June 18, 2004 to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release by a United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York. 'There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective,' said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. 'This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines.' Following the investigation by FDA, the USAO, and the USPIS, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York placed Vale's illegal sales and promotion of Laetrile - also known as amygdalin, 'Vitamin B-17', or apricot pits - under injunction in April 2000. Defying the court order, Vale set up a shell corporation in Arizona, and continued to ship the product from the basement of his own home to customers passed on to him by his New York firm. For these activities, Vale was found guilty 11 months ago of three counts of criminal contempt, and ordered to be held without bail pending his sentencing. Last week, the court also found that Vale, who had made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of Laetrile, had committed fraud in his marketing of Laetrile. In addition, Vale defrauded the U.S. government by claiming that he qualified for Legal Aid. As a result, Vale was ordered to reimburse the government $31,000 for the costs of his appointed defense attorney. Coincidentally, the rumor that the FDA had 'banned bitter almond trees' expressly because 'they contain an [anti-cancer compound]' cropped up around the same time that particular crackdown occurred. As as the FDA's press release made quite clear, the compound issue of toxicity and false information about cancer treatments and cures were their issues of concern. In the 2004 release, the FDA highlighted instances wherein cancer patients had relied on Laetrile to a point where their illnesses were no longer treatable, and prosecution of those peddling the substance were aimed at preventing poisoning and ensuring cancer patients weren't duped into purchasing ineffective supplements. The National Cancer Institute similarly holds that 'Laetrile has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies,' and as far back as 1981 researchers noted that: Despite the promoters' contrary claims, laetrile must be one of the most thoroughly studied compounds never to have qualified for FDA approval for human investigation under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 23 different animal tumor models, laetrile has consistently failed to demonstrate any reproducible benefit. These represent all of the standard animal tumor systems and many of these studies have been carried out with extraordinary meticulousness. All currently recognized anticancer drugs have shown effectiveness in at least some of these models ... it would implicitly seem [laetrile proponents] agree laetrile cannot be shown to be effective in animal studies. The goverment's enacting a nation-wide ban on an agricultural product simply because its derivatives could be useful in preventing or fighting cancer makes no sense whatsoever outside of alternative medicine conspiracy circles who regularly assert that a power 'cancer industry' suppresses cancer cures from reaching the public in order to generate more profits for those involved in current forms of cancer diagnosis and treatment. If the U.S. had outlawed bitter almonds solely because of their efficacy in treating cancer, then we would be seeing streams of American cancer patients heading for foreign countries with no such regulation to receive treatment, but we don't. Laetrile has long since been exposed as a quack cure, not a legitimate cancer treatment. On 1 July 2016, an FDA representative responded to our inquiry and confirmed that agency doesn't have the authority to 'outlaw' vegetation of any description from growing inside the United States. The scope of their regulatory practice pertains solely to foods, drugs, and the manner in which substances are marketed, with a 2014 voluntary recall of organic raw almonds (for elevated content of naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide) serving as an example of the jurisdiction the FDA exercises with respect to food safety. It is neither true that the FDA has banned bitter almond trees nor suppressed use of the fruit they yield. Bitter almond trees are grown agriculturally in California, and although the sale of their seeds is somewhat restricted, that restriction is aimed at both preventing the peddling of an ineffective derivative to cancer patients and to protect consumers from ingesting high levels of toxic hydrocyanic acid. | []
|
The bitter almond tree was banned in America in 1995 because it treats and prevents cancer. | Contradiction | In June 2016 an image macro became newly popular (likely due to a concurrent cancer conspiracy rumor) on social media, holding that the bitter almond tree had been banned across the United States since 1995 because it contains high levels of the cancer-fighting vitamin B17 (also known as Laetrile): The claim was an old and deceptively multi-layered one, asserting that the bitter almond tree had been banned across the United States, that the ban was enacted in a particular year (1995), that the banned substance contained levels of Vitamin B17 sufficient to prevent and treat cancer, and that the unspecified powers that be explicitly and unquestionably banned the plant solely because it could save people's lives by fighting cancer. First at issue is whether bitter almond trees have been banned in the U.S. (by the Food and Drug Administration or any other agency) since 1995. We found no evidence corroborating that claim outside its widespread repetition. A 2002 Los Angeles Times item referenced that rumor and concluded by stating that the FDA had only prohibited the marketing of bitter almond products for 'unrestricted use': Paul Schrade ... fell in love with [the bitter almond's] powerful, unique flavor, which gives marzipan and almond milk their characteristic taste. Even after he was told that raw bitter almonds contained a form of cyanide and were illegal in the Unites States, Schrade was fascinated. In the United States, the lack of clear information about bitter almonds' legal status has squelched their cultivation, trade and use. No stores regularly stock bitter almonds, so cooks seeking them have had to rely, like Woods, on seedling trees growing wild along streams, roads and railroad tracks. Over the years, Schrade made dozens of inquiries to federal and state health authorities about the legality of bitter almonds, but never received a definitive answer. Recently, however, a friend steered him to a Food and Drug Administration Web site that states, 'Because of their toxicity, bitter almonds may not be marketed in the United States for unrestricted use.' The agency's regulations do, however, allow almond paste and extract manufacturers to use the nuts as long as their products do not contain more than minute, safe levels of hydrocyanic acid. The FDA clarified the agency's position recently, saying that it would allow bitter almonds to be shipped interstate to professional chefs and bakers, as long as their dishes were cooked to be nontoxic. But the agency said it would take 'appropriate action' against vendors found to be selling bitter almonds to the public in such a way that they could easily be confused with regular almonds. These actions might include issuing a warning, or seizing the product. That article also noted that California's Department of Health Services (not a federal agency) regulates the cultivation and sale of bitter almonds within the state, and that both are allowed (with some caveats): The FDA regulates interstate commerce in foodstuffs, but bitter almonds grown and sold within California fall under the jurisdiction of the state's Department of Health Services, which takes a less restrictive approach to retail sales. James Waddell, acting chief of the department's Food and Drug Branch, says that the agency has no specific regulation covering bitter almonds, but that the nuts could be sold in accordance with its rule for bitter apricot kernels, which requires packages to bear labeling stating: 'may be toxic; very low quantities may cause reactions.' The upshot is, California growers and vendors are permitted to sell properly labeled packages of bitter almonds to California consumers. This is good news to Rusty Hall ... who grows both sweet and bitter almonds, which he sells at farmers markets and by mail order ... It's not hard to find bitter almond trees in local orchards, he added, but tough to convince a processor to hull and shell the nuts: California sweet almond growers, who harvested 525,000 acres last year, regard bitter almonds as contaminants. Therefore, said Hall, he'd have to wait until the end of the season to pick and process his bitter almonds separately. In fact, the rumor that bitter almond trees have been banned (rather than any actual governmental ban on them) appears to be more of a hindrance to the growth and availability of them than any real legal prohibition does: Because of the almond industry's fear of bitter nuts, it seemed impossible that anyone would dare to grow them commercially in California. But a little more than a year ago, Schrade announced triumphantly that he had found such a source: Thomas Vetsch, a Swiss American grower from Bakersfield, had a small planting of 3-year-old bitter almond trees, which were just starting to bear, as a sideline to his 1,200 acres of sweet almonds ... Vetsch and his wife, Kim, had fallen in love under an almond tree, he said. The almond project was their dream. In addition to selling bulk almonds commercially, they have a smaller venture, Mandelin, that manufactures almond pastes. A perfectionist, he had originally planted some bitter almonds so as to be able to control all the ingredients for the pastes, normally made with imported oil of bitter almond. But when he was asked to show a visitor his bitter almond trees, his expression darkened. At a recent almond industry conference, rumors that someone in Kern County was growing bitter almonds had caused a sensation. Soon thereafter, Vetsch had fired up the chain saws. That interest in bitter almonds is centered in California is unsurprising, as 82% of all almonds consumed around the world are grown in this state. We contacted the Almond Board of California for clarification about the ostensibly murky status of bitter almond trees, and that agricultural trade group affirmed that bitter almond trees continue to grow in the state of California (albeit largely ornamentally rather than commercially): In short, in California all almond trees growing in commercial orchards produce 'sweet' varieties of almonds. The sweet or bitter flavor of an almond variety depends on the genetics of the parent tree in the orchard. A 'sweet' almond tree produces sweet almonds. A 'bitter' almond tree produces bitter almonds, which are extremely bitter! Bitter almond trees are sometimes planted as ornamental trees in home gardens in California. In other parts of the world, bitter almond trees are more common and are harvested commercially. Bitter almonds are used mainly in the production of almond pastes and almond flavor extracts. The retail sale of bitter almonds is illegal in the U.S.; almond snack products sold at retail would all be sweet varieties. What the FDA has targeted is not bitter almond trees themselves, but those who use its derivative products to peddle Laetrile to cancer patients, as a 2004 agency press release explained: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the outcome of its investigative efforts by the Office of Criminal Investigations, conducted jointly with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Eastern District of New York and the New York Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), to bring to justice a businessman who had victimized cancer patients by heavily advertising and selling Laetrile, a highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer. Jason Vale, president of the New York-based Christian Brothers Contracting Corp., was sentenced on June 18, 2004 to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release by a United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York. 'There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective,' said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. 'This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines.' Following the investigation by FDA, the USAO, and the USPIS, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York placed Vale's illegal sales and promotion of Laetrile - also known as amygdalin, 'Vitamin B-17', or apricot pits - under injunction in April 2000. Defying the court order, Vale set up a shell corporation in Arizona, and continued to ship the product from the basement of his own home to customers passed on to him by his New York firm. For these activities, Vale was found guilty 11 months ago of three counts of criminal contempt, and ordered to be held without bail pending his sentencing. Last week, the court also found that Vale, who had made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of Laetrile, had committed fraud in his marketing of Laetrile. In addition, Vale defrauded the U.S. government by claiming that he qualified for Legal Aid. As a result, Vale was ordered to reimburse the government $31,000 for the costs of his appointed defense attorney. Coincidentally, the rumor that the FDA had 'banned bitter almond trees' expressly because 'they contain an [anti-cancer compound]' cropped up around the same time that particular crackdown occurred. As as the FDA's press release made quite clear, the compound issue of toxicity and false information about cancer treatments and cures were their issues of concern. In the 2004 release, the FDA highlighted instances wherein cancer patients had relied on Laetrile to a point where their illnesses were no longer treatable, and prosecution of those peddling the substance were aimed at preventing poisoning and ensuring cancer patients weren't duped into purchasing ineffective supplements. The National Cancer Institute similarly holds that 'Laetrile has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies,' and as far back as 1981 researchers noted that: Despite the promoters' contrary claims, laetrile must be one of the most thoroughly studied compounds never to have qualified for FDA approval for human investigation under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 23 different animal tumor models, laetrile has consistently failed to demonstrate any reproducible benefit. These represent all of the standard animal tumor systems and many of these studies have been carried out with extraordinary meticulousness. All currently recognized anticancer drugs have shown effectiveness in at least some of these models ... it would implicitly seem [laetrile proponents] agree laetrile cannot be shown to be effective in animal studies. The goverment's enacting a nation-wide ban on an agricultural product simply because its derivatives could be useful in preventing or fighting cancer makes no sense whatsoever outside of alternative medicine conspiracy circles who regularly assert that a power 'cancer industry' suppresses cancer cures from reaching the public in order to generate more profits for those involved in current forms of cancer diagnosis and treatment. If the U.S. had outlawed bitter almonds solely because of their efficacy in treating cancer, then we would be seeing streams of American cancer patients heading for foreign countries with no such regulation to receive treatment, but we don't. Laetrile has long since been exposed as a quack cure, not a legitimate cancer treatment. On 1 July 2016, an FDA representative responded to our inquiry and confirmed that agency doesn't have the authority to 'outlaw' vegetation of any description from growing inside the United States. The scope of their regulatory practice pertains solely to foods, drugs, and the manner in which substances are marketed, with a 2014 voluntary recall of organic raw almonds (for elevated content of naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide) serving as an example of the jurisdiction the FDA exercises with respect to food safety. It is neither true that the FDA has banned bitter almond trees nor suppressed use of the fruit they yield. Bitter almond trees are grown agriculturally in California, and although the sale of their seeds is somewhat restricted, that restriction is aimed at both preventing the peddling of an ineffective derivative to cancer patients and to protect consumers from ingesting high levels of toxic hydrocyanic acid. | In short, in California all almond trees growing in commercial orchards produce 'sweet' varieties of almonds. The sweet or bitter flavor of an almond variety depends on the genetics of the parent tree in the orchard. A 'sweet' almond tree produces sweet almonds. A 'bitter' almond tree produces bitter almonds, which are extremely bitter! Bitter almond trees are sometimes planted as ornamental trees in home gardens in California. In other parts of the world, bitter almond trees are more common and are harvested commercially. Bitter almonds are used mainly in the production of almond pastes and almond flavor extracts. The retail sale of bitter almonds is illegal in the U.S.; almond snack products sold at retail would all be sweet varieties. What the FDA has targeted is not bitter almond trees themselves, but those who use its derivative products to peddle Laetrile to cancer patients, as a 2004 agency press release explained: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the outcome of its investigative efforts by the Office of Criminal Investigations, conducted jointly with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Eastern District of New York and the New York Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), to bring to justice a businessman who had victimized cancer patients by heavily advertising and selling Laetrile, a highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer. Jason Vale, president of the New York-based Christian Brothers Contracting Corp., was sentenced on June 18, 2004 to 63 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release by a United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York. 'There is no scientific evidence that Laetrile offers anything but false hope to cancer patients, some of whom have used it instead of conventional treatment until it was too late for that treatment to be effective,' said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner. 'This sentence sends a strong message that we will not tolerate marketing of bogus medicines.' Following the investigation by FDA, the USAO, and the USPIS, the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York placed Vale's illegal sales and promotion of Laetrile - also known as amygdalin, 'Vitamin B-17', or apricot pits - under injunction in April 2000. Defying the court order, Vale set up a shell corporation in Arizona, and continued to ship the product from the basement of his own home to customers passed on to him by his New York firm. For these activities, Vale was found guilty 11 months ago of three counts of criminal contempt, and ordered to be held without bail pending his sentencing. Last week, the court also found that Vale, who had made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of Laetrile, had committed fraud in his marketing of Laetrile. In addition, Vale defrauded the U.S. government by claiming that he qualified for Legal Aid. As a result, Vale was ordered to reimburse the government $31,000 for the costs of his appointed defense attorney. Coincidentally, the rumor that the FDA had 'banned bitter almond trees' expressly because 'they contain an [anti-cancer compound]' cropped up around the same time that particular crackdown occurred. As as the FDA's press release made quite clear, the compound issue of toxicity and false information about cancer treatments and cures were their issues of concern. In the 2004 release, the FDA highlighted instances wherein cancer patients had relied on Laetrile to a point where their illnesses were no longer treatable, and prosecution of those peddling the substance were aimed at preventing poisoning and ensuring cancer patients weren't duped into purchasing ineffective supplements. The National Cancer Institute similarly holds that 'Laetrile has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies,' and as far back as 1981 researchers noted that: Despite the promoters' contrary claims, laetrile must be one of the most thoroughly studied compounds never to have qualified for FDA approval for human investigation under the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 23 different animal tumor models, laetrile has consistently failed to demonstrate any reproducible benefit. These represent all of the standard animal tumor systems and many of these studies have been carried out with extraordinary meticulousness. All currently recognized anticancer drugs have shown effectiveness in at least some of these models ... it would implicitly seem [laetrile proponents] agree laetrile cannot be shown to be effective in animal studies. The goverment's enacting a nation-wide ban on an agricultural product simply because its derivatives could be useful in preventing or fighting cancer makes no sense whatsoever outside of alternative medicine conspiracy circles who regularly assert that a power 'cancer industry' suppresses cancer cures from reaching the public in order to generate more profits for those involved in current forms of cancer diagnosis and treatment. If the U.S. had outlawed bitter almonds solely because of their efficacy in treating cancer, then we would be seeing streams of American cancer patients heading for foreign countries with no such regulation to receive treatment, but we don't. Laetrile has long since been exposed as a quack cure, not a legitimate cancer treatment. On 1 July 2016, an FDA representative responded to our inquiry and confirmed that agency doesn't have the authority to 'outlaw' vegetation of any description from growing inside the United States. The scope of their regulatory practice pertains solely to foods, drugs, and the manner in which substances are marketed, with a 2014 voluntary recall of organic raw almonds (for elevated content of naturally-occurring hydrogen cyanide) serving as an example of the jurisdiction the FDA exercises with respect to food safety. It is neither true that the FDA has banned bitter almond trees nor suppressed use of the fruit they yield. Bitter almond trees are grown agriculturally in California, and although the sale of their seeds is somewhat restricted, that restriction is aimed at both preventing the peddling of an ineffective derivative to cancer patients and to protect consumers from ingesting high levels of toxic hydrocyanic acid. | []
|
As of December 2019, Christianity Today was backed or funded by George Soros or was a 'front organization' for the philanthropist. | Contradiction | In December 2019, numerous readers asked us about the accuracy of claims that the evangelical magazine Christianity Today was either 'backed' or funded by the billionaire, liberal philanthropist George Soros. Those reports came in the aftermath of a Dec. 19 editorial by the publication's editor-in-chief Mark Galli, who called for U.S. President Donald Trump to be removed from office, whether by impeachment or by popular vote in the 2020 presidential election, and described Trump as 'a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.' Despite the fact that Christianity Today is a long-established Christian conservative publication, which similarly indicted Democratic President Bill Clinton's moral authority to govern in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Trump and some of his supporters quickly endeavored to discredit Christianity Today and portray it as an ideologically motivated, left-wing, or even corrupt, organization. In a tweet, the president denounced the publication as a 'far-left magazine.' On Dec. 20, the conservative Christian website Pulpit and Pen, which is part of the Baptist, Montana-based Polemics Ministry United, published an article with the headline 'Remember That 'Christianity Today' Is Backed by George Soros.' The article reported that: Christianity Today called for the U.S. Senate to affirm the impeachment of the U.S. House against President Donald J. Trump. As you soak that in, we'll remind you that it's already been reported by this publication (and others) that Christianity Today is a Soros front organization. [Blogger Ed] Stetzer and Christianity Today posted an article promoting George Soros' immigration plan on November 7. In it, they said that 'evangelicals should help lead' Soros' immigration plan. That immigration plan was planned and promoted by the Evangelical Immigration Table, which is a Soros front organization of the National Immigration Forum and is ultimately traced directly back to Soros' Open Societies Foundation. That Soros owns the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT) is so well-known, it's not worth answering any ill-informed dispute of the knowledge. Well-known Christian leader, Eric Metaxas, got off the board and repudiated it when he found out that it was a Soros operation. Christianity Today is in 'cahoots' with Soros in a verifiably documented way. It should come as no surprise they're calling for Donald Trump's impeachment. On Dec. 22, the right-leaning website DC Dirty Laundry published a tweaked version of Pulpit and Pen's article, and claimed that Christianity Today was 'funded by George Soros,' writing: 'Christianity Today has now strongly endorsed the impeachment of President Trump and it's time to expose them as the false teachers they are ... Do you realize that Christianity Today is partially funded by George Soros?' Soros has long been the subject of a seemingly endless series of fevered, baseless conspiracy theories, often inspired or aligned with anti-semitic tropes, which portray him as a shadowy, sinister, and unaccountable figure who exerts disproportionate control over global affairs. His status as a hate figure among many right-leaning observers and consumers of baseless conspiracy theories means that merely associating a given person or group with Soros has become a method of choice for discrediting an opponent or rhetorical target. So it was in the case of Christianity Today and its detractors in December 2019. Neither the publication nor its parent organization, the non-profit Christianity Today International, have received funding or institutional backing from Soros; claims to the contrary were based on a ludicrous distortion of extremely tenuous 'connections' - an example of the kind of 'joining the dots' that fuels many ultimately baseless conspiracy theories. Analysis In response to our requests for comment, Tim Dalrymple, president and CEO of Christianity Today International, told Snopes that: 'Christianity Today covers 85 percent of its annual budget through earned revenue: mostly subscriptions, advertising, and product sales. Only 15 percent of our budget comes through gifts and grants. We have never received a donation from George Soros or the Open Society Foundation. Of the foundations who have given us support, we cannot find any connection to Soros or any of his funding entities.' We examined the organization's three most recent tax returns, from 2018, 2017, and 2016. None of those forms, nor any of the accompanying documents, contained any reference or information indicating any association between Christianity Today International or its subsidiary publication Christianity Today, and Soros or any of his associated philanthropic organizations. The claim that Christianity Today is 'backed' or funded by Soros, or that it is a 'Soros front organization,' is simply false. The link drawn by Pulpit and Pen consisted of the following, relatively convoluted connections: In November, the Evangelical Immigration Table, an initiative by Evangelical pastors that promotes and emphasizes the dignity and humanity of displaced migrants, launched a campaign called the Evangelical Call for Restitution-Based Immigration Reform. One of those who supported the campaign was Ed Stetzer, a pastor and Christianity Today columnist, who wrote in a tweet that the campaign 'points to a way forward on immigration that's guided by biblical principles.' On Nov. 9, Christianity Today published a column by Matthew Soerens, national coordinator of the Evangelical Immigration Table, in which he explained and promoted the campaign. The Evangelical Immigration Table shares links with another organization called the National Immigration Forum. In 2013, for example, the forum provided funding for an Evangelical Immigration Table advertising campaign that promoted immigration reform and was targeted towards Christians. According to figures published by the right-leaning website Breitbart, the National Immigration Forum received just under $3.3 million in grant money from Soros' Open Society Foundation in 2009 and 2010. In 2013, the forum's Executive Director Ali Noorani acknowledged (without providing specific details) that it had received some Open Society Foundation funding, but said none of it was used to pay for the ad campaign. Conclusion Because Christianity Today has not received funding from Soros or his Open Society Foundation, and because it is not a 'front organization' for the philanthropist, as Pulpit and Pen falsely claimed, those seeking to discredit the publication by associating it with Soros were forced to stretch and distort the existing facts at their disposal. Almost a decade ago, the National Immigration Forum received some funding from a Soros organization. A few years later, the forum paid for a pro-immigration reform advertising campaign by the Evangelical Immigration Table, but no funding from Soros was used in that particular endeavor. Six years later, in 2019, the Evangelical Immigration Table launched another campaign in favor of restitution-based, biblically founded immigration reform. Christianity Today hosted a column written by the Evangelical Immigration Table's national coordinator, and one of its columnists (Stetzer) publicly supported the campaign. It was on the basis of those facts that Pulpit and Pen, DC Dirty Laundry and others reached the factually insupportable conclusion that Christianity Today was 'backed' and funded by Soros. Neither was true. | Conclusion Because Christianity Today has not received funding from Soros or his Open Society Foundation, and because it is not a 'front organization' for the philanthropist, as Pulpit and Pen falsely claimed, those seeking to discredit the publication by associating it with Soros were forced to stretch and distort the existing facts at their disposal. Almost a decade ago, the National Immigration Forum received some funding from a Soros organization. A few years later, the forum paid for a pro-immigration reform advertising campaign by the Evangelical Immigration Table, but no funding from Soros was used in that particular endeavor. Six years later, in 2019, the Evangelical Immigration Table launched another campaign in favor of restitution-based, biblically founded immigration reform. Christianity Today hosted a column written by the Evangelical Immigration Table's national coordinator, and one of its columnists (Stetzer) publicly supported the campaign. It was on the basis of those facts that Pulpit and Pen, DC Dirty Laundry and others reached the factually insupportable conclusion that Christianity Today was 'backed' and funded by Soros. Neither was true. | [
"14834-proof-02-GettyImages-957421116-e1577143327266.jpg"
]
|
A TikTok video is correct in saying Belgium's solar-powered parking meters are frequently unusable because of a lack of sunlight. | Contradiction | In August 2021, a TikTok video went viral that claimed parking in Belgium is free because the country's solar-powered parking meters never work due to a lack of sunlight in the area: @shaunadewit Urg belgium #foryou #pourtoi #goviral #psycho #belgium ♬ original sound - Shauna Dewit This claim doesn't appear to be true. Belgium does have some solar parking meters, but the country also has sunlight. We've seen no credible reports about these solar-powered meters becoming frequently unusable due to a lack of sunlight. For starters, let's make a general note about solar-powered items. A solar-powered product, such as a parking meter, does not immediately stop working when the sun is hidden behind a cloud. In fact, solar panels will continue to charge (albeit at a lower efficiency) on cloudy days. Solar-powered items also tend to store energy in batteries so that they can continue to operate on cloudy days or during the night. NASA writes: Solar radiation, or the electromagnetic energy emitted by the sun, can be captured and converted into useful forms of energy such as heat and electricity. Solar energy is the most abundant energy resource on Earth. According to the Department of Energy, the amount of sunlight that strikes Earth's surface in an hour and a half is enough to handle the entire world's energy consumption for a full year. Individual residences and businesses alike use solar panels to provide some or all of their energy needs. Utilities are also building solar plants to provide cleaner energy to their customers. Clouds play a key role in the transfer of energy through the atmosphere. Therefore, clouds affect the output of ground-based solar power generation systems. The amount of power these systems can produce is dependent on the level of light they receive, both directly from the sun and via light reflected from all parts of the sky in the hemisphere above. We haven't been able to find much specific information about how many solar-powered parking meters are in use in Belgium. These green energy meters have been in use in Brussels, the country's capital, since at least 2010. In 2020, the company IEM equipped the city of Antwerp, Belgium, with 960 solar-powered parking meters. A spokesperson for the city of Brussels told us that the claims in this video are false: At the City of Brussels, the solar powered parking meters works all the time as they all have 2 batteries included while there is not enough power created by the sun. All the parking meters are also connected to a central which can tell when the batteries are almost empty. What she says in the video is so false. Here's a video about the solar powered parking meters that were installed by IEM: We reached out to the company and will update this article article if more information becomes available. It's also worth noting that while Belgium may not be the sunniest place in the world (that would be Yuma, Arizona, U.S.A.), it's also not the gloomiest. In fact, the day after the above-displayed TikTok video went viral, racking up more than 11 million views in 24 hours, Shauna Dewit posted a follow-up video informing everyone that she had found the sun: @shaunadewit This is not funny im mad #foryou #pourtoi #goviral #psycho #belgium #sun ♬ original sound - Shauna Dewit It should also be noted that Belgium is not the only country to use such meters, and they aren't the only country to see people worry about the parking meters being unusable during cloudy weather. When similar solar-powered devices were installed in Washington, D.C., in 2010, WAMU reported: But because each meter is solar powered, would it ... maybe...possibly...stop working when it's cloudy or snowing? 'No! You might like it but we definitely wouldn't,' says [Gabe Klein, head of the District's Department of Transportation]. Klein says there's enough light even on a cloudy day to charge the batteries. Cash or credit, you'll still have to pay. In short, we have not seen any credible reports about Belgium's solar-powered parking meters being rendered useless because of a lack of sunlight. As this country has been using these devices for at least 10 years, and as they have recently installed close to a thousand more, it seems reasonable to assume that the these parking meters work. | In short, we have not seen any credible reports about Belgium's solar-powered parking meters being rendered useless because of a lack of sunlight. As this country has been using these devices for at least 10 years, and as they have recently installed close to a thousand more, it seems reasonable to assume that the these parking meters work. | [
"14836-proof-08-solar-power-parking-meter-france.jpg"
]
|
A TikTok video is correct in saying Belgium's solar-powered parking meters are frequently unusable because of a lack of sunlight. | Contradiction | In August 2021, a TikTok video went viral that claimed parking in Belgium is free because the country's solar-powered parking meters never work due to a lack of sunlight in the area: @shaunadewit Urg belgium #foryou #pourtoi #goviral #psycho #belgium ♬ original sound - Shauna Dewit This claim doesn't appear to be true. Belgium does have some solar parking meters, but the country also has sunlight. We've seen no credible reports about these solar-powered meters becoming frequently unusable due to a lack of sunlight. For starters, let's make a general note about solar-powered items. A solar-powered product, such as a parking meter, does not immediately stop working when the sun is hidden behind a cloud. In fact, solar panels will continue to charge (albeit at a lower efficiency) on cloudy days. Solar-powered items also tend to store energy in batteries so that they can continue to operate on cloudy days or during the night. NASA writes: Solar radiation, or the electromagnetic energy emitted by the sun, can be captured and converted into useful forms of energy such as heat and electricity. Solar energy is the most abundant energy resource on Earth. According to the Department of Energy, the amount of sunlight that strikes Earth's surface in an hour and a half is enough to handle the entire world's energy consumption for a full year. Individual residences and businesses alike use solar panels to provide some or all of their energy needs. Utilities are also building solar plants to provide cleaner energy to their customers. Clouds play a key role in the transfer of energy through the atmosphere. Therefore, clouds affect the output of ground-based solar power generation systems. The amount of power these systems can produce is dependent on the level of light they receive, both directly from the sun and via light reflected from all parts of the sky in the hemisphere above. We haven't been able to find much specific information about how many solar-powered parking meters are in use in Belgium. These green energy meters have been in use in Brussels, the country's capital, since at least 2010. In 2020, the company IEM equipped the city of Antwerp, Belgium, with 960 solar-powered parking meters. A spokesperson for the city of Brussels told us that the claims in this video are false: At the City of Brussels, the solar powered parking meters works all the time as they all have 2 batteries included while there is not enough power created by the sun. All the parking meters are also connected to a central which can tell when the batteries are almost empty. What she says in the video is so false. Here's a video about the solar powered parking meters that were installed by IEM: We reached out to the company and will update this article article if more information becomes available. It's also worth noting that while Belgium may not be the sunniest place in the world (that would be Yuma, Arizona, U.S.A.), it's also not the gloomiest. In fact, the day after the above-displayed TikTok video went viral, racking up more than 11 million views in 24 hours, Shauna Dewit posted a follow-up video informing everyone that she had found the sun: @shaunadewit This is not funny im mad #foryou #pourtoi #goviral #psycho #belgium #sun ♬ original sound - Shauna Dewit It should also be noted that Belgium is not the only country to use such meters, and they aren't the only country to see people worry about the parking meters being unusable during cloudy weather. When similar solar-powered devices were installed in Washington, D.C., in 2010, WAMU reported: But because each meter is solar powered, would it ... maybe...possibly...stop working when it's cloudy or snowing? 'No! You might like it but we definitely wouldn't,' says [Gabe Klein, head of the District's Department of Transportation]. Klein says there's enough light even on a cloudy day to charge the batteries. Cash or credit, you'll still have to pay. In short, we have not seen any credible reports about Belgium's solar-powered parking meters being rendered useless because of a lack of sunlight. As this country has been using these devices for at least 10 years, and as they have recently installed close to a thousand more, it seems reasonable to assume that the these parking meters work. | In short, we have not seen any credible reports about Belgium's solar-powered parking meters being rendered useless because of a lack of sunlight. As this country has been using these devices for at least 10 years, and as they have recently installed close to a thousand more, it seems reasonable to assume that the these parking meters work. | [
"14836-proof-08-solar-power-parking-meter-france.jpg"
]
|
A TikTok video is correct in saying Belgium's solar-powered parking meters are frequently unusable because of a lack of sunlight. | Contradiction | In August 2021, a TikTok video went viral that claimed parking in Belgium is free because the country's solar-powered parking meters never work due to a lack of sunlight in the area: @shaunadewit Urg belgium #foryou #pourtoi #goviral #psycho #belgium ♬ original sound - Shauna Dewit This claim doesn't appear to be true. Belgium does have some solar parking meters, but the country also has sunlight. We've seen no credible reports about these solar-powered meters becoming frequently unusable due to a lack of sunlight. For starters, let's make a general note about solar-powered items. A solar-powered product, such as a parking meter, does not immediately stop working when the sun is hidden behind a cloud. In fact, solar panels will continue to charge (albeit at a lower efficiency) on cloudy days. Solar-powered items also tend to store energy in batteries so that they can continue to operate on cloudy days or during the night. NASA writes: Solar radiation, or the electromagnetic energy emitted by the sun, can be captured and converted into useful forms of energy such as heat and electricity. Solar energy is the most abundant energy resource on Earth. According to the Department of Energy, the amount of sunlight that strikes Earth's surface in an hour and a half is enough to handle the entire world's energy consumption for a full year. Individual residences and businesses alike use solar panels to provide some or all of their energy needs. Utilities are also building solar plants to provide cleaner energy to their customers. Clouds play a key role in the transfer of energy through the atmosphere. Therefore, clouds affect the output of ground-based solar power generation systems. The amount of power these systems can produce is dependent on the level of light they receive, both directly from the sun and via light reflected from all parts of the sky in the hemisphere above. We haven't been able to find much specific information about how many solar-powered parking meters are in use in Belgium. These green energy meters have been in use in Brussels, the country's capital, since at least 2010. In 2020, the company IEM equipped the city of Antwerp, Belgium, with 960 solar-powered parking meters. A spokesperson for the city of Brussels told us that the claims in this video are false: At the City of Brussels, the solar powered parking meters works all the time as they all have 2 batteries included while there is not enough power created by the sun. All the parking meters are also connected to a central which can tell when the batteries are almost empty. What she says in the video is so false. Here's a video about the solar powered parking meters that were installed by IEM: We reached out to the company and will update this article article if more information becomes available. It's also worth noting that while Belgium may not be the sunniest place in the world (that would be Yuma, Arizona, U.S.A.), it's also not the gloomiest. In fact, the day after the above-displayed TikTok video went viral, racking up more than 11 million views in 24 hours, Shauna Dewit posted a follow-up video informing everyone that she had found the sun: @shaunadewit This is not funny im mad #foryou #pourtoi #goviral #psycho #belgium #sun ♬ original sound - Shauna Dewit It should also be noted that Belgium is not the only country to use such meters, and they aren't the only country to see people worry about the parking meters being unusable during cloudy weather. When similar solar-powered devices were installed in Washington, D.C., in 2010, WAMU reported: But because each meter is solar powered, would it ... maybe...possibly...stop working when it's cloudy or snowing? 'No! You might like it but we definitely wouldn't,' says [Gabe Klein, head of the District's Department of Transportation]. Klein says there's enough light even on a cloudy day to charge the batteries. Cash or credit, you'll still have to pay. In short, we have not seen any credible reports about Belgium's solar-powered parking meters being rendered useless because of a lack of sunlight. As this country has been using these devices for at least 10 years, and as they have recently installed close to a thousand more, it seems reasonable to assume that the these parking meters work. | In short, we have not seen any credible reports about Belgium's solar-powered parking meters being rendered useless because of a lack of sunlight. As this country has been using these devices for at least 10 years, and as they have recently installed close to a thousand more, it seems reasonable to assume that the these parking meters work. | [
"14836-proof-08-solar-power-parking-meter-france.jpg"
]
|
A TikTok video is correct in saying Belgium's solar-powered parking meters are frequently unusable because of a lack of sunlight. | Contradiction | In August 2021, a TikTok video went viral that claimed parking in Belgium is free because the country's solar-powered parking meters never work due to a lack of sunlight in the area: @shaunadewit Urg belgium #foryou #pourtoi #goviral #psycho #belgium ♬ original sound - Shauna Dewit This claim doesn't appear to be true. Belgium does have some solar parking meters, but the country also has sunlight. We've seen no credible reports about these solar-powered meters becoming frequently unusable due to a lack of sunlight. For starters, let's make a general note about solar-powered items. A solar-powered product, such as a parking meter, does not immediately stop working when the sun is hidden behind a cloud. In fact, solar panels will continue to charge (albeit at a lower efficiency) on cloudy days. Solar-powered items also tend to store energy in batteries so that they can continue to operate on cloudy days or during the night. NASA writes: Solar radiation, or the electromagnetic energy emitted by the sun, can be captured and converted into useful forms of energy such as heat and electricity. Solar energy is the most abundant energy resource on Earth. According to the Department of Energy, the amount of sunlight that strikes Earth's surface in an hour and a half is enough to handle the entire world's energy consumption for a full year. Individual residences and businesses alike use solar panels to provide some or all of their energy needs. Utilities are also building solar plants to provide cleaner energy to their customers. Clouds play a key role in the transfer of energy through the atmosphere. Therefore, clouds affect the output of ground-based solar power generation systems. The amount of power these systems can produce is dependent on the level of light they receive, both directly from the sun and via light reflected from all parts of the sky in the hemisphere above. We haven't been able to find much specific information about how many solar-powered parking meters are in use in Belgium. These green energy meters have been in use in Brussels, the country's capital, since at least 2010. In 2020, the company IEM equipped the city of Antwerp, Belgium, with 960 solar-powered parking meters. A spokesperson for the city of Brussels told us that the claims in this video are false: At the City of Brussels, the solar powered parking meters works all the time as they all have 2 batteries included while there is not enough power created by the sun. All the parking meters are also connected to a central which can tell when the batteries are almost empty. What she says in the video is so false. Here's a video about the solar powered parking meters that were installed by IEM: We reached out to the company and will update this article article if more information becomes available. It's also worth noting that while Belgium may not be the sunniest place in the world (that would be Yuma, Arizona, U.S.A.), it's also not the gloomiest. In fact, the day after the above-displayed TikTok video went viral, racking up more than 11 million views in 24 hours, Shauna Dewit posted a follow-up video informing everyone that she had found the sun: @shaunadewit This is not funny im mad #foryou #pourtoi #goviral #psycho #belgium #sun ♬ original sound - Shauna Dewit It should also be noted that Belgium is not the only country to use such meters, and they aren't the only country to see people worry about the parking meters being unusable during cloudy weather. When similar solar-powered devices were installed in Washington, D.C., in 2010, WAMU reported: But because each meter is solar powered, would it ... maybe...possibly...stop working when it's cloudy or snowing? 'No! You might like it but we definitely wouldn't,' says [Gabe Klein, head of the District's Department of Transportation]. Klein says there's enough light even on a cloudy day to charge the batteries. Cash or credit, you'll still have to pay. In short, we have not seen any credible reports about Belgium's solar-powered parking meters being rendered useless because of a lack of sunlight. As this country has been using these devices for at least 10 years, and as they have recently installed close to a thousand more, it seems reasonable to assume that the these parking meters work. | In short, we have not seen any credible reports about Belgium's solar-powered parking meters being rendered useless because of a lack of sunlight. As this country has been using these devices for at least 10 years, and as they have recently installed close to a thousand more, it seems reasonable to assume that the these parking meters work. | [
"14836-proof-08-solar-power-parking-meter-france.jpg"
]
|
A TikTok video is correct in saying Belgium's solar-powered parking meters are frequently unusable because of a lack of sunlight. | Contradiction | In August 2021, a TikTok video went viral that claimed parking in Belgium is free because the country's solar-powered parking meters never work due to a lack of sunlight in the area: @shaunadewit Urg belgium #foryou #pourtoi #goviral #psycho #belgium ♬ original sound - Shauna Dewit This claim doesn't appear to be true. Belgium does have some solar parking meters, but the country also has sunlight. We've seen no credible reports about these solar-powered meters becoming frequently unusable due to a lack of sunlight. For starters, let's make a general note about solar-powered items. A solar-powered product, such as a parking meter, does not immediately stop working when the sun is hidden behind a cloud. In fact, solar panels will continue to charge (albeit at a lower efficiency) on cloudy days. Solar-powered items also tend to store energy in batteries so that they can continue to operate on cloudy days or during the night. NASA writes: Solar radiation, or the electromagnetic energy emitted by the sun, can be captured and converted into useful forms of energy such as heat and electricity. Solar energy is the most abundant energy resource on Earth. According to the Department of Energy, the amount of sunlight that strikes Earth's surface in an hour and a half is enough to handle the entire world's energy consumption for a full year. Individual residences and businesses alike use solar panels to provide some or all of their energy needs. Utilities are also building solar plants to provide cleaner energy to their customers. Clouds play a key role in the transfer of energy through the atmosphere. Therefore, clouds affect the output of ground-based solar power generation systems. The amount of power these systems can produce is dependent on the level of light they receive, both directly from the sun and via light reflected from all parts of the sky in the hemisphere above. We haven't been able to find much specific information about how many solar-powered parking meters are in use in Belgium. These green energy meters have been in use in Brussels, the country's capital, since at least 2010. In 2020, the company IEM equipped the city of Antwerp, Belgium, with 960 solar-powered parking meters. A spokesperson for the city of Brussels told us that the claims in this video are false: At the City of Brussels, the solar powered parking meters works all the time as they all have 2 batteries included while there is not enough power created by the sun. All the parking meters are also connected to a central which can tell when the batteries are almost empty. What she says in the video is so false. Here's a video about the solar powered parking meters that were installed by IEM: We reached out to the company and will update this article article if more information becomes available. It's also worth noting that while Belgium may not be the sunniest place in the world (that would be Yuma, Arizona, U.S.A.), it's also not the gloomiest. In fact, the day after the above-displayed TikTok video went viral, racking up more than 11 million views in 24 hours, Shauna Dewit posted a follow-up video informing everyone that she had found the sun: @shaunadewit This is not funny im mad #foryou #pourtoi #goviral #psycho #belgium #sun ♬ original sound - Shauna Dewit It should also be noted that Belgium is not the only country to use such meters, and they aren't the only country to see people worry about the parking meters being unusable during cloudy weather. When similar solar-powered devices were installed in Washington, D.C., in 2010, WAMU reported: But because each meter is solar powered, would it ... maybe...possibly...stop working when it's cloudy or snowing? 'No! You might like it but we definitely wouldn't,' says [Gabe Klein, head of the District's Department of Transportation]. Klein says there's enough light even on a cloudy day to charge the batteries. Cash or credit, you'll still have to pay. In short, we have not seen any credible reports about Belgium's solar-powered parking meters being rendered useless because of a lack of sunlight. As this country has been using these devices for at least 10 years, and as they have recently installed close to a thousand more, it seems reasonable to assume that the these parking meters work. | In short, we have not seen any credible reports about Belgium's solar-powered parking meters being rendered useless because of a lack of sunlight. As this country has been using these devices for at least 10 years, and as they have recently installed close to a thousand more, it seems reasonable to assume that the these parking meters work. | [
"14836-proof-08-solar-power-parking-meter-france.jpg"
]
|
The website everylegalvote.com provides empirical evidence that U.S. President Donald Trump would have won the 2020 general election were it not for voter fraud. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In November 2020, the website everylegalvote.com was founded with the apparent goal of quantifying the impact of voter fraud on the U.S. presidential election. The centerpiece of this website is an electoral map that purports to show the results of the 2020 election as they stand now, how it looks when you factor in voter fraud, and how it looks when all voter fraud is removed. In the latter scenario, the website declares that U.S. President Donald Trump clearly won the election over his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden. Many of the claims made on this site are not tethered to reality. The map is nonsense and is based on extrapolations from unverified claims, debunked rumors, and unproven data. If you visit everylegalvote.com (a site McAfee's Webadviser software marked as 'suspicious'), you can click the 'with voter fraud,' 'current status,' and 'without voter fraud' tabs to change the results of the election. Pressing each button results in unusually precise changes to the data. In Arizona, for example, Biden's vote count changes from 1,648,642 'with voter fraud' to 1,591,641 'without voter fraud.' How did this website determine that there were 57,001 fraudulent votes in Arizona? It isn't really explained. The website makes some general claims about how it uses 'proven statistical methods' to find anomalies in the data, but it's short on detail. The website states: The fraud disaggregation process uses a large amount of voter patterns and proven statistical methods to find and document mathematical anomalies indicative of voter fraud or ballot tampering. As we collect and analyze more data we will be able to demonstrate with increasing granularity the difference between an election without tampering and one with more anomalies, which are indicative of tampering Furthermore, this site states that it gets its data in part from 'fraud stories from every day Americans,' but we found that many of the listed stories to be based on unfounded claims or debunked rumors. In Arizona, for example, the site lists five stories related to voter fraud. Two of those stories concern the debunked claim that ballots marked with Sharpies would be invalidated; one is just a tweet from Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar calling for a recount (Gosar's desire for a recount deals with debunked claims concerning Dominion Voting software), and another is a video that claims to show 'voter fraud caught on camera in Arizona' but shows nothing of the sort. In fact, Arizona is barely mentioned in that video. As far as we can tell, Arizona is mentioned once regarding the debunked Sharpie claim and another time when the YouTube user suggests that ballots 'just appeared.' But ballots didn't just 'appear' in Arizona. The vote count changed as votes were counted. The one story listed in this section that is at least tied to reality deals with an influx of split-ticket votes. While there did appear to be an uptick in split-ticket voting this year (voting a split-ticket is when you vote for one party's president but vote for the other party for the other selections on your ballot), this is completely legal and is not indicative of fraud. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, dismissed the notion of fraud in his state during an appearance on Fox News. Arizona Central reported: No conspiracy, just split-ticket voters 'If indeed there was some great conspiracy, it apparently didn't work,' Brnovich told Fox Business' Neil Cavuto on Wednesday. 'The county election official, who's a Democrat, lost, and other Republicans won.' He was referring to Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes, who is trailing Republican Stephen Richer by more than 3,000 votes. Some Republicans point to the fact that Trump and GOP Sen. Martha McSally lost while GOP candidates did well in down-ballot races as evidence of a conspiracy. Someone, they reason, must have changed those votes at the top of the ticket. Brnovich shot that one down. 'It came down to: People split their ticket,' he told Cavuto. 'People voted for Republicans down ballot, and they didn't vote for President Trump or Martha McSally. So, that's the reality.' It's not clear how everylegalvote.com calculated that two hoaxes, a call for a recount, a misunderstanding of how election works, and an increase in split-ticket voting amounted to a 57,001 fraudulent vote swing for Biden. 'A Voter Fraud Primer' While the electoral map discussed above is the central feature of everylegalvote.com, this website also includes a 'voter fraud primer' that briefly discusses the various ways voter fraud can supposedly be spotted. This section, however, is rife with false claims and misleading statements. We'll take a look at a few such claims below: Everylegalvote.com claims: Fraud is real. Fraud happens every day. In elections, fraud is a common issue. Reality: Voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study have concluded that voter fraud in the United States is rare. While testifying under oath before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in September 2020, FBI Director Christopher Wray said: 'We have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it's by mail or otherwise.' In the days following the 2020 general election, election officials in every state reported that they had not seen evidence of voter fraud. Everylegalvote.com claims: It is NOT normal to stop counting the ballots in the middle of a count. The evidentiary chain is broken (what if someone sneaks a pile of fraud ballots in at 3:30 a.m.?). In every presidential election in the U.S. until 2020, counts were never stopped until they were completed. Reality: Vote counts have been stopped or slowed before (most notably the recount in 2000), and claims that the vote 'stopped' in 2020 are exaggerated. There have been multiple claims that vote counts were stopped during the 2020 election, but the majority of these claims have either proven false or have been clarified with simple explanations. Trump claimed, for example, that the vote in North Carolina had been 'called off.' But that's not the case. All of the available ballots in the state had been counted at that time and election officials were waiting for more legally cast mail-in ballots to arrive. In Philadelphia, there was some confusion after a reporter wrote that the state would not be reporting any more mail-in ballot numbers for the night, but city Commissioner Al Schmidt quickly clarified that, writing that 'Philadelphia will NOT stop counting ALL legitimate votes cast by eligible voters.' A viral Facebook post claimed that voting stopped in six states during the 2020 election, but that claim was false. It should also be noted that Trump's campaign has filed numerous lawsuits asking for the vote count to be stopped (something that everylegalvote.com argues is only done by those attempting to commit fraud) and that Trump himself has posted messages on Twitter such as 'STOP THE COUNT!' Everylegalvote.com claims: It is well established that [mail-in] voting is the easiest way to defraud a candidate. Reality: Mail-in voting is slightly more prone to fraud than in person voting, but the risk for fraud in both forms of voting is still extremely low. We covered claims about an increased risk of mail-in voter fraud here. Everylegalvote.com claims: The Democrat vs. Republican ratio in each batch of [mail-in] ballots should be very uniform across a region or a state. Reality: In the months leading up to the election, it was widely reported that Democrats were returning more mail-in ballots than Republicans. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a surge in mail-in voting as many people wanted to avoid waiting in long lines surrounded by people. While Democrats urged their supporters to vote by mail, Trump continually pushed false claims about mail-in votes. It's not surprising, in other words, that one party saw more voters use mail-in ballots. Everylegalvote.com claims: We dig deep into this here, where we show that many states, including Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Maine, and all show signs of ballot tampering and injections of Democrat ballots after the initial in-person votes have been counted. Reality: This is not how elections work. Mail-in ballots are legal and are counted the same as in-person ballots. In most cases, mail-in votes are cast before election day. While states have different rules on when they can start counting votes, and while some states count in-person votes first, it simply is not accurate to say that that mail-in ballots were 'injected' into the vote count. You can read an AFP Fact Check about this claim here. Everylegalvote.com claims: No Witnesses Allowed: Whenever one side tries to prevent the other side from watching ballots being opened or counted, it is a red flag. That side has something to hide. Fraud is the only thing that would be hidden from the opponent's team in an election count. Democrat operatives prevented Republicans from observing the count in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada. Reality: Observers from both parties were allowed to watch the vote count. The claim that Republicans were prevented from observing the vote has been repeated in a variety of forms. A variety of news outlets and fact-checkers have investigated these claims and found them without merit. Judges, too, have dismissed lawsuits from the Trump campaign that made this allegation. PBS reported on one such lawsuit that had been filed in Philadelphia: A federal motion filed by lawyers for President Donald Trump's campaign that sought to halt vote counting in Philadelphia has been dismissed as moot. The Thursday afternoon filing against the city's election board sought an injunction to halt vote counting over allegations that observers from the Trump campaign had been unfairly barred from parts of the city's ballot-counting area inside the Pennsylvania Convention Center. In an evening hearing, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said the campaign admitted that its observers had been allowed into the venue but that they had not been given equal access or numbers as Democrats. The federal judge seemed frustrated at times with arguments from the campaign. 'I'm sorry, then what's your problem?' said Diamond, a President George W. Bush appointee, after Trump lawyers conceded that observers had been admitted to the facility. Everylegalvote.com claims: Too many voters. When a political party is losing an election in the Third World, the party will pile on additional votes manufactured for its candidate. These always show up in the totals, which typically exceed the number of actual voters that exist in a precinct or county. There are numerous counties in the 2020 election with over 100% voters supposedly voting, and some states have astronomically high turnout percentages, such as Wisconsin. Reality: Voter turnout was up in 2020, but no state saw 'over 100% voters.' This is another claim that has come in many forms. We previously investigated two rumors claiming that voter turnout had exceeded 100%. In both cases, the rumor compared old voter registration data with current voter turnout data. Here are links to these articles. No, Wisconsin Did Not Count More Votes Than Registered Voters in 2020 7 States Did Not Count More Votes Than Voters Everylegalvote.com claims: The Dominion Voting machines are known to be connected to the Internet, allowing for bad actors to change vote tallies in the machines as they report counted ballots for each candidate. These machines have already been caught changing votes to Biden from Trump in Michigan and Georgia and Philadelphia. Here is a video showing 19,958 votes taken from Trump and given to Biden at 10:23pm on election night. Reality: Dominion Voting software is not changing votes. Election officials have already addressed these 'glitches' (which in most cases were actually human errors that were quickly corrected) and these problems did not impact the vote count. There have been multiple claims about fraud concerning Dominion Voting Software, but, again, these claims have all proven baseless. You can read our write-up of these rumors here, or check out The New York Times' investigation. For the purposes of this article, we'll point readers to a statement from Christopher Krebs, the director of the U.S. cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, who called these claims 'nonsense.' To be crystal clear on ⬇️, I'm specifically referring to the Hammer and Scorecard nonsense. It's just that - nonsense. This is not a real thing, don't fall for it and think 2x before you share. #Protect2020 https://t.co/f2FpSbRXKy - Chris Krebs #Protect2020 (@CISAKrebs) November 7, 2020 Everylegalvote.com claims: 'Dead' people vote. To determine who has voted, the registered voter data has to be processed. Many citizen journalists and citizens have checked the state databases and found dead parents, siblings, and people born as far back as the early 1800s registered for absentee ballots and with voted ballots tallied in the swing states. Reality: Dead people, generally speaking, don't vote. The claim that dead people are voting tends to pop up every election, but these claims are almost always based on a misreading of the data. A lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign, for example, claimed that a dead person had voted in Michigan. Election officials in the state, however, found that this was really a case of mistaken identify. The local news outlet Bridge Michigan reported: 'Rather than a dead voter, though, it appears to be a case of mistaken identity caused by confusion over 'common names,' said Tracy Wimmer, a spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's office.' News outlets, fact-checkers, and election officials have debunked similar claims. A viral list of dead people who supposedly voted in Michigan, for instance, was found to be full of holes. CNN reported: Of the 50, 37 were indeed dead and had not voted, according to the voter information database. Five people out of the 50 had voted - and they are all still alive, according to public records accessed by CNN. The remaining eight are also alive but didn't vote. While it isn't common for a vote to be cast in a dead person's name, this has happened before. Most often, this involves a spouse casting a vote for a deceased partner. It is possible that 2020 will see a few examples of this occurring, but this not indicative of widespread voter fraud. Everylegalvote.com claims: Witnesses this election have sworn they were ordered to back-date hundreds of ballots at the USPS, which is a crime. Reality: A witness did swear that workers were ordered to back-date ballots. And then, under threat of perjury, he recanted his testimony. The Washington Post reported: Richard Hopkins's claim that a postmaster in Erie, Pa., instructed postal workers to backdate ballots mailed after Election Day was cited by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) in a letter to the Justice Department calling for a federal investigation. Attorney General William P. Barr subsequently authorized federal prosecutors to open probes into credible allegations of voting irregularities and fraud before results are certified, a reversal of long-standing Justice Department policy. But on Monday, Hopkins, 32, told investigators from the U.S. Postal Service's Office of Inspector General that the allegations were not true, and he signed an affidavit recanting his claims, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee tweeted late Tuesday that the 'whistleblower completely RECANTED.' In Sum ... Everylegalvote.com does not provide an accurate view of how voter fraud impacted the 2020 election. As of this writing, claims of voter fraud are largely unsubstantiated, making any claims that one candidate benefited from fraud while it served as a detriment to another to be, at best, premature. While the website presents itself as an educational resource for those seeking to learn about the impact of voter fraud, these 'lessons' hinge on debunked rumors, hoaxes, and misleading claims. | In Sum ... Everylegalvote.com does not provide an accurate view of how voter fraud impacted the 2020 election. As of this writing, claims of voter fraud are largely unsubstantiated, making any claims that one candidate benefited from fraud while it served as a detriment to another to be, at best, premature. While the website presents itself as an educational resource for those seeking to learn about the impact of voter fraud, these 'lessons' hinge on debunked rumors, hoaxes, and misleading claims. | [
"14867-proof-01-fraud-map-nonsense.jpg",
"14867-proof-05-GettyImages-1203196288-e1605222254811.jpg"
]
|
The website everylegalvote.com provides empirical evidence that U.S. President Donald Trump would have won the 2020 general election were it not for voter fraud. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In November 2020, the website everylegalvote.com was founded with the apparent goal of quantifying the impact of voter fraud on the U.S. presidential election. The centerpiece of this website is an electoral map that purports to show the results of the 2020 election as they stand now, how it looks when you factor in voter fraud, and how it looks when all voter fraud is removed. In the latter scenario, the website declares that U.S. President Donald Trump clearly won the election over his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden. Many of the claims made on this site are not tethered to reality. The map is nonsense and is based on extrapolations from unverified claims, debunked rumors, and unproven data. If you visit everylegalvote.com (a site McAfee's Webadviser software marked as 'suspicious'), you can click the 'with voter fraud,' 'current status,' and 'without voter fraud' tabs to change the results of the election. Pressing each button results in unusually precise changes to the data. In Arizona, for example, Biden's vote count changes from 1,648,642 'with voter fraud' to 1,591,641 'without voter fraud.' How did this website determine that there were 57,001 fraudulent votes in Arizona? It isn't really explained. The website makes some general claims about how it uses 'proven statistical methods' to find anomalies in the data, but it's short on detail. The website states: The fraud disaggregation process uses a large amount of voter patterns and proven statistical methods to find and document mathematical anomalies indicative of voter fraud or ballot tampering. As we collect and analyze more data we will be able to demonstrate with increasing granularity the difference between an election without tampering and one with more anomalies, which are indicative of tampering Furthermore, this site states that it gets its data in part from 'fraud stories from every day Americans,' but we found that many of the listed stories to be based on unfounded claims or debunked rumors. In Arizona, for example, the site lists five stories related to voter fraud. Two of those stories concern the debunked claim that ballots marked with Sharpies would be invalidated; one is just a tweet from Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar calling for a recount (Gosar's desire for a recount deals with debunked claims concerning Dominion Voting software), and another is a video that claims to show 'voter fraud caught on camera in Arizona' but shows nothing of the sort. In fact, Arizona is barely mentioned in that video. As far as we can tell, Arizona is mentioned once regarding the debunked Sharpie claim and another time when the YouTube user suggests that ballots 'just appeared.' But ballots didn't just 'appear' in Arizona. The vote count changed as votes were counted. The one story listed in this section that is at least tied to reality deals with an influx of split-ticket votes. While there did appear to be an uptick in split-ticket voting this year (voting a split-ticket is when you vote for one party's president but vote for the other party for the other selections on your ballot), this is completely legal and is not indicative of fraud. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, dismissed the notion of fraud in his state during an appearance on Fox News. Arizona Central reported: No conspiracy, just split-ticket voters 'If indeed there was some great conspiracy, it apparently didn't work,' Brnovich told Fox Business' Neil Cavuto on Wednesday. 'The county election official, who's a Democrat, lost, and other Republicans won.' He was referring to Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes, who is trailing Republican Stephen Richer by more than 3,000 votes. Some Republicans point to the fact that Trump and GOP Sen. Martha McSally lost while GOP candidates did well in down-ballot races as evidence of a conspiracy. Someone, they reason, must have changed those votes at the top of the ticket. Brnovich shot that one down. 'It came down to: People split their ticket,' he told Cavuto. 'People voted for Republicans down ballot, and they didn't vote for President Trump or Martha McSally. So, that's the reality.' It's not clear how everylegalvote.com calculated that two hoaxes, a call for a recount, a misunderstanding of how election works, and an increase in split-ticket voting amounted to a 57,001 fraudulent vote swing for Biden. 'A Voter Fraud Primer' While the electoral map discussed above is the central feature of everylegalvote.com, this website also includes a 'voter fraud primer' that briefly discusses the various ways voter fraud can supposedly be spotted. This section, however, is rife with false claims and misleading statements. We'll take a look at a few such claims below: Everylegalvote.com claims: Fraud is real. Fraud happens every day. In elections, fraud is a common issue. Reality: Voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study have concluded that voter fraud in the United States is rare. While testifying under oath before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in September 2020, FBI Director Christopher Wray said: 'We have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it's by mail or otherwise.' In the days following the 2020 general election, election officials in every state reported that they had not seen evidence of voter fraud. Everylegalvote.com claims: It is NOT normal to stop counting the ballots in the middle of a count. The evidentiary chain is broken (what if someone sneaks a pile of fraud ballots in at 3:30 a.m.?). In every presidential election in the U.S. until 2020, counts were never stopped until they were completed. Reality: Vote counts have been stopped or slowed before (most notably the recount in 2000), and claims that the vote 'stopped' in 2020 are exaggerated. There have been multiple claims that vote counts were stopped during the 2020 election, but the majority of these claims have either proven false or have been clarified with simple explanations. Trump claimed, for example, that the vote in North Carolina had been 'called off.' But that's not the case. All of the available ballots in the state had been counted at that time and election officials were waiting for more legally cast mail-in ballots to arrive. In Philadelphia, there was some confusion after a reporter wrote that the state would not be reporting any more mail-in ballot numbers for the night, but city Commissioner Al Schmidt quickly clarified that, writing that 'Philadelphia will NOT stop counting ALL legitimate votes cast by eligible voters.' A viral Facebook post claimed that voting stopped in six states during the 2020 election, but that claim was false. It should also be noted that Trump's campaign has filed numerous lawsuits asking for the vote count to be stopped (something that everylegalvote.com argues is only done by those attempting to commit fraud) and that Trump himself has posted messages on Twitter such as 'STOP THE COUNT!' Everylegalvote.com claims: It is well established that [mail-in] voting is the easiest way to defraud a candidate. Reality: Mail-in voting is slightly more prone to fraud than in person voting, but the risk for fraud in both forms of voting is still extremely low. We covered claims about an increased risk of mail-in voter fraud here. Everylegalvote.com claims: The Democrat vs. Republican ratio in each batch of [mail-in] ballots should be very uniform across a region or a state. Reality: In the months leading up to the election, it was widely reported that Democrats were returning more mail-in ballots than Republicans. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a surge in mail-in voting as many people wanted to avoid waiting in long lines surrounded by people. While Democrats urged their supporters to vote by mail, Trump continually pushed false claims about mail-in votes. It's not surprising, in other words, that one party saw more voters use mail-in ballots. Everylegalvote.com claims: We dig deep into this here, where we show that many states, including Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Maine, and all show signs of ballot tampering and injections of Democrat ballots after the initial in-person votes have been counted. Reality: This is not how elections work. Mail-in ballots are legal and are counted the same as in-person ballots. In most cases, mail-in votes are cast before election day. While states have different rules on when they can start counting votes, and while some states count in-person votes first, it simply is not accurate to say that that mail-in ballots were 'injected' into the vote count. You can read an AFP Fact Check about this claim here. Everylegalvote.com claims: No Witnesses Allowed: Whenever one side tries to prevent the other side from watching ballots being opened or counted, it is a red flag. That side has something to hide. Fraud is the only thing that would be hidden from the opponent's team in an election count. Democrat operatives prevented Republicans from observing the count in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada. Reality: Observers from both parties were allowed to watch the vote count. The claim that Republicans were prevented from observing the vote has been repeated in a variety of forms. A variety of news outlets and fact-checkers have investigated these claims and found them without merit. Judges, too, have dismissed lawsuits from the Trump campaign that made this allegation. PBS reported on one such lawsuit that had been filed in Philadelphia: A federal motion filed by lawyers for President Donald Trump's campaign that sought to halt vote counting in Philadelphia has been dismissed as moot. The Thursday afternoon filing against the city's election board sought an injunction to halt vote counting over allegations that observers from the Trump campaign had been unfairly barred from parts of the city's ballot-counting area inside the Pennsylvania Convention Center. In an evening hearing, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said the campaign admitted that its observers had been allowed into the venue but that they had not been given equal access or numbers as Democrats. The federal judge seemed frustrated at times with arguments from the campaign. 'I'm sorry, then what's your problem?' said Diamond, a President George W. Bush appointee, after Trump lawyers conceded that observers had been admitted to the facility. Everylegalvote.com claims: Too many voters. When a political party is losing an election in the Third World, the party will pile on additional votes manufactured for its candidate. These always show up in the totals, which typically exceed the number of actual voters that exist in a precinct or county. There are numerous counties in the 2020 election with over 100% voters supposedly voting, and some states have astronomically high turnout percentages, such as Wisconsin. Reality: Voter turnout was up in 2020, but no state saw 'over 100% voters.' This is another claim that has come in many forms. We previously investigated two rumors claiming that voter turnout had exceeded 100%. In both cases, the rumor compared old voter registration data with current voter turnout data. Here are links to these articles. No, Wisconsin Did Not Count More Votes Than Registered Voters in 2020 7 States Did Not Count More Votes Than Voters Everylegalvote.com claims: The Dominion Voting machines are known to be connected to the Internet, allowing for bad actors to change vote tallies in the machines as they report counted ballots for each candidate. These machines have already been caught changing votes to Biden from Trump in Michigan and Georgia and Philadelphia. Here is a video showing 19,958 votes taken from Trump and given to Biden at 10:23pm on election night. Reality: Dominion Voting software is not changing votes. Election officials have already addressed these 'glitches' (which in most cases were actually human errors that were quickly corrected) and these problems did not impact the vote count. There have been multiple claims about fraud concerning Dominion Voting Software, but, again, these claims have all proven baseless. You can read our write-up of these rumors here, or check out The New York Times' investigation. For the purposes of this article, we'll point readers to a statement from Christopher Krebs, the director of the U.S. cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, who called these claims 'nonsense.' To be crystal clear on ⬇️, I'm specifically referring to the Hammer and Scorecard nonsense. It's just that - nonsense. This is not a real thing, don't fall for it and think 2x before you share. #Protect2020 https://t.co/f2FpSbRXKy - Chris Krebs #Protect2020 (@CISAKrebs) November 7, 2020 Everylegalvote.com claims: 'Dead' people vote. To determine who has voted, the registered voter data has to be processed. Many citizen journalists and citizens have checked the state databases and found dead parents, siblings, and people born as far back as the early 1800s registered for absentee ballots and with voted ballots tallied in the swing states. Reality: Dead people, generally speaking, don't vote. The claim that dead people are voting tends to pop up every election, but these claims are almost always based on a misreading of the data. A lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign, for example, claimed that a dead person had voted in Michigan. Election officials in the state, however, found that this was really a case of mistaken identify. The local news outlet Bridge Michigan reported: 'Rather than a dead voter, though, it appears to be a case of mistaken identity caused by confusion over 'common names,' said Tracy Wimmer, a spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's office.' News outlets, fact-checkers, and election officials have debunked similar claims. A viral list of dead people who supposedly voted in Michigan, for instance, was found to be full of holes. CNN reported: Of the 50, 37 were indeed dead and had not voted, according to the voter information database. Five people out of the 50 had voted - and they are all still alive, according to public records accessed by CNN. The remaining eight are also alive but didn't vote. While it isn't common for a vote to be cast in a dead person's name, this has happened before. Most often, this involves a spouse casting a vote for a deceased partner. It is possible that 2020 will see a few examples of this occurring, but this not indicative of widespread voter fraud. Everylegalvote.com claims: Witnesses this election have sworn they were ordered to back-date hundreds of ballots at the USPS, which is a crime. Reality: A witness did swear that workers were ordered to back-date ballots. And then, under threat of perjury, he recanted his testimony. The Washington Post reported: Richard Hopkins's claim that a postmaster in Erie, Pa., instructed postal workers to backdate ballots mailed after Election Day was cited by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) in a letter to the Justice Department calling for a federal investigation. Attorney General William P. Barr subsequently authorized federal prosecutors to open probes into credible allegations of voting irregularities and fraud before results are certified, a reversal of long-standing Justice Department policy. But on Monday, Hopkins, 32, told investigators from the U.S. Postal Service's Office of Inspector General that the allegations were not true, and he signed an affidavit recanting his claims, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee tweeted late Tuesday that the 'whistleblower completely RECANTED.' In Sum ... Everylegalvote.com does not provide an accurate view of how voter fraud impacted the 2020 election. As of this writing, claims of voter fraud are largely unsubstantiated, making any claims that one candidate benefited from fraud while it served as a detriment to another to be, at best, premature. While the website presents itself as an educational resource for those seeking to learn about the impact of voter fraud, these 'lessons' hinge on debunked rumors, hoaxes, and misleading claims. | In Sum ... Everylegalvote.com does not provide an accurate view of how voter fraud impacted the 2020 election. As of this writing, claims of voter fraud are largely unsubstantiated, making any claims that one candidate benefited from fraud while it served as a detriment to another to be, at best, premature. While the website presents itself as an educational resource for those seeking to learn about the impact of voter fraud, these 'lessons' hinge on debunked rumors, hoaxes, and misleading claims. | [
"14867-proof-01-fraud-map-nonsense.jpg",
"14867-proof-05-GettyImages-1203196288-e1605222254811.jpg"
]
|
The website everylegalvote.com provides empirical evidence that U.S. President Donald Trump would have won the 2020 general election were it not for voter fraud. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In November 2020, the website everylegalvote.com was founded with the apparent goal of quantifying the impact of voter fraud on the U.S. presidential election. The centerpiece of this website is an electoral map that purports to show the results of the 2020 election as they stand now, how it looks when you factor in voter fraud, and how it looks when all voter fraud is removed. In the latter scenario, the website declares that U.S. President Donald Trump clearly won the election over his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden. Many of the claims made on this site are not tethered to reality. The map is nonsense and is based on extrapolations from unverified claims, debunked rumors, and unproven data. If you visit everylegalvote.com (a site McAfee's Webadviser software marked as 'suspicious'), you can click the 'with voter fraud,' 'current status,' and 'without voter fraud' tabs to change the results of the election. Pressing each button results in unusually precise changes to the data. In Arizona, for example, Biden's vote count changes from 1,648,642 'with voter fraud' to 1,591,641 'without voter fraud.' How did this website determine that there were 57,001 fraudulent votes in Arizona? It isn't really explained. The website makes some general claims about how it uses 'proven statistical methods' to find anomalies in the data, but it's short on detail. The website states: The fraud disaggregation process uses a large amount of voter patterns and proven statistical methods to find and document mathematical anomalies indicative of voter fraud or ballot tampering. As we collect and analyze more data we will be able to demonstrate with increasing granularity the difference between an election without tampering and one with more anomalies, which are indicative of tampering Furthermore, this site states that it gets its data in part from 'fraud stories from every day Americans,' but we found that many of the listed stories to be based on unfounded claims or debunked rumors. In Arizona, for example, the site lists five stories related to voter fraud. Two of those stories concern the debunked claim that ballots marked with Sharpies would be invalidated; one is just a tweet from Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar calling for a recount (Gosar's desire for a recount deals with debunked claims concerning Dominion Voting software), and another is a video that claims to show 'voter fraud caught on camera in Arizona' but shows nothing of the sort. In fact, Arizona is barely mentioned in that video. As far as we can tell, Arizona is mentioned once regarding the debunked Sharpie claim and another time when the YouTube user suggests that ballots 'just appeared.' But ballots didn't just 'appear' in Arizona. The vote count changed as votes were counted. The one story listed in this section that is at least tied to reality deals with an influx of split-ticket votes. While there did appear to be an uptick in split-ticket voting this year (voting a split-ticket is when you vote for one party's president but vote for the other party for the other selections on your ballot), this is completely legal and is not indicative of fraud. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, dismissed the notion of fraud in his state during an appearance on Fox News. Arizona Central reported: No conspiracy, just split-ticket voters 'If indeed there was some great conspiracy, it apparently didn't work,' Brnovich told Fox Business' Neil Cavuto on Wednesday. 'The county election official, who's a Democrat, lost, and other Republicans won.' He was referring to Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes, who is trailing Republican Stephen Richer by more than 3,000 votes. Some Republicans point to the fact that Trump and GOP Sen. Martha McSally lost while GOP candidates did well in down-ballot races as evidence of a conspiracy. Someone, they reason, must have changed those votes at the top of the ticket. Brnovich shot that one down. 'It came down to: People split their ticket,' he told Cavuto. 'People voted for Republicans down ballot, and they didn't vote for President Trump or Martha McSally. So, that's the reality.' It's not clear how everylegalvote.com calculated that two hoaxes, a call for a recount, a misunderstanding of how election works, and an increase in split-ticket voting amounted to a 57,001 fraudulent vote swing for Biden. 'A Voter Fraud Primer' While the electoral map discussed above is the central feature of everylegalvote.com, this website also includes a 'voter fraud primer' that briefly discusses the various ways voter fraud can supposedly be spotted. This section, however, is rife with false claims and misleading statements. We'll take a look at a few such claims below: Everylegalvote.com claims: Fraud is real. Fraud happens every day. In elections, fraud is a common issue. Reality: Voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study have concluded that voter fraud in the United States is rare. While testifying under oath before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in September 2020, FBI Director Christopher Wray said: 'We have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it's by mail or otherwise.' In the days following the 2020 general election, election officials in every state reported that they had not seen evidence of voter fraud. Everylegalvote.com claims: It is NOT normal to stop counting the ballots in the middle of a count. The evidentiary chain is broken (what if someone sneaks a pile of fraud ballots in at 3:30 a.m.?). In every presidential election in the U.S. until 2020, counts were never stopped until they were completed. Reality: Vote counts have been stopped or slowed before (most notably the recount in 2000), and claims that the vote 'stopped' in 2020 are exaggerated. There have been multiple claims that vote counts were stopped during the 2020 election, but the majority of these claims have either proven false or have been clarified with simple explanations. Trump claimed, for example, that the vote in North Carolina had been 'called off.' But that's not the case. All of the available ballots in the state had been counted at that time and election officials were waiting for more legally cast mail-in ballots to arrive. In Philadelphia, there was some confusion after a reporter wrote that the state would not be reporting any more mail-in ballot numbers for the night, but city Commissioner Al Schmidt quickly clarified that, writing that 'Philadelphia will NOT stop counting ALL legitimate votes cast by eligible voters.' A viral Facebook post claimed that voting stopped in six states during the 2020 election, but that claim was false. It should also be noted that Trump's campaign has filed numerous lawsuits asking for the vote count to be stopped (something that everylegalvote.com argues is only done by those attempting to commit fraud) and that Trump himself has posted messages on Twitter such as 'STOP THE COUNT!' Everylegalvote.com claims: It is well established that [mail-in] voting is the easiest way to defraud a candidate. Reality: Mail-in voting is slightly more prone to fraud than in person voting, but the risk for fraud in both forms of voting is still extremely low. We covered claims about an increased risk of mail-in voter fraud here. Everylegalvote.com claims: The Democrat vs. Republican ratio in each batch of [mail-in] ballots should be very uniform across a region or a state. Reality: In the months leading up to the election, it was widely reported that Democrats were returning more mail-in ballots than Republicans. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a surge in mail-in voting as many people wanted to avoid waiting in long lines surrounded by people. While Democrats urged their supporters to vote by mail, Trump continually pushed false claims about mail-in votes. It's not surprising, in other words, that one party saw more voters use mail-in ballots. Everylegalvote.com claims: We dig deep into this here, where we show that many states, including Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Maine, and all show signs of ballot tampering and injections of Democrat ballots after the initial in-person votes have been counted. Reality: This is not how elections work. Mail-in ballots are legal and are counted the same as in-person ballots. In most cases, mail-in votes are cast before election day. While states have different rules on when they can start counting votes, and while some states count in-person votes first, it simply is not accurate to say that that mail-in ballots were 'injected' into the vote count. You can read an AFP Fact Check about this claim here. Everylegalvote.com claims: No Witnesses Allowed: Whenever one side tries to prevent the other side from watching ballots being opened or counted, it is a red flag. That side has something to hide. Fraud is the only thing that would be hidden from the opponent's team in an election count. Democrat operatives prevented Republicans from observing the count in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada. Reality: Observers from both parties were allowed to watch the vote count. The claim that Republicans were prevented from observing the vote has been repeated in a variety of forms. A variety of news outlets and fact-checkers have investigated these claims and found them without merit. Judges, too, have dismissed lawsuits from the Trump campaign that made this allegation. PBS reported on one such lawsuit that had been filed in Philadelphia: A federal motion filed by lawyers for President Donald Trump's campaign that sought to halt vote counting in Philadelphia has been dismissed as moot. The Thursday afternoon filing against the city's election board sought an injunction to halt vote counting over allegations that observers from the Trump campaign had been unfairly barred from parts of the city's ballot-counting area inside the Pennsylvania Convention Center. In an evening hearing, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said the campaign admitted that its observers had been allowed into the venue but that they had not been given equal access or numbers as Democrats. The federal judge seemed frustrated at times with arguments from the campaign. 'I'm sorry, then what's your problem?' said Diamond, a President George W. Bush appointee, after Trump lawyers conceded that observers had been admitted to the facility. Everylegalvote.com claims: Too many voters. When a political party is losing an election in the Third World, the party will pile on additional votes manufactured for its candidate. These always show up in the totals, which typically exceed the number of actual voters that exist in a precinct or county. There are numerous counties in the 2020 election with over 100% voters supposedly voting, and some states have astronomically high turnout percentages, such as Wisconsin. Reality: Voter turnout was up in 2020, but no state saw 'over 100% voters.' This is another claim that has come in many forms. We previously investigated two rumors claiming that voter turnout had exceeded 100%. In both cases, the rumor compared old voter registration data with current voter turnout data. Here are links to these articles. No, Wisconsin Did Not Count More Votes Than Registered Voters in 2020 7 States Did Not Count More Votes Than Voters Everylegalvote.com claims: The Dominion Voting machines are known to be connected to the Internet, allowing for bad actors to change vote tallies in the machines as they report counted ballots for each candidate. These machines have already been caught changing votes to Biden from Trump in Michigan and Georgia and Philadelphia. Here is a video showing 19,958 votes taken from Trump and given to Biden at 10:23pm on election night. Reality: Dominion Voting software is not changing votes. Election officials have already addressed these 'glitches' (which in most cases were actually human errors that were quickly corrected) and these problems did not impact the vote count. There have been multiple claims about fraud concerning Dominion Voting Software, but, again, these claims have all proven baseless. You can read our write-up of these rumors here, or check out The New York Times' investigation. For the purposes of this article, we'll point readers to a statement from Christopher Krebs, the director of the U.S. cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, who called these claims 'nonsense.' To be crystal clear on ⬇️, I'm specifically referring to the Hammer and Scorecard nonsense. It's just that - nonsense. This is not a real thing, don't fall for it and think 2x before you share. #Protect2020 https://t.co/f2FpSbRXKy - Chris Krebs #Protect2020 (@CISAKrebs) November 7, 2020 Everylegalvote.com claims: 'Dead' people vote. To determine who has voted, the registered voter data has to be processed. Many citizen journalists and citizens have checked the state databases and found dead parents, siblings, and people born as far back as the early 1800s registered for absentee ballots and with voted ballots tallied in the swing states. Reality: Dead people, generally speaking, don't vote. The claim that dead people are voting tends to pop up every election, but these claims are almost always based on a misreading of the data. A lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign, for example, claimed that a dead person had voted in Michigan. Election officials in the state, however, found that this was really a case of mistaken identify. The local news outlet Bridge Michigan reported: 'Rather than a dead voter, though, it appears to be a case of mistaken identity caused by confusion over 'common names,' said Tracy Wimmer, a spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's office.' News outlets, fact-checkers, and election officials have debunked similar claims. A viral list of dead people who supposedly voted in Michigan, for instance, was found to be full of holes. CNN reported: Of the 50, 37 were indeed dead and had not voted, according to the voter information database. Five people out of the 50 had voted - and they are all still alive, according to public records accessed by CNN. The remaining eight are also alive but didn't vote. While it isn't common for a vote to be cast in a dead person's name, this has happened before. Most often, this involves a spouse casting a vote for a deceased partner. It is possible that 2020 will see a few examples of this occurring, but this not indicative of widespread voter fraud. Everylegalvote.com claims: Witnesses this election have sworn they were ordered to back-date hundreds of ballots at the USPS, which is a crime. Reality: A witness did swear that workers were ordered to back-date ballots. And then, under threat of perjury, he recanted his testimony. The Washington Post reported: Richard Hopkins's claim that a postmaster in Erie, Pa., instructed postal workers to backdate ballots mailed after Election Day was cited by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) in a letter to the Justice Department calling for a federal investigation. Attorney General William P. Barr subsequently authorized federal prosecutors to open probes into credible allegations of voting irregularities and fraud before results are certified, a reversal of long-standing Justice Department policy. But on Monday, Hopkins, 32, told investigators from the U.S. Postal Service's Office of Inspector General that the allegations were not true, and he signed an affidavit recanting his claims, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee tweeted late Tuesday that the 'whistleblower completely RECANTED.' In Sum ... Everylegalvote.com does not provide an accurate view of how voter fraud impacted the 2020 election. As of this writing, claims of voter fraud are largely unsubstantiated, making any claims that one candidate benefited from fraud while it served as a detriment to another to be, at best, premature. While the website presents itself as an educational resource for those seeking to learn about the impact of voter fraud, these 'lessons' hinge on debunked rumors, hoaxes, and misleading claims. | In Sum ... Everylegalvote.com does not provide an accurate view of how voter fraud impacted the 2020 election. As of this writing, claims of voter fraud are largely unsubstantiated, making any claims that one candidate benefited from fraud while it served as a detriment to another to be, at best, premature. While the website presents itself as an educational resource for those seeking to learn about the impact of voter fraud, these 'lessons' hinge on debunked rumors, hoaxes, and misleading claims. | [
"14867-proof-01-fraud-map-nonsense.jpg",
"14867-proof-05-GettyImages-1203196288-e1605222254811.jpg"
]
|
The website everylegalvote.com provides empirical evidence that U.S. President Donald Trump would have won the 2020 general election were it not for voter fraud. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In November 2020, the website everylegalvote.com was founded with the apparent goal of quantifying the impact of voter fraud on the U.S. presidential election. The centerpiece of this website is an electoral map that purports to show the results of the 2020 election as they stand now, how it looks when you factor in voter fraud, and how it looks when all voter fraud is removed. In the latter scenario, the website declares that U.S. President Donald Trump clearly won the election over his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden. Many of the claims made on this site are not tethered to reality. The map is nonsense and is based on extrapolations from unverified claims, debunked rumors, and unproven data. If you visit everylegalvote.com (a site McAfee's Webadviser software marked as 'suspicious'), you can click the 'with voter fraud,' 'current status,' and 'without voter fraud' tabs to change the results of the election. Pressing each button results in unusually precise changes to the data. In Arizona, for example, Biden's vote count changes from 1,648,642 'with voter fraud' to 1,591,641 'without voter fraud.' How did this website determine that there were 57,001 fraudulent votes in Arizona? It isn't really explained. The website makes some general claims about how it uses 'proven statistical methods' to find anomalies in the data, but it's short on detail. The website states: The fraud disaggregation process uses a large amount of voter patterns and proven statistical methods to find and document mathematical anomalies indicative of voter fraud or ballot tampering. As we collect and analyze more data we will be able to demonstrate with increasing granularity the difference between an election without tampering and one with more anomalies, which are indicative of tampering Furthermore, this site states that it gets its data in part from 'fraud stories from every day Americans,' but we found that many of the listed stories to be based on unfounded claims or debunked rumors. In Arizona, for example, the site lists five stories related to voter fraud. Two of those stories concern the debunked claim that ballots marked with Sharpies would be invalidated; one is just a tweet from Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar calling for a recount (Gosar's desire for a recount deals with debunked claims concerning Dominion Voting software), and another is a video that claims to show 'voter fraud caught on camera in Arizona' but shows nothing of the sort. In fact, Arizona is barely mentioned in that video. As far as we can tell, Arizona is mentioned once regarding the debunked Sharpie claim and another time when the YouTube user suggests that ballots 'just appeared.' But ballots didn't just 'appear' in Arizona. The vote count changed as votes were counted. The one story listed in this section that is at least tied to reality deals with an influx of split-ticket votes. While there did appear to be an uptick in split-ticket voting this year (voting a split-ticket is when you vote for one party's president but vote for the other party for the other selections on your ballot), this is completely legal and is not indicative of fraud. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, dismissed the notion of fraud in his state during an appearance on Fox News. Arizona Central reported: No conspiracy, just split-ticket voters 'If indeed there was some great conspiracy, it apparently didn't work,' Brnovich told Fox Business' Neil Cavuto on Wednesday. 'The county election official, who's a Democrat, lost, and other Republicans won.' He was referring to Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes, who is trailing Republican Stephen Richer by more than 3,000 votes. Some Republicans point to the fact that Trump and GOP Sen. Martha McSally lost while GOP candidates did well in down-ballot races as evidence of a conspiracy. Someone, they reason, must have changed those votes at the top of the ticket. Brnovich shot that one down. 'It came down to: People split their ticket,' he told Cavuto. 'People voted for Republicans down ballot, and they didn't vote for President Trump or Martha McSally. So, that's the reality.' It's not clear how everylegalvote.com calculated that two hoaxes, a call for a recount, a misunderstanding of how election works, and an increase in split-ticket voting amounted to a 57,001 fraudulent vote swing for Biden. 'A Voter Fraud Primer' While the electoral map discussed above is the central feature of everylegalvote.com, this website also includes a 'voter fraud primer' that briefly discusses the various ways voter fraud can supposedly be spotted. This section, however, is rife with false claims and misleading statements. We'll take a look at a few such claims below: Everylegalvote.com claims: Fraud is real. Fraud happens every day. In elections, fraud is a common issue. Reality: Voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study have concluded that voter fraud in the United States is rare. While testifying under oath before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in September 2020, FBI Director Christopher Wray said: 'We have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it's by mail or otherwise.' In the days following the 2020 general election, election officials in every state reported that they had not seen evidence of voter fraud. Everylegalvote.com claims: It is NOT normal to stop counting the ballots in the middle of a count. The evidentiary chain is broken (what if someone sneaks a pile of fraud ballots in at 3:30 a.m.?). In every presidential election in the U.S. until 2020, counts were never stopped until they were completed. Reality: Vote counts have been stopped or slowed before (most notably the recount in 2000), and claims that the vote 'stopped' in 2020 are exaggerated. There have been multiple claims that vote counts were stopped during the 2020 election, but the majority of these claims have either proven false or have been clarified with simple explanations. Trump claimed, for example, that the vote in North Carolina had been 'called off.' But that's not the case. All of the available ballots in the state had been counted at that time and election officials were waiting for more legally cast mail-in ballots to arrive. In Philadelphia, there was some confusion after a reporter wrote that the state would not be reporting any more mail-in ballot numbers for the night, but city Commissioner Al Schmidt quickly clarified that, writing that 'Philadelphia will NOT stop counting ALL legitimate votes cast by eligible voters.' A viral Facebook post claimed that voting stopped in six states during the 2020 election, but that claim was false. It should also be noted that Trump's campaign has filed numerous lawsuits asking for the vote count to be stopped (something that everylegalvote.com argues is only done by those attempting to commit fraud) and that Trump himself has posted messages on Twitter such as 'STOP THE COUNT!' Everylegalvote.com claims: It is well established that [mail-in] voting is the easiest way to defraud a candidate. Reality: Mail-in voting is slightly more prone to fraud than in person voting, but the risk for fraud in both forms of voting is still extremely low. We covered claims about an increased risk of mail-in voter fraud here. Everylegalvote.com claims: The Democrat vs. Republican ratio in each batch of [mail-in] ballots should be very uniform across a region or a state. Reality: In the months leading up to the election, it was widely reported that Democrats were returning more mail-in ballots than Republicans. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a surge in mail-in voting as many people wanted to avoid waiting in long lines surrounded by people. While Democrats urged their supporters to vote by mail, Trump continually pushed false claims about mail-in votes. It's not surprising, in other words, that one party saw more voters use mail-in ballots. Everylegalvote.com claims: We dig deep into this here, where we show that many states, including Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Maine, and all show signs of ballot tampering and injections of Democrat ballots after the initial in-person votes have been counted. Reality: This is not how elections work. Mail-in ballots are legal and are counted the same as in-person ballots. In most cases, mail-in votes are cast before election day. While states have different rules on when they can start counting votes, and while some states count in-person votes first, it simply is not accurate to say that that mail-in ballots were 'injected' into the vote count. You can read an AFP Fact Check about this claim here. Everylegalvote.com claims: No Witnesses Allowed: Whenever one side tries to prevent the other side from watching ballots being opened or counted, it is a red flag. That side has something to hide. Fraud is the only thing that would be hidden from the opponent's team in an election count. Democrat operatives prevented Republicans from observing the count in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada. Reality: Observers from both parties were allowed to watch the vote count. The claim that Republicans were prevented from observing the vote has been repeated in a variety of forms. A variety of news outlets and fact-checkers have investigated these claims and found them without merit. Judges, too, have dismissed lawsuits from the Trump campaign that made this allegation. PBS reported on one such lawsuit that had been filed in Philadelphia: A federal motion filed by lawyers for President Donald Trump's campaign that sought to halt vote counting in Philadelphia has been dismissed as moot. The Thursday afternoon filing against the city's election board sought an injunction to halt vote counting over allegations that observers from the Trump campaign had been unfairly barred from parts of the city's ballot-counting area inside the Pennsylvania Convention Center. In an evening hearing, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said the campaign admitted that its observers had been allowed into the venue but that they had not been given equal access or numbers as Democrats. The federal judge seemed frustrated at times with arguments from the campaign. 'I'm sorry, then what's your problem?' said Diamond, a President George W. Bush appointee, after Trump lawyers conceded that observers had been admitted to the facility. Everylegalvote.com claims: Too many voters. When a political party is losing an election in the Third World, the party will pile on additional votes manufactured for its candidate. These always show up in the totals, which typically exceed the number of actual voters that exist in a precinct or county. There are numerous counties in the 2020 election with over 100% voters supposedly voting, and some states have astronomically high turnout percentages, such as Wisconsin. Reality: Voter turnout was up in 2020, but no state saw 'over 100% voters.' This is another claim that has come in many forms. We previously investigated two rumors claiming that voter turnout had exceeded 100%. In both cases, the rumor compared old voter registration data with current voter turnout data. Here are links to these articles. No, Wisconsin Did Not Count More Votes Than Registered Voters in 2020 7 States Did Not Count More Votes Than Voters Everylegalvote.com claims: The Dominion Voting machines are known to be connected to the Internet, allowing for bad actors to change vote tallies in the machines as they report counted ballots for each candidate. These machines have already been caught changing votes to Biden from Trump in Michigan and Georgia and Philadelphia. Here is a video showing 19,958 votes taken from Trump and given to Biden at 10:23pm on election night. Reality: Dominion Voting software is not changing votes. Election officials have already addressed these 'glitches' (which in most cases were actually human errors that were quickly corrected) and these problems did not impact the vote count. There have been multiple claims about fraud concerning Dominion Voting Software, but, again, these claims have all proven baseless. You can read our write-up of these rumors here, or check out The New York Times' investigation. For the purposes of this article, we'll point readers to a statement from Christopher Krebs, the director of the U.S. cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, who called these claims 'nonsense.' To be crystal clear on ⬇️, I'm specifically referring to the Hammer and Scorecard nonsense. It's just that - nonsense. This is not a real thing, don't fall for it and think 2x before you share. #Protect2020 https://t.co/f2FpSbRXKy - Chris Krebs #Protect2020 (@CISAKrebs) November 7, 2020 Everylegalvote.com claims: 'Dead' people vote. To determine who has voted, the registered voter data has to be processed. Many citizen journalists and citizens have checked the state databases and found dead parents, siblings, and people born as far back as the early 1800s registered for absentee ballots and with voted ballots tallied in the swing states. Reality: Dead people, generally speaking, don't vote. The claim that dead people are voting tends to pop up every election, but these claims are almost always based on a misreading of the data. A lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign, for example, claimed that a dead person had voted in Michigan. Election officials in the state, however, found that this was really a case of mistaken identify. The local news outlet Bridge Michigan reported: 'Rather than a dead voter, though, it appears to be a case of mistaken identity caused by confusion over 'common names,' said Tracy Wimmer, a spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's office.' News outlets, fact-checkers, and election officials have debunked similar claims. A viral list of dead people who supposedly voted in Michigan, for instance, was found to be full of holes. CNN reported: Of the 50, 37 were indeed dead and had not voted, according to the voter information database. Five people out of the 50 had voted - and they are all still alive, according to public records accessed by CNN. The remaining eight are also alive but didn't vote. While it isn't common for a vote to be cast in a dead person's name, this has happened before. Most often, this involves a spouse casting a vote for a deceased partner. It is possible that 2020 will see a few examples of this occurring, but this not indicative of widespread voter fraud. Everylegalvote.com claims: Witnesses this election have sworn they were ordered to back-date hundreds of ballots at the USPS, which is a crime. Reality: A witness did swear that workers were ordered to back-date ballots. And then, under threat of perjury, he recanted his testimony. The Washington Post reported: Richard Hopkins's claim that a postmaster in Erie, Pa., instructed postal workers to backdate ballots mailed after Election Day was cited by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) in a letter to the Justice Department calling for a federal investigation. Attorney General William P. Barr subsequently authorized federal prosecutors to open probes into credible allegations of voting irregularities and fraud before results are certified, a reversal of long-standing Justice Department policy. But on Monday, Hopkins, 32, told investigators from the U.S. Postal Service's Office of Inspector General that the allegations were not true, and he signed an affidavit recanting his claims, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee tweeted late Tuesday that the 'whistleblower completely RECANTED.' In Sum ... Everylegalvote.com does not provide an accurate view of how voter fraud impacted the 2020 election. As of this writing, claims of voter fraud are largely unsubstantiated, making any claims that one candidate benefited from fraud while it served as a detriment to another to be, at best, premature. While the website presents itself as an educational resource for those seeking to learn about the impact of voter fraud, these 'lessons' hinge on debunked rumors, hoaxes, and misleading claims. | In Sum ... Everylegalvote.com does not provide an accurate view of how voter fraud impacted the 2020 election. As of this writing, claims of voter fraud are largely unsubstantiated, making any claims that one candidate benefited from fraud while it served as a detriment to another to be, at best, premature. While the website presents itself as an educational resource for those seeking to learn about the impact of voter fraud, these 'lessons' hinge on debunked rumors, hoaxes, and misleading claims. | [
"14867-proof-01-fraud-map-nonsense.jpg",
"14867-proof-05-GettyImages-1203196288-e1605222254811.jpg"
]
|
The website everylegalvote.com provides empirical evidence that U.S. President Donald Trump would have won the 2020 general election were it not for voter fraud. | Contradiction | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. In November 2020, the website everylegalvote.com was founded with the apparent goal of quantifying the impact of voter fraud on the U.S. presidential election. The centerpiece of this website is an electoral map that purports to show the results of the 2020 election as they stand now, how it looks when you factor in voter fraud, and how it looks when all voter fraud is removed. In the latter scenario, the website declares that U.S. President Donald Trump clearly won the election over his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden. Many of the claims made on this site are not tethered to reality. The map is nonsense and is based on extrapolations from unverified claims, debunked rumors, and unproven data. If you visit everylegalvote.com (a site McAfee's Webadviser software marked as 'suspicious'), you can click the 'with voter fraud,' 'current status,' and 'without voter fraud' tabs to change the results of the election. Pressing each button results in unusually precise changes to the data. In Arizona, for example, Biden's vote count changes from 1,648,642 'with voter fraud' to 1,591,641 'without voter fraud.' How did this website determine that there were 57,001 fraudulent votes in Arizona? It isn't really explained. The website makes some general claims about how it uses 'proven statistical methods' to find anomalies in the data, but it's short on detail. The website states: The fraud disaggregation process uses a large amount of voter patterns and proven statistical methods to find and document mathematical anomalies indicative of voter fraud or ballot tampering. As we collect and analyze more data we will be able to demonstrate with increasing granularity the difference between an election without tampering and one with more anomalies, which are indicative of tampering Furthermore, this site states that it gets its data in part from 'fraud stories from every day Americans,' but we found that many of the listed stories to be based on unfounded claims or debunked rumors. In Arizona, for example, the site lists five stories related to voter fraud. Two of those stories concern the debunked claim that ballots marked with Sharpies would be invalidated; one is just a tweet from Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar calling for a recount (Gosar's desire for a recount deals with debunked claims concerning Dominion Voting software), and another is a video that claims to show 'voter fraud caught on camera in Arizona' but shows nothing of the sort. In fact, Arizona is barely mentioned in that video. As far as we can tell, Arizona is mentioned once regarding the debunked Sharpie claim and another time when the YouTube user suggests that ballots 'just appeared.' But ballots didn't just 'appear' in Arizona. The vote count changed as votes were counted. The one story listed in this section that is at least tied to reality deals with an influx of split-ticket votes. While there did appear to be an uptick in split-ticket voting this year (voting a split-ticket is when you vote for one party's president but vote for the other party for the other selections on your ballot), this is completely legal and is not indicative of fraud. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, dismissed the notion of fraud in his state during an appearance on Fox News. Arizona Central reported: No conspiracy, just split-ticket voters 'If indeed there was some great conspiracy, it apparently didn't work,' Brnovich told Fox Business' Neil Cavuto on Wednesday. 'The county election official, who's a Democrat, lost, and other Republicans won.' He was referring to Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes, who is trailing Republican Stephen Richer by more than 3,000 votes. Some Republicans point to the fact that Trump and GOP Sen. Martha McSally lost while GOP candidates did well in down-ballot races as evidence of a conspiracy. Someone, they reason, must have changed those votes at the top of the ticket. Brnovich shot that one down. 'It came down to: People split their ticket,' he told Cavuto. 'People voted for Republicans down ballot, and they didn't vote for President Trump or Martha McSally. So, that's the reality.' It's not clear how everylegalvote.com calculated that two hoaxes, a call for a recount, a misunderstanding of how election works, and an increase in split-ticket voting amounted to a 57,001 fraudulent vote swing for Biden. 'A Voter Fraud Primer' While the electoral map discussed above is the central feature of everylegalvote.com, this website also includes a 'voter fraud primer' that briefly discusses the various ways voter fraud can supposedly be spotted. This section, however, is rife with false claims and misleading statements. We'll take a look at a few such claims below: Everylegalvote.com claims: Fraud is real. Fraud happens every day. In elections, fraud is a common issue. Reality: Voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Study after study after study after study after study after study after study after study have concluded that voter fraud in the United States is rare. While testifying under oath before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in September 2020, FBI Director Christopher Wray said: 'We have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it's by mail or otherwise.' In the days following the 2020 general election, election officials in every state reported that they had not seen evidence of voter fraud. Everylegalvote.com claims: It is NOT normal to stop counting the ballots in the middle of a count. The evidentiary chain is broken (what if someone sneaks a pile of fraud ballots in at 3:30 a.m.?). In every presidential election in the U.S. until 2020, counts were never stopped until they were completed. Reality: Vote counts have been stopped or slowed before (most notably the recount in 2000), and claims that the vote 'stopped' in 2020 are exaggerated. There have been multiple claims that vote counts were stopped during the 2020 election, but the majority of these claims have either proven false or have been clarified with simple explanations. Trump claimed, for example, that the vote in North Carolina had been 'called off.' But that's not the case. All of the available ballots in the state had been counted at that time and election officials were waiting for more legally cast mail-in ballots to arrive. In Philadelphia, there was some confusion after a reporter wrote that the state would not be reporting any more mail-in ballot numbers for the night, but city Commissioner Al Schmidt quickly clarified that, writing that 'Philadelphia will NOT stop counting ALL legitimate votes cast by eligible voters.' A viral Facebook post claimed that voting stopped in six states during the 2020 election, but that claim was false. It should also be noted that Trump's campaign has filed numerous lawsuits asking for the vote count to be stopped (something that everylegalvote.com argues is only done by those attempting to commit fraud) and that Trump himself has posted messages on Twitter such as 'STOP THE COUNT!' Everylegalvote.com claims: It is well established that [mail-in] voting is the easiest way to defraud a candidate. Reality: Mail-in voting is slightly more prone to fraud than in person voting, but the risk for fraud in both forms of voting is still extremely low. We covered claims about an increased risk of mail-in voter fraud here. Everylegalvote.com claims: The Democrat vs. Republican ratio in each batch of [mail-in] ballots should be very uniform across a region or a state. Reality: In the months leading up to the election, it was widely reported that Democrats were returning more mail-in ballots than Republicans. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a surge in mail-in voting as many people wanted to avoid waiting in long lines surrounded by people. While Democrats urged their supporters to vote by mail, Trump continually pushed false claims about mail-in votes. It's not surprising, in other words, that one party saw more voters use mail-in ballots. Everylegalvote.com claims: We dig deep into this here, where we show that many states, including Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Maine, and all show signs of ballot tampering and injections of Democrat ballots after the initial in-person votes have been counted. Reality: This is not how elections work. Mail-in ballots are legal and are counted the same as in-person ballots. In most cases, mail-in votes are cast before election day. While states have different rules on when they can start counting votes, and while some states count in-person votes first, it simply is not accurate to say that that mail-in ballots were 'injected' into the vote count. You can read an AFP Fact Check about this claim here. Everylegalvote.com claims: No Witnesses Allowed: Whenever one side tries to prevent the other side from watching ballots being opened or counted, it is a red flag. That side has something to hide. Fraud is the only thing that would be hidden from the opponent's team in an election count. Democrat operatives prevented Republicans from observing the count in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada. Reality: Observers from both parties were allowed to watch the vote count. The claim that Republicans were prevented from observing the vote has been repeated in a variety of forms. A variety of news outlets and fact-checkers have investigated these claims and found them without merit. Judges, too, have dismissed lawsuits from the Trump campaign that made this allegation. PBS reported on one such lawsuit that had been filed in Philadelphia: A federal motion filed by lawyers for President Donald Trump's campaign that sought to halt vote counting in Philadelphia has been dismissed as moot. The Thursday afternoon filing against the city's election board sought an injunction to halt vote counting over allegations that observers from the Trump campaign had been unfairly barred from parts of the city's ballot-counting area inside the Pennsylvania Convention Center. In an evening hearing, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said the campaign admitted that its observers had been allowed into the venue but that they had not been given equal access or numbers as Democrats. The federal judge seemed frustrated at times with arguments from the campaign. 'I'm sorry, then what's your problem?' said Diamond, a President George W. Bush appointee, after Trump lawyers conceded that observers had been admitted to the facility. Everylegalvote.com claims: Too many voters. When a political party is losing an election in the Third World, the party will pile on additional votes manufactured for its candidate. These always show up in the totals, which typically exceed the number of actual voters that exist in a precinct or county. There are numerous counties in the 2020 election with over 100% voters supposedly voting, and some states have astronomically high turnout percentages, such as Wisconsin. Reality: Voter turnout was up in 2020, but no state saw 'over 100% voters.' This is another claim that has come in many forms. We previously investigated two rumors claiming that voter turnout had exceeded 100%. In both cases, the rumor compared old voter registration data with current voter turnout data. Here are links to these articles. No, Wisconsin Did Not Count More Votes Than Registered Voters in 2020 7 States Did Not Count More Votes Than Voters Everylegalvote.com claims: The Dominion Voting machines are known to be connected to the Internet, allowing for bad actors to change vote tallies in the machines as they report counted ballots for each candidate. These machines have already been caught changing votes to Biden from Trump in Michigan and Georgia and Philadelphia. Here is a video showing 19,958 votes taken from Trump and given to Biden at 10:23pm on election night. Reality: Dominion Voting software is not changing votes. Election officials have already addressed these 'glitches' (which in most cases were actually human errors that were quickly corrected) and these problems did not impact the vote count. There have been multiple claims about fraud concerning Dominion Voting Software, but, again, these claims have all proven baseless. You can read our write-up of these rumors here, or check out The New York Times' investigation. For the purposes of this article, we'll point readers to a statement from Christopher Krebs, the director of the U.S. cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, who called these claims 'nonsense.' To be crystal clear on ⬇️, I'm specifically referring to the Hammer and Scorecard nonsense. It's just that - nonsense. This is not a real thing, don't fall for it and think 2x before you share. #Protect2020 https://t.co/f2FpSbRXKy - Chris Krebs #Protect2020 (@CISAKrebs) November 7, 2020 Everylegalvote.com claims: 'Dead' people vote. To determine who has voted, the registered voter data has to be processed. Many citizen journalists and citizens have checked the state databases and found dead parents, siblings, and people born as far back as the early 1800s registered for absentee ballots and with voted ballots tallied in the swing states. Reality: Dead people, generally speaking, don't vote. The claim that dead people are voting tends to pop up every election, but these claims are almost always based on a misreading of the data. A lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign, for example, claimed that a dead person had voted in Michigan. Election officials in the state, however, found that this was really a case of mistaken identify. The local news outlet Bridge Michigan reported: 'Rather than a dead voter, though, it appears to be a case of mistaken identity caused by confusion over 'common names,' said Tracy Wimmer, a spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's office.' News outlets, fact-checkers, and election officials have debunked similar claims. A viral list of dead people who supposedly voted in Michigan, for instance, was found to be full of holes. CNN reported: Of the 50, 37 were indeed dead and had not voted, according to the voter information database. Five people out of the 50 had voted - and they are all still alive, according to public records accessed by CNN. The remaining eight are also alive but didn't vote. While it isn't common for a vote to be cast in a dead person's name, this has happened before. Most often, this involves a spouse casting a vote for a deceased partner. It is possible that 2020 will see a few examples of this occurring, but this not indicative of widespread voter fraud. Everylegalvote.com claims: Witnesses this election have sworn they were ordered to back-date hundreds of ballots at the USPS, which is a crime. Reality: A witness did swear that workers were ordered to back-date ballots. And then, under threat of perjury, he recanted his testimony. The Washington Post reported: Richard Hopkins's claim that a postmaster in Erie, Pa., instructed postal workers to backdate ballots mailed after Election Day was cited by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) in a letter to the Justice Department calling for a federal investigation. Attorney General William P. Barr subsequently authorized federal prosecutors to open probes into credible allegations of voting irregularities and fraud before results are certified, a reversal of long-standing Justice Department policy. But on Monday, Hopkins, 32, told investigators from the U.S. Postal Service's Office of Inspector General that the allegations were not true, and he signed an affidavit recanting his claims, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee tweeted late Tuesday that the 'whistleblower completely RECANTED.' In Sum ... Everylegalvote.com does not provide an accurate view of how voter fraud impacted the 2020 election. As of this writing, claims of voter fraud are largely unsubstantiated, making any claims that one candidate benefited from fraud while it served as a detriment to another to be, at best, premature. While the website presents itself as an educational resource for those seeking to learn about the impact of voter fraud, these 'lessons' hinge on debunked rumors, hoaxes, and misleading claims. | In Sum ... Everylegalvote.com does not provide an accurate view of how voter fraud impacted the 2020 election. As of this writing, claims of voter fraud are largely unsubstantiated, making any claims that one candidate benefited from fraud while it served as a detriment to another to be, at best, premature. While the website presents itself as an educational resource for those seeking to learn about the impact of voter fraud, these 'lessons' hinge on debunked rumors, hoaxes, and misleading claims. | [
"14867-proof-01-fraud-map-nonsense.jpg",
"14867-proof-05-GettyImages-1203196288-e1605222254811.jpg"
]
|
In 2001, former Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf said of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks: 'Forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting. | Contradiction | In December 2001, a quote purportedly from former Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf began circulating online, known as the 'arrange the meeting' remark. In the quote, Schwarzkopf purportedly said of the perpetrators in the 9/11 terrorist attacks: 'I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting.' While the quote may have seemed authentic to some readers, this wasn't an actual statement made by the former general. Here's how it all started. The Chain Emails In October 2001, former Gen. Schwarzkopf was supposedly asked how it was possible to fight an enemy willing and ready to die for his cause. His answer: 'Accommodate him.' However, we found no record of such a remark. Then, the following text from a chain email began being shared either in late 2001 or early 2002: In a recent interview, General Norman Schwartzkopf was asked if he didn't think there was room for forgiveness toward the people who have harbored and abetted the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on America. His answer was classic Schwartzkopf. He said, 'I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting.' The email's claims of 'a recent interview' with Schwarzkopf clash with the fact that no newspaper available on newspapers.com printed the 'arrange the meeting' quote in 2001, nor had any other credible source provided details to confirm such a remark was uttered by the former general. In 2006, the same remark made the rounds as: 'I believe that forgiving Hezbollah is God's function. The Israeli's job is to arrange the meeting.' We could not find any record of this either. The Facebook Meme On Sept. 13, 2021, the quote found new life as a Facebook meme following the twentieth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The post received more than 357,000 shares between Sept. 13 and 20, 2021 alone. Despite the Schwarzkopf 'arrange the meeting' claim being false and having been debunked for nearly 20 years, the post was shared more than 357,000 times in one week. 'Meet the Press' While Schwarzkopf was not the originator of the quote, he did end up being 'proud' of the fact the quote was attributed to him. This led to him uttering similar words during his Feb. 8, 2003, appearance on 'Meet the Press.' Schwarzkopf appeared on the NBC News program with host Tim Russert: Russert: General Schwarzkopf, how important is it that we capture Osama bin Laden? Schwarzkopf: Well, I think it's important only because the man on the street in the Middle East, you know, believes that he - a lot of people believe that he is on the right track and that he is some sort of a folk hero and that sort of thing. And I think it's necessary to bring him down, one way or another. I will confess to you that, you know, one of the statements that's been attributed to me that I'm sort of proud of is somebody said, you know, 'What do we do about Osama bin Laden?' And they asked me, 'Can we forgive him?' And I said, 'Forgiveness is up to God. I just hope we hurry up the meeting.' And that's the way I feel about him, really. A video of the exchange was not available. 'Stormin' Norman' 'Stormin' Norman,' as he was known to many people, served as deputy commander of U.S. forces in the 1983 Grenada invasion and held a series of senior staff and field commands in the United States and Europe, but it was his command of the Allied forces in the brief desert war against Iraq in early 1991 that turned him into an overnight national hero and media darling. Those on the homefront appreciated his no-nonsense way of handling matters and grew to think of him as a straight-shooter whom they could trust to have an answer for anything, especially if that 'answer' needed to be delivered in the form of decisive action taken against a dread foe. These perceived personality traits were likely the reason why the 2021 Facebook meme was so quickly shared hundreds of thousands of times. Gen. Schwarzkopf retired in 1991 and died in 2012. It's possible the 'arrange the meeting' quote was a misremembering of a purported ROTC saying: 'Your enemy's duty is to die in defense of his country. Your duty is to see that your enemy does his duty.' However, we were unable to verify this information. In sum, former Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf did not originate the 'arrange the meeting' quote that has been shared perhaps millions of times since 2001. It appeared to come from a chain email. Note: This story was originally written by Barbara Mikkelson. Sources 'Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Buried at West Point.' AP NEWS, https://apnews.com/article/ca6dcb65bf4a436ab4a57c0bad1569e9. 'Interview with Madeleine Albright and Norman Schwarzkopf.' Meet The Press. Russert, Tim. 8 February 2003. 'Norman Schwarzkopf.' Sky HISTORY TV Channel, https://www.history.co.uk/biographies/norman-schwarzkopf. 'Retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Dies.' AP, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/27/norman-schwarzkopf-obit/1795095/.Recent Updates On Sept. 20, 2021, this nearly 20-year-old fact check was updated with a new Facebook meme that was widely shared. | In sum, former Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf did not originate the 'arrange the meeting' quote that has been shared perhaps millions of times since 2001. It appeared to come from a chain email. Note: This story was originally written by Barbara Mikkelson. Sources 'Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Buried at West Point.' AP NEWS, https://apnews.com/article/ca6dcb65bf4a436ab4a57c0bad1569e9. 'Interview with Madeleine Albright and Norman Schwarzkopf.' Meet The Press. Russert, Tim. 8 February 2003. 'Norman Schwarzkopf.' Sky HISTORY TV Channel, https://www.history.co.uk/biographies/norman-schwarzkopf. 'Retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Dies.' AP, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/27/norman-schwarzkopf-obit/1795095/.Recent Updates On Sept. 20, 2021, this nearly 20-year-old fact check was updated with a new Facebook meme that was widely shared. | [
"14909-proof-03-schwarzkopf-photo-salute.jpg",
"14909-proof-07-general-quote-john-story-1200.jpg"
]
|
In 2001, former Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf said of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks: 'Forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting. | Contradiction | In December 2001, a quote purportedly from former Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf began circulating online, known as the 'arrange the meeting' remark. In the quote, Schwarzkopf purportedly said of the perpetrators in the 9/11 terrorist attacks: 'I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting.' While the quote may have seemed authentic to some readers, this wasn't an actual statement made by the former general. Here's how it all started. The Chain Emails In October 2001, former Gen. Schwarzkopf was supposedly asked how it was possible to fight an enemy willing and ready to die for his cause. His answer: 'Accommodate him.' However, we found no record of such a remark. Then, the following text from a chain email began being shared either in late 2001 or early 2002: In a recent interview, General Norman Schwartzkopf was asked if he didn't think there was room for forgiveness toward the people who have harbored and abetted the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on America. His answer was classic Schwartzkopf. He said, 'I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting.' The email's claims of 'a recent interview' with Schwarzkopf clash with the fact that no newspaper available on newspapers.com printed the 'arrange the meeting' quote in 2001, nor had any other credible source provided details to confirm such a remark was uttered by the former general. In 2006, the same remark made the rounds as: 'I believe that forgiving Hezbollah is God's function. The Israeli's job is to arrange the meeting.' We could not find any record of this either. The Facebook Meme On Sept. 13, 2021, the quote found new life as a Facebook meme following the twentieth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The post received more than 357,000 shares between Sept. 13 and 20, 2021 alone. Despite the Schwarzkopf 'arrange the meeting' claim being false and having been debunked for nearly 20 years, the post was shared more than 357,000 times in one week. 'Meet the Press' While Schwarzkopf was not the originator of the quote, he did end up being 'proud' of the fact the quote was attributed to him. This led to him uttering similar words during his Feb. 8, 2003, appearance on 'Meet the Press.' Schwarzkopf appeared on the NBC News program with host Tim Russert: Russert: General Schwarzkopf, how important is it that we capture Osama bin Laden? Schwarzkopf: Well, I think it's important only because the man on the street in the Middle East, you know, believes that he - a lot of people believe that he is on the right track and that he is some sort of a folk hero and that sort of thing. And I think it's necessary to bring him down, one way or another. I will confess to you that, you know, one of the statements that's been attributed to me that I'm sort of proud of is somebody said, you know, 'What do we do about Osama bin Laden?' And they asked me, 'Can we forgive him?' And I said, 'Forgiveness is up to God. I just hope we hurry up the meeting.' And that's the way I feel about him, really. A video of the exchange was not available. 'Stormin' Norman' 'Stormin' Norman,' as he was known to many people, served as deputy commander of U.S. forces in the 1983 Grenada invasion and held a series of senior staff and field commands in the United States and Europe, but it was his command of the Allied forces in the brief desert war against Iraq in early 1991 that turned him into an overnight national hero and media darling. Those on the homefront appreciated his no-nonsense way of handling matters and grew to think of him as a straight-shooter whom they could trust to have an answer for anything, especially if that 'answer' needed to be delivered in the form of decisive action taken against a dread foe. These perceived personality traits were likely the reason why the 2021 Facebook meme was so quickly shared hundreds of thousands of times. Gen. Schwarzkopf retired in 1991 and died in 2012. It's possible the 'arrange the meeting' quote was a misremembering of a purported ROTC saying: 'Your enemy's duty is to die in defense of his country. Your duty is to see that your enemy does his duty.' However, we were unable to verify this information. In sum, former Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf did not originate the 'arrange the meeting' quote that has been shared perhaps millions of times since 2001. It appeared to come from a chain email. Note: This story was originally written by Barbara Mikkelson. Sources 'Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Buried at West Point.' AP NEWS, https://apnews.com/article/ca6dcb65bf4a436ab4a57c0bad1569e9. 'Interview with Madeleine Albright and Norman Schwarzkopf.' Meet The Press. Russert, Tim. 8 February 2003. 'Norman Schwarzkopf.' Sky HISTORY TV Channel, https://www.history.co.uk/biographies/norman-schwarzkopf. 'Retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Dies.' AP, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/27/norman-schwarzkopf-obit/1795095/.Recent Updates On Sept. 20, 2021, this nearly 20-year-old fact check was updated with a new Facebook meme that was widely shared. | In sum, former Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf did not originate the 'arrange the meeting' quote that has been shared perhaps millions of times since 2001. It appeared to come from a chain email. Note: This story was originally written by Barbara Mikkelson. Sources 'Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Buried at West Point.' AP NEWS, https://apnews.com/article/ca6dcb65bf4a436ab4a57c0bad1569e9. 'Interview with Madeleine Albright and Norman Schwarzkopf.' Meet The Press. Russert, Tim. 8 February 2003. 'Norman Schwarzkopf.' Sky HISTORY TV Channel, https://www.history.co.uk/biographies/norman-schwarzkopf. 'Retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Dies.' AP, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/27/norman-schwarzkopf-obit/1795095/.Recent Updates On Sept. 20, 2021, this nearly 20-year-old fact check was updated with a new Facebook meme that was widely shared. | [
"14909-proof-03-schwarzkopf-photo-salute.jpg",
"14909-proof-07-general-quote-john-story-1200.jpg"
]
|
Dr. Anthony Fauci compared emerging research about coronavirus with what the scientific community knows about chickenpox - as well as other viruses - and criticized people who were not taking steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In summer 2020, a roughly 900-word Facebook post emphasizing the unknowns of the coronavirus and criticizing people who were not taking precautions to prevent the spread of the deadly virus went viral. Thousands of accounts shared the message verbatim, some of which claimed the words had been written or spoken by Dr. Anthony Fauci, top immunologist in the U.S. The post began like this: Chicken pox is a virus. Lots of people have had it, and probably don't think about it much once the initial illness has passed. But it stays in your body and lives there forever, and maybe when you're older, you have debilitatingly painful outbreaks of shingles. You don't just get over this virus in a few weeks, never to have another health effect. We know this because it's been around for years, and has been studied medically for years. The post went on to emphasize that the medical and scientific research community was only beginning to study the SARS-CoV-2 virus - which causes COVID-19 - and stressed the importance of face masks, proper hygiene, and social distancing to mitigate outbreaks until more is known about what causes them. Since the beginning of July 2020, numerous Snopes readers requested an investigation to determine if Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases, had indeed made the statement. We found the contents of the viral post to be largely true. For instance, chickenpox is an infection caused by the varicella-zoster virus, just like the COVID-19 disease is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, Fauci was not the source of, or at all connected to, the viral message. Rather, we determined Facebook user Amy Wright, of Asheville, North Carolina, was the post's original author. She confirmed with us via Facebook messenger that she published the original post (which can be read here) on June 14, 2020, and made minor amendments to the message's grammar and wording since then. Then, over the course of several weeks, she said, private Facebook groups in her hometown began to circulate the post. And after that, the statement spread like wildfire online, and people began falsely asserting that Fauci had said it. It was unclear who, or what account, was the first to make that inaccurate connection. Also unclear was their motivation for doing so. No evidence proves that Fauci made any written or verbal statement resembling the post in question. Wright told us: I think it's very unfortunate that anyone would have tried to attribute this to Dr. Fauci. The only possible outcome of doing so would be to reduce one's credibility. It's unfortunate. Elaborating on the process of authoring a viral post which is later mischaracterized, Wright said in Facebook comments: I'm not credentialed medical professional. I wrote out my thoughts and opinions, and did include some things that are factual. ... It is not my intent to spread misinformation. It is my intent to share my thoughts, stimulate discussion, and hope that people will continue to research and pursue a fuller understanding of this pandemic and its effects. ... The impetus behind [someone's decision to wrongly attribute the message to Fauci] mystifies me. As for the veracity of Wright's message: yes, the varicella-zoster virus remains in patients' bodies, even after they suffer chickenpox symptoms (namely an itchy skin rash with bumps, blisters and scabs). And, according to Mayo Clinic, the virus can reactivate and resurface years after the initial infection as painful clusters of blisters, called shingles. Older adults and immune-compromised people who have had chickenpox are more likely to suffer from shingles than other populations. Additionally, the post accurately explains that years-old studies by scientists and medical professionals have determined that the viruses that cause herpes infections remain dormant in patients' bodies - which means they don't have any outbreaks - for weeks, months, or years on end. And, similarly, to make the point that the passage of time provides the research community the ability to make conclusive determinations on emerging illnesses and infections, Wright's post emphasized the years it took for Americans to understand HIV and how certain treatments can help patients manage and reduce the risk of spreading it. Then, while listing almost two dozen symptoms of COVID-19 - roughly half of which are verifiable via the Mayo Clinic and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while other reported symptoms in the post are listed on WebMD - the post said this of COVID-19: This disease has not been around for years. It has basically been 6 months. No one knows yet the long-term health effects, or how it may present itself years down the road for people who have been exposed. We literally *do not know* what we do not know. 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 remaining portion of the message criticizes the actions and philosophies of people who think they would be better off by catching coronavirus sooner rather than later, essentially suggesting that COVID-19 patients were immune from falling ill due to the virus again even though scientific evidence was inconclusive on the topic as of this writing. The CDC stated on its website that, 'We do not know yet if people who recover from COVID-19 can get infected again. Scientists are working to understand this.' Wright ends her post with the following: I reject the notion that it's 'just a virus' and we'll all get it eventually. What a careless, lazy, heartless stance. Being intentional and taking basic, common sense precautions has permitted me to avoid many common viruses. I've never had the flu. And while I'm not saying I never will, I also am not about to run out and intentionally expose myself to 'get it over with'. In sum, given the fact that no one appeared to have shared or written the viral message before Wright's status update on June 14, and the fact that she said she had written the post - not Fauci - we rate this claim 'Misattributed.' | In summer 2020, a roughly 900-word Facebook post emphasizing the unknowns of the coronavirus and criticizing people who were not taking precautions to prevent the spread of the deadly virus went viral. Thousands of accounts shared the message verbatim, some of which claimed the words had been written or spoken by Dr. Anthony Fauci, top immunologist in the U.S. The post began like this: Chicken pox is a virus. Lots of people have had it, and probably don't think about it much once the initial illness has passed. But it stays in your body and lives there forever, and maybe when you're older, you have debilitatingly painful outbreaks of shingles. You don't just get over this virus in a few weeks, never to have another health effect. We know this because it's been around for years, and has been studied medically for years. The post went on to emphasize that the medical and scientific research community was only beginning to study the SARS-CoV-2 virus - which causes COVID-19 - and stressed the importance of face masks, proper hygiene, and social distancing to mitigate outbreaks until more is known about what causes them. Since the beginning of July 2020, numerous Snopes readers requested an investigation to determine if Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases, had indeed made the statement. We found the contents of the viral post to be largely true. For instance, chickenpox is an infection caused by the varicella-zoster virus, just like the COVID-19 disease is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, Fauci was not the source of, or at all connected to, the viral message. Rather, we determined Facebook user Amy Wright, of Asheville, North Carolina, was the post's original author. She confirmed with us via Facebook messenger that she published the original post (which can be read here) on June 14, 2020, and made minor amendments to the message's grammar and wording since then. Then, over the course of several weeks, she said, private Facebook groups in her hometown began to circulate the post. And after that, the statement spread like wildfire online, and people began falsely asserting that Fauci had said it. It was unclear who, or what account, was the first to make that inaccurate connection. Also unclear was their motivation for doing so. No evidence proves that Fauci made any written or verbal statement resembling the post in question. Wright told us: I think it's very unfortunate that anyone would have tried to attribute this to Dr. Fauci. The only possible outcome of doing so would be to reduce one's credibility. It's unfortunate. Elaborating on the process of authoring a viral post which is later mischaracterized, Wright said in Facebook comments: I'm not credentialed medical professional. I wrote out my thoughts and opinions, and did include some things that are factual. ... It is not my intent to spread misinformation. It is my intent to share my thoughts, stimulate discussion, and hope that people will continue to research and pursue a fuller understanding of this pandemic and its effects. ... The impetus behind [someone's decision to wrongly attribute the message to Fauci] mystifies me. As for the veracity of Wright's message: yes, the varicella-zoster virus remains in patients' bodies, even after they suffer chickenpox symptoms (namely an itchy skin rash with bumps, blisters and scabs). And, according to Mayo Clinic, the virus can reactivate and resurface years after the initial infection as painful clusters of blisters, called shingles. Older adults and immune-compromised people who have had chickenpox are more likely to suffer from shingles than other populations. Additionally, the post accurately explains that years-old studies by scientists and medical professionals have determined that the viruses that cause herpes infections remain dormant in patients' bodies - which means they don't have any outbreaks - for weeks, months, or years on end. And, similarly, to make the point that the passage of time provides the research community the ability to make conclusive determinations on emerging illnesses and infections, Wright's post emphasized the years it took for Americans to understand HIV and how certain treatments can help patients manage and reduce the risk of spreading it. Then, while listing almost two dozen symptoms of COVID-19 - roughly half of which are verifiable via the Mayo Clinic and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while other reported symptoms in the post are listed on WebMD - the post said this of COVID-19: This disease has not been around for years. It has basically been 6 months. No one knows yet the long-term health effects, or how it may present itself years down the road for people who have been exposed. We literally *do not know* what we do not know. 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 remaining portion of the message criticizes the actions and philosophies of people who think they would be better off by catching coronavirus sooner rather than later, essentially suggesting that COVID-19 patients were immune from falling ill due to the virus again even though scientific evidence was inconclusive on the topic as of this writing. The CDC stated on its website that, 'We do not know yet if people who recover from COVID-19 can get infected again. Scientists are working to understand this.' Wright ends her post with the following: I reject the notion that it's 'just a virus' and we'll all get it eventually. What a careless, lazy, heartless stance. Being intentional and taking basic, common sense precautions has permitted me to avoid many common viruses. I've never had the flu. And while I'm not saying I never will, I also am not about to run out and intentionally expose myself to 'get it over with'. In sum, given the fact that no one appeared to have shared or written the viral message before Wright's status update on June 14, and the fact that she said she had written the post - not Fauci - we rate this claim 'Misattributed.' | [
"14959-proof-02-1920px-White_House_Coronavirus_Update_Briefing_49743000142.jpg"
]
|
Dr. Anthony Fauci compared emerging research about coronavirus with what the scientific community knows about chickenpox - as well as other viruses - and criticized people who were not taking steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In summer 2020, a roughly 900-word Facebook post emphasizing the unknowns of the coronavirus and criticizing people who were not taking precautions to prevent the spread of the deadly virus went viral. Thousands of accounts shared the message verbatim, some of which claimed the words had been written or spoken by Dr. Anthony Fauci, top immunologist in the U.S. The post began like this: Chicken pox is a virus. Lots of people have had it, and probably don't think about it much once the initial illness has passed. But it stays in your body and lives there forever, and maybe when you're older, you have debilitatingly painful outbreaks of shingles. You don't just get over this virus in a few weeks, never to have another health effect. We know this because it's been around for years, and has been studied medically for years. The post went on to emphasize that the medical and scientific research community was only beginning to study the SARS-CoV-2 virus - which causes COVID-19 - and stressed the importance of face masks, proper hygiene, and social distancing to mitigate outbreaks until more is known about what causes them. Since the beginning of July 2020, numerous Snopes readers requested an investigation to determine if Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases, had indeed made the statement. We found the contents of the viral post to be largely true. For instance, chickenpox is an infection caused by the varicella-zoster virus, just like the COVID-19 disease is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, Fauci was not the source of, or at all connected to, the viral message. Rather, we determined Facebook user Amy Wright, of Asheville, North Carolina, was the post's original author. She confirmed with us via Facebook messenger that she published the original post (which can be read here) on June 14, 2020, and made minor amendments to the message's grammar and wording since then. Then, over the course of several weeks, she said, private Facebook groups in her hometown began to circulate the post. And after that, the statement spread like wildfire online, and people began falsely asserting that Fauci had said it. It was unclear who, or what account, was the first to make that inaccurate connection. Also unclear was their motivation for doing so. No evidence proves that Fauci made any written or verbal statement resembling the post in question. Wright told us: I think it's very unfortunate that anyone would have tried to attribute this to Dr. Fauci. The only possible outcome of doing so would be to reduce one's credibility. It's unfortunate. Elaborating on the process of authoring a viral post which is later mischaracterized, Wright said in Facebook comments: I'm not credentialed medical professional. I wrote out my thoughts and opinions, and did include some things that are factual. ... It is not my intent to spread misinformation. It is my intent to share my thoughts, stimulate discussion, and hope that people will continue to research and pursue a fuller understanding of this pandemic and its effects. ... The impetus behind [someone's decision to wrongly attribute the message to Fauci] mystifies me. As for the veracity of Wright's message: yes, the varicella-zoster virus remains in patients' bodies, even after they suffer chickenpox symptoms (namely an itchy skin rash with bumps, blisters and scabs). And, according to Mayo Clinic, the virus can reactivate and resurface years after the initial infection as painful clusters of blisters, called shingles. Older adults and immune-compromised people who have had chickenpox are more likely to suffer from shingles than other populations. Additionally, the post accurately explains that years-old studies by scientists and medical professionals have determined that the viruses that cause herpes infections remain dormant in patients' bodies - which means they don't have any outbreaks - for weeks, months, or years on end. And, similarly, to make the point that the passage of time provides the research community the ability to make conclusive determinations on emerging illnesses and infections, Wright's post emphasized the years it took for Americans to understand HIV and how certain treatments can help patients manage and reduce the risk of spreading it. Then, while listing almost two dozen symptoms of COVID-19 - roughly half of which are verifiable via the Mayo Clinic and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while other reported symptoms in the post are listed on WebMD - the post said this of COVID-19: This disease has not been around for years. It has basically been 6 months. No one knows yet the long-term health effects, or how it may present itself years down the road for people who have been exposed. We literally *do not know* what we do not know. 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 remaining portion of the message criticizes the actions and philosophies of people who think they would be better off by catching coronavirus sooner rather than later, essentially suggesting that COVID-19 patients were immune from falling ill due to the virus again even though scientific evidence was inconclusive on the topic as of this writing. The CDC stated on its website that, 'We do not know yet if people who recover from COVID-19 can get infected again. Scientists are working to understand this.' Wright ends her post with the following: I reject the notion that it's 'just a virus' and we'll all get it eventually. What a careless, lazy, heartless stance. Being intentional and taking basic, common sense precautions has permitted me to avoid many common viruses. I've never had the flu. And while I'm not saying I never will, I also am not about to run out and intentionally expose myself to 'get it over with'. In sum, given the fact that no one appeared to have shared or written the viral message before Wright's status update on June 14, and the fact that she said she had written the post - not Fauci - we rate this claim 'Misattributed.' | In summer 2020, a roughly 900-word Facebook post emphasizing the unknowns of the coronavirus and criticizing people who were not taking precautions to prevent the spread of the deadly virus went viral. Thousands of accounts shared the message verbatim, some of which claimed the words had been written or spoken by Dr. Anthony Fauci, top immunologist in the U.S. The post began like this: Chicken pox is a virus. Lots of people have had it, and probably don't think about it much once the initial illness has passed. But it stays in your body and lives there forever, and maybe when you're older, you have debilitatingly painful outbreaks of shingles. You don't just get over this virus in a few weeks, never to have another health effect. We know this because it's been around for years, and has been studied medically for years. The post went on to emphasize that the medical and scientific research community was only beginning to study the SARS-CoV-2 virus - which causes COVID-19 - and stressed the importance of face masks, proper hygiene, and social distancing to mitigate outbreaks until more is known about what causes them. Since the beginning of July 2020, numerous Snopes readers requested an investigation to determine if Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases, had indeed made the statement. We found the contents of the viral post to be largely true. For instance, chickenpox is an infection caused by the varicella-zoster virus, just like the COVID-19 disease is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, Fauci was not the source of, or at all connected to, the viral message. Rather, we determined Facebook user Amy Wright, of Asheville, North Carolina, was the post's original author. She confirmed with us via Facebook messenger that she published the original post (which can be read here) on June 14, 2020, and made minor amendments to the message's grammar and wording since then. Then, over the course of several weeks, she said, private Facebook groups in her hometown began to circulate the post. And after that, the statement spread like wildfire online, and people began falsely asserting that Fauci had said it. It was unclear who, or what account, was the first to make that inaccurate connection. Also unclear was their motivation for doing so. No evidence proves that Fauci made any written or verbal statement resembling the post in question. Wright told us: I think it's very unfortunate that anyone would have tried to attribute this to Dr. Fauci. The only possible outcome of doing so would be to reduce one's credibility. It's unfortunate. Elaborating on the process of authoring a viral post which is later mischaracterized, Wright said in Facebook comments: I'm not credentialed medical professional. I wrote out my thoughts and opinions, and did include some things that are factual. ... It is not my intent to spread misinformation. It is my intent to share my thoughts, stimulate discussion, and hope that people will continue to research and pursue a fuller understanding of this pandemic and its effects. ... The impetus behind [someone's decision to wrongly attribute the message to Fauci] mystifies me. As for the veracity of Wright's message: yes, the varicella-zoster virus remains in patients' bodies, even after they suffer chickenpox symptoms (namely an itchy skin rash with bumps, blisters and scabs). And, according to Mayo Clinic, the virus can reactivate and resurface years after the initial infection as painful clusters of blisters, called shingles. Older adults and immune-compromised people who have had chickenpox are more likely to suffer from shingles than other populations. Additionally, the post accurately explains that years-old studies by scientists and medical professionals have determined that the viruses that cause herpes infections remain dormant in patients' bodies - which means they don't have any outbreaks - for weeks, months, or years on end. And, similarly, to make the point that the passage of time provides the research community the ability to make conclusive determinations on emerging illnesses and infections, Wright's post emphasized the years it took for Americans to understand HIV and how certain treatments can help patients manage and reduce the risk of spreading it. Then, while listing almost two dozen symptoms of COVID-19 - roughly half of which are verifiable via the Mayo Clinic and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while other reported symptoms in the post are listed on WebMD - the post said this of COVID-19: This disease has not been around for years. It has basically been 6 months. No one knows yet the long-term health effects, or how it may present itself years down the road for people who have been exposed. We literally *do not know* what we do not know. 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 remaining portion of the message criticizes the actions and philosophies of people who think they would be better off by catching coronavirus sooner rather than later, essentially suggesting that COVID-19 patients were immune from falling ill due to the virus again even though scientific evidence was inconclusive on the topic as of this writing. The CDC stated on its website that, 'We do not know yet if people who recover from COVID-19 can get infected again. Scientists are working to understand this.' Wright ends her post with the following: I reject the notion that it's 'just a virus' and we'll all get it eventually. What a careless, lazy, heartless stance. Being intentional and taking basic, common sense precautions has permitted me to avoid many common viruses. I've never had the flu. And while I'm not saying I never will, I also am not about to run out and intentionally expose myself to 'get it over with'. In sum, given the fact that no one appeared to have shared or written the viral message before Wright's status update on June 14, and the fact that she said she had written the post - not Fauci - we rate this claim 'Misattributed.' | [
"14959-proof-02-1920px-White_House_Coronavirus_Update_Briefing_49743000142.jpg"
]
|
Dr. Anthony Fauci compared emerging research about coronavirus with what the scientific community knows about chickenpox - as well as other viruses - and criticized people who were not taking steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In summer 2020, a roughly 900-word Facebook post emphasizing the unknowns of the coronavirus and criticizing people who were not taking precautions to prevent the spread of the deadly virus went viral. Thousands of accounts shared the message verbatim, some of which claimed the words had been written or spoken by Dr. Anthony Fauci, top immunologist in the U.S. The post began like this: Chicken pox is a virus. Lots of people have had it, and probably don't think about it much once the initial illness has passed. But it stays in your body and lives there forever, and maybe when you're older, you have debilitatingly painful outbreaks of shingles. You don't just get over this virus in a few weeks, never to have another health effect. We know this because it's been around for years, and has been studied medically for years. The post went on to emphasize that the medical and scientific research community was only beginning to study the SARS-CoV-2 virus - which causes COVID-19 - and stressed the importance of face masks, proper hygiene, and social distancing to mitigate outbreaks until more is known about what causes them. Since the beginning of July 2020, numerous Snopes readers requested an investigation to determine if Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases, had indeed made the statement. We found the contents of the viral post to be largely true. For instance, chickenpox is an infection caused by the varicella-zoster virus, just like the COVID-19 disease is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, Fauci was not the source of, or at all connected to, the viral message. Rather, we determined Facebook user Amy Wright, of Asheville, North Carolina, was the post's original author. She confirmed with us via Facebook messenger that she published the original post (which can be read here) on June 14, 2020, and made minor amendments to the message's grammar and wording since then. Then, over the course of several weeks, she said, private Facebook groups in her hometown began to circulate the post. And after that, the statement spread like wildfire online, and people began falsely asserting that Fauci had said it. It was unclear who, or what account, was the first to make that inaccurate connection. Also unclear was their motivation for doing so. No evidence proves that Fauci made any written or verbal statement resembling the post in question. Wright told us: I think it's very unfortunate that anyone would have tried to attribute this to Dr. Fauci. The only possible outcome of doing so would be to reduce one's credibility. It's unfortunate. Elaborating on the process of authoring a viral post which is later mischaracterized, Wright said in Facebook comments: I'm not credentialed medical professional. I wrote out my thoughts and opinions, and did include some things that are factual. ... It is not my intent to spread misinformation. It is my intent to share my thoughts, stimulate discussion, and hope that people will continue to research and pursue a fuller understanding of this pandemic and its effects. ... The impetus behind [someone's decision to wrongly attribute the message to Fauci] mystifies me. As for the veracity of Wright's message: yes, the varicella-zoster virus remains in patients' bodies, even after they suffer chickenpox symptoms (namely an itchy skin rash with bumps, blisters and scabs). And, according to Mayo Clinic, the virus can reactivate and resurface years after the initial infection as painful clusters of blisters, called shingles. Older adults and immune-compromised people who have had chickenpox are more likely to suffer from shingles than other populations. Additionally, the post accurately explains that years-old studies by scientists and medical professionals have determined that the viruses that cause herpes infections remain dormant in patients' bodies - which means they don't have any outbreaks - for weeks, months, or years on end. And, similarly, to make the point that the passage of time provides the research community the ability to make conclusive determinations on emerging illnesses and infections, Wright's post emphasized the years it took for Americans to understand HIV and how certain treatments can help patients manage and reduce the risk of spreading it. Then, while listing almost two dozen symptoms of COVID-19 - roughly half of which are verifiable via the Mayo Clinic and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while other reported symptoms in the post are listed on WebMD - the post said this of COVID-19: This disease has not been around for years. It has basically been 6 months. No one knows yet the long-term health effects, or how it may present itself years down the road for people who have been exposed. We literally *do not know* what we do not know. 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 remaining portion of the message criticizes the actions and philosophies of people who think they would be better off by catching coronavirus sooner rather than later, essentially suggesting that COVID-19 patients were immune from falling ill due to the virus again even though scientific evidence was inconclusive on the topic as of this writing. The CDC stated on its website that, 'We do not know yet if people who recover from COVID-19 can get infected again. Scientists are working to understand this.' Wright ends her post with the following: I reject the notion that it's 'just a virus' and we'll all get it eventually. What a careless, lazy, heartless stance. Being intentional and taking basic, common sense precautions has permitted me to avoid many common viruses. I've never had the flu. And while I'm not saying I never will, I also am not about to run out and intentionally expose myself to 'get it over with'. In sum, given the fact that no one appeared to have shared or written the viral message before Wright's status update on June 14, and the fact that she said she had written the post - not Fauci - we rate this claim 'Misattributed.' | In summer 2020, a roughly 900-word Facebook post emphasizing the unknowns of the coronavirus and criticizing people who were not taking precautions to prevent the spread of the deadly virus went viral. Thousands of accounts shared the message verbatim, some of which claimed the words had been written or spoken by Dr. Anthony Fauci, top immunologist in the U.S. The post began like this: Chicken pox is a virus. Lots of people have had it, and probably don't think about it much once the initial illness has passed. But it stays in your body and lives there forever, and maybe when you're older, you have debilitatingly painful outbreaks of shingles. You don't just get over this virus in a few weeks, never to have another health effect. We know this because it's been around for years, and has been studied medically for years. The post went on to emphasize that the medical and scientific research community was only beginning to study the SARS-CoV-2 virus - which causes COVID-19 - and stressed the importance of face masks, proper hygiene, and social distancing to mitigate outbreaks until more is known about what causes them. Since the beginning of July 2020, numerous Snopes readers requested an investigation to determine if Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases, had indeed made the statement. We found the contents of the viral post to be largely true. For instance, chickenpox is an infection caused by the varicella-zoster virus, just like the COVID-19 disease is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, Fauci was not the source of, or at all connected to, the viral message. Rather, we determined Facebook user Amy Wright, of Asheville, North Carolina, was the post's original author. She confirmed with us via Facebook messenger that she published the original post (which can be read here) on June 14, 2020, and made minor amendments to the message's grammar and wording since then. Then, over the course of several weeks, she said, private Facebook groups in her hometown began to circulate the post. And after that, the statement spread like wildfire online, and people began falsely asserting that Fauci had said it. It was unclear who, or what account, was the first to make that inaccurate connection. Also unclear was their motivation for doing so. No evidence proves that Fauci made any written or verbal statement resembling the post in question. Wright told us: I think it's very unfortunate that anyone would have tried to attribute this to Dr. Fauci. The only possible outcome of doing so would be to reduce one's credibility. It's unfortunate. Elaborating on the process of authoring a viral post which is later mischaracterized, Wright said in Facebook comments: I'm not credentialed medical professional. I wrote out my thoughts and opinions, and did include some things that are factual. ... It is not my intent to spread misinformation. It is my intent to share my thoughts, stimulate discussion, and hope that people will continue to research and pursue a fuller understanding of this pandemic and its effects. ... The impetus behind [someone's decision to wrongly attribute the message to Fauci] mystifies me. As for the veracity of Wright's message: yes, the varicella-zoster virus remains in patients' bodies, even after they suffer chickenpox symptoms (namely an itchy skin rash with bumps, blisters and scabs). And, according to Mayo Clinic, the virus can reactivate and resurface years after the initial infection as painful clusters of blisters, called shingles. Older adults and immune-compromised people who have had chickenpox are more likely to suffer from shingles than other populations. Additionally, the post accurately explains that years-old studies by scientists and medical professionals have determined that the viruses that cause herpes infections remain dormant in patients' bodies - which means they don't have any outbreaks - for weeks, months, or years on end. And, similarly, to make the point that the passage of time provides the research community the ability to make conclusive determinations on emerging illnesses and infections, Wright's post emphasized the years it took for Americans to understand HIV and how certain treatments can help patients manage and reduce the risk of spreading it. Then, while listing almost two dozen symptoms of COVID-19 - roughly half of which are verifiable via the Mayo Clinic and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while other reported symptoms in the post are listed on WebMD - the post said this of COVID-19: This disease has not been around for years. It has basically been 6 months. No one knows yet the long-term health effects, or how it may present itself years down the road for people who have been exposed. We literally *do not know* what we do not know. 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 remaining portion of the message criticizes the actions and philosophies of people who think they would be better off by catching coronavirus sooner rather than later, essentially suggesting that COVID-19 patients were immune from falling ill due to the virus again even though scientific evidence was inconclusive on the topic as of this writing. The CDC stated on its website that, 'We do not know yet if people who recover from COVID-19 can get infected again. Scientists are working to understand this.' Wright ends her post with the following: I reject the notion that it's 'just a virus' and we'll all get it eventually. What a careless, lazy, heartless stance. Being intentional and taking basic, common sense precautions has permitted me to avoid many common viruses. I've never had the flu. And while I'm not saying I never will, I also am not about to run out and intentionally expose myself to 'get it over with'. In sum, given the fact that no one appeared to have shared or written the viral message before Wright's status update on June 14, and the fact that she said she had written the post - not Fauci - we rate this claim 'Misattributed.' | [
"14959-proof-02-1920px-White_House_Coronavirus_Update_Briefing_49743000142.jpg"
]
|
Dr. Anthony Fauci compared emerging research about coronavirus with what the scientific community knows about chickenpox - as well as other viruses - and criticized people who were not taking steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In summer 2020, a roughly 900-word Facebook post emphasizing the unknowns of the coronavirus and criticizing people who were not taking precautions to prevent the spread of the deadly virus went viral. Thousands of accounts shared the message verbatim, some of which claimed the words had been written or spoken by Dr. Anthony Fauci, top immunologist in the U.S. The post began like this: Chicken pox is a virus. Lots of people have had it, and probably don't think about it much once the initial illness has passed. But it stays in your body and lives there forever, and maybe when you're older, you have debilitatingly painful outbreaks of shingles. You don't just get over this virus in a few weeks, never to have another health effect. We know this because it's been around for years, and has been studied medically for years. The post went on to emphasize that the medical and scientific research community was only beginning to study the SARS-CoV-2 virus - which causes COVID-19 - and stressed the importance of face masks, proper hygiene, and social distancing to mitigate outbreaks until more is known about what causes them. Since the beginning of July 2020, numerous Snopes readers requested an investigation to determine if Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases, had indeed made the statement. We found the contents of the viral post to be largely true. For instance, chickenpox is an infection caused by the varicella-zoster virus, just like the COVID-19 disease is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, Fauci was not the source of, or at all connected to, the viral message. Rather, we determined Facebook user Amy Wright, of Asheville, North Carolina, was the post's original author. She confirmed with us via Facebook messenger that she published the original post (which can be read here) on June 14, 2020, and made minor amendments to the message's grammar and wording since then. Then, over the course of several weeks, she said, private Facebook groups in her hometown began to circulate the post. And after that, the statement spread like wildfire online, and people began falsely asserting that Fauci had said it. It was unclear who, or what account, was the first to make that inaccurate connection. Also unclear was their motivation for doing so. No evidence proves that Fauci made any written or verbal statement resembling the post in question. Wright told us: I think it's very unfortunate that anyone would have tried to attribute this to Dr. Fauci. The only possible outcome of doing so would be to reduce one's credibility. It's unfortunate. Elaborating on the process of authoring a viral post which is later mischaracterized, Wright said in Facebook comments: I'm not credentialed medical professional. I wrote out my thoughts and opinions, and did include some things that are factual. ... It is not my intent to spread misinformation. It is my intent to share my thoughts, stimulate discussion, and hope that people will continue to research and pursue a fuller understanding of this pandemic and its effects. ... The impetus behind [someone's decision to wrongly attribute the message to Fauci] mystifies me. As for the veracity of Wright's message: yes, the varicella-zoster virus remains in patients' bodies, even after they suffer chickenpox symptoms (namely an itchy skin rash with bumps, blisters and scabs). And, according to Mayo Clinic, the virus can reactivate and resurface years after the initial infection as painful clusters of blisters, called shingles. Older adults and immune-compromised people who have had chickenpox are more likely to suffer from shingles than other populations. Additionally, the post accurately explains that years-old studies by scientists and medical professionals have determined that the viruses that cause herpes infections remain dormant in patients' bodies - which means they don't have any outbreaks - for weeks, months, or years on end. And, similarly, to make the point that the passage of time provides the research community the ability to make conclusive determinations on emerging illnesses and infections, Wright's post emphasized the years it took for Americans to understand HIV and how certain treatments can help patients manage and reduce the risk of spreading it. Then, while listing almost two dozen symptoms of COVID-19 - roughly half of which are verifiable via the Mayo Clinic and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while other reported symptoms in the post are listed on WebMD - the post said this of COVID-19: This disease has not been around for years. It has basically been 6 months. No one knows yet the long-term health effects, or how it may present itself years down the road for people who have been exposed. We literally *do not know* what we do not know. 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 remaining portion of the message criticizes the actions and philosophies of people who think they would be better off by catching coronavirus sooner rather than later, essentially suggesting that COVID-19 patients were immune from falling ill due to the virus again even though scientific evidence was inconclusive on the topic as of this writing. The CDC stated on its website that, 'We do not know yet if people who recover from COVID-19 can get infected again. Scientists are working to understand this.' Wright ends her post with the following: I reject the notion that it's 'just a virus' and we'll all get it eventually. What a careless, lazy, heartless stance. Being intentional and taking basic, common sense precautions has permitted me to avoid many common viruses. I've never had the flu. And while I'm not saying I never will, I also am not about to run out and intentionally expose myself to 'get it over with'. In sum, given the fact that no one appeared to have shared or written the viral message before Wright's status update on June 14, and the fact that she said she had written the post - not Fauci - we rate this claim 'Misattributed.' | In summer 2020, a roughly 900-word Facebook post emphasizing the unknowns of the coronavirus and criticizing people who were not taking precautions to prevent the spread of the deadly virus went viral. Thousands of accounts shared the message verbatim, some of which claimed the words had been written or spoken by Dr. Anthony Fauci, top immunologist in the U.S. The post began like this: Chicken pox is a virus. Lots of people have had it, and probably don't think about it much once the initial illness has passed. But it stays in your body and lives there forever, and maybe when you're older, you have debilitatingly painful outbreaks of shingles. You don't just get over this virus in a few weeks, never to have another health effect. We know this because it's been around for years, and has been studied medically for years. The post went on to emphasize that the medical and scientific research community was only beginning to study the SARS-CoV-2 virus - which causes COVID-19 - and stressed the importance of face masks, proper hygiene, and social distancing to mitigate outbreaks until more is known about what causes them. Since the beginning of July 2020, numerous Snopes readers requested an investigation to determine if Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases, had indeed made the statement. We found the contents of the viral post to be largely true. For instance, chickenpox is an infection caused by the varicella-zoster virus, just like the COVID-19 disease is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, Fauci was not the source of, or at all connected to, the viral message. Rather, we determined Facebook user Amy Wright, of Asheville, North Carolina, was the post's original author. She confirmed with us via Facebook messenger that she published the original post (which can be read here) on June 14, 2020, and made minor amendments to the message's grammar and wording since then. Then, over the course of several weeks, she said, private Facebook groups in her hometown began to circulate the post. And after that, the statement spread like wildfire online, and people began falsely asserting that Fauci had said it. It was unclear who, or what account, was the first to make that inaccurate connection. Also unclear was their motivation for doing so. No evidence proves that Fauci made any written or verbal statement resembling the post in question. Wright told us: I think it's very unfortunate that anyone would have tried to attribute this to Dr. Fauci. The only possible outcome of doing so would be to reduce one's credibility. It's unfortunate. Elaborating on the process of authoring a viral post which is later mischaracterized, Wright said in Facebook comments: I'm not credentialed medical professional. I wrote out my thoughts and opinions, and did include some things that are factual. ... It is not my intent to spread misinformation. It is my intent to share my thoughts, stimulate discussion, and hope that people will continue to research and pursue a fuller understanding of this pandemic and its effects. ... The impetus behind [someone's decision to wrongly attribute the message to Fauci] mystifies me. As for the veracity of Wright's message: yes, the varicella-zoster virus remains in patients' bodies, even after they suffer chickenpox symptoms (namely an itchy skin rash with bumps, blisters and scabs). And, according to Mayo Clinic, the virus can reactivate and resurface years after the initial infection as painful clusters of blisters, called shingles. Older adults and immune-compromised people who have had chickenpox are more likely to suffer from shingles than other populations. Additionally, the post accurately explains that years-old studies by scientists and medical professionals have determined that the viruses that cause herpes infections remain dormant in patients' bodies - which means they don't have any outbreaks - for weeks, months, or years on end. And, similarly, to make the point that the passage of time provides the research community the ability to make conclusive determinations on emerging illnesses and infections, Wright's post emphasized the years it took for Americans to understand HIV and how certain treatments can help patients manage and reduce the risk of spreading it. Then, while listing almost two dozen symptoms of COVID-19 - roughly half of which are verifiable via the Mayo Clinic and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while other reported symptoms in the post are listed on WebMD - the post said this of COVID-19: This disease has not been around for years. It has basically been 6 months. No one knows yet the long-term health effects, or how it may present itself years down the road for people who have been exposed. We literally *do not know* what we do not know. 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 remaining portion of the message criticizes the actions and philosophies of people who think they would be better off by catching coronavirus sooner rather than later, essentially suggesting that COVID-19 patients were immune from falling ill due to the virus again even though scientific evidence was inconclusive on the topic as of this writing. The CDC stated on its website that, 'We do not know yet if people who recover from COVID-19 can get infected again. Scientists are working to understand this.' Wright ends her post with the following: I reject the notion that it's 'just a virus' and we'll all get it eventually. What a careless, lazy, heartless stance. Being intentional and taking basic, common sense precautions has permitted me to avoid many common viruses. I've never had the flu. And while I'm not saying I never will, I also am not about to run out and intentionally expose myself to 'get it over with'. In sum, given the fact that no one appeared to have shared or written the viral message before Wright's status update on June 14, and the fact that she said she had written the post - not Fauci - we rate this claim 'Misattributed.' | [
"14959-proof-02-1920px-White_House_Coronavirus_Update_Briefing_49743000142.jpg"
]
|
Dr. Anthony Fauci compared emerging research about coronavirus with what the scientific community knows about chickenpox - as well as other viruses - and criticized people who were not taking steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19. | Contradiction | Snopes is still fighting an 'infodemic' of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and 'advice' you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In summer 2020, a roughly 900-word Facebook post emphasizing the unknowns of the coronavirus and criticizing people who were not taking precautions to prevent the spread of the deadly virus went viral. Thousands of accounts shared the message verbatim, some of which claimed the words had been written or spoken by Dr. Anthony Fauci, top immunologist in the U.S. The post began like this: Chicken pox is a virus. Lots of people have had it, and probably don't think about it much once the initial illness has passed. But it stays in your body and lives there forever, and maybe when you're older, you have debilitatingly painful outbreaks of shingles. You don't just get over this virus in a few weeks, never to have another health effect. We know this because it's been around for years, and has been studied medically for years. The post went on to emphasize that the medical and scientific research community was only beginning to study the SARS-CoV-2 virus - which causes COVID-19 - and stressed the importance of face masks, proper hygiene, and social distancing to mitigate outbreaks until more is known about what causes them. Since the beginning of July 2020, numerous Snopes readers requested an investigation to determine if Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases, had indeed made the statement. We found the contents of the viral post to be largely true. For instance, chickenpox is an infection caused by the varicella-zoster virus, just like the COVID-19 disease is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, Fauci was not the source of, or at all connected to, the viral message. Rather, we determined Facebook user Amy Wright, of Asheville, North Carolina, was the post's original author. She confirmed with us via Facebook messenger that she published the original post (which can be read here) on June 14, 2020, and made minor amendments to the message's grammar and wording since then. Then, over the course of several weeks, she said, private Facebook groups in her hometown began to circulate the post. And after that, the statement spread like wildfire online, and people began falsely asserting that Fauci had said it. It was unclear who, or what account, was the first to make that inaccurate connection. Also unclear was their motivation for doing so. No evidence proves that Fauci made any written or verbal statement resembling the post in question. Wright told us: I think it's very unfortunate that anyone would have tried to attribute this to Dr. Fauci. The only possible outcome of doing so would be to reduce one's credibility. It's unfortunate. Elaborating on the process of authoring a viral post which is later mischaracterized, Wright said in Facebook comments: I'm not credentialed medical professional. I wrote out my thoughts and opinions, and did include some things that are factual. ... It is not my intent to spread misinformation. It is my intent to share my thoughts, stimulate discussion, and hope that people will continue to research and pursue a fuller understanding of this pandemic and its effects. ... The impetus behind [someone's decision to wrongly attribute the message to Fauci] mystifies me. As for the veracity of Wright's message: yes, the varicella-zoster virus remains in patients' bodies, even after they suffer chickenpox symptoms (namely an itchy skin rash with bumps, blisters and scabs). And, according to Mayo Clinic, the virus can reactivate and resurface years after the initial infection as painful clusters of blisters, called shingles. Older adults and immune-compromised people who have had chickenpox are more likely to suffer from shingles than other populations. Additionally, the post accurately explains that years-old studies by scientists and medical professionals have determined that the viruses that cause herpes infections remain dormant in patients' bodies - which means they don't have any outbreaks - for weeks, months, or years on end. And, similarly, to make the point that the passage of time provides the research community the ability to make conclusive determinations on emerging illnesses and infections, Wright's post emphasized the years it took for Americans to understand HIV and how certain treatments can help patients manage and reduce the risk of spreading it. Then, while listing almost two dozen symptoms of COVID-19 - roughly half of which are verifiable via the Mayo Clinic and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while other reported symptoms in the post are listed on WebMD - the post said this of COVID-19: This disease has not been around for years. It has basically been 6 months. No one knows yet the long-term health effects, or how it may present itself years down the road for people who have been exposed. We literally *do not know* what we do not know. 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 remaining portion of the message criticizes the actions and philosophies of people who think they would be better off by catching coronavirus sooner rather than later, essentially suggesting that COVID-19 patients were immune from falling ill due to the virus again even though scientific evidence was inconclusive on the topic as of this writing. The CDC stated on its website that, 'We do not know yet if people who recover from COVID-19 can get infected again. Scientists are working to understand this.' Wright ends her post with the following: I reject the notion that it's 'just a virus' and we'll all get it eventually. What a careless, lazy, heartless stance. Being intentional and taking basic, common sense precautions has permitted me to avoid many common viruses. I've never had the flu. And while I'm not saying I never will, I also am not about to run out and intentionally expose myself to 'get it over with'. In sum, given the fact that no one appeared to have shared or written the viral message before Wright's status update on June 14, and the fact that she said she had written the post - not Fauci - we rate this claim 'Misattributed.' | In summer 2020, a roughly 900-word Facebook post emphasizing the unknowns of the coronavirus and criticizing people who were not taking precautions to prevent the spread of the deadly virus went viral. Thousands of accounts shared the message verbatim, some of which claimed the words had been written or spoken by Dr. Anthony Fauci, top immunologist in the U.S. The post began like this: Chicken pox is a virus. Lots of people have had it, and probably don't think about it much once the initial illness has passed. But it stays in your body and lives there forever, and maybe when you're older, you have debilitatingly painful outbreaks of shingles. You don't just get over this virus in a few weeks, never to have another health effect. We know this because it's been around for years, and has been studied medically for years. The post went on to emphasize that the medical and scientific research community was only beginning to study the SARS-CoV-2 virus - which causes COVID-19 - and stressed the importance of face masks, proper hygiene, and social distancing to mitigate outbreaks until more is known about what causes them. Since the beginning of July 2020, numerous Snopes readers requested an investigation to determine if Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infections Diseases, had indeed made the statement. We found the contents of the viral post to be largely true. For instance, chickenpox is an infection caused by the varicella-zoster virus, just like the COVID-19 disease is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, Fauci was not the source of, or at all connected to, the viral message. Rather, we determined Facebook user Amy Wright, of Asheville, North Carolina, was the post's original author. She confirmed with us via Facebook messenger that she published the original post (which can be read here) on June 14, 2020, and made minor amendments to the message's grammar and wording since then. Then, over the course of several weeks, she said, private Facebook groups in her hometown began to circulate the post. And after that, the statement spread like wildfire online, and people began falsely asserting that Fauci had said it. It was unclear who, or what account, was the first to make that inaccurate connection. Also unclear was their motivation for doing so. No evidence proves that Fauci made any written or verbal statement resembling the post in question. Wright told us: I think it's very unfortunate that anyone would have tried to attribute this to Dr. Fauci. The only possible outcome of doing so would be to reduce one's credibility. It's unfortunate. Elaborating on the process of authoring a viral post which is later mischaracterized, Wright said in Facebook comments: I'm not credentialed medical professional. I wrote out my thoughts and opinions, and did include some things that are factual. ... It is not my intent to spread misinformation. It is my intent to share my thoughts, stimulate discussion, and hope that people will continue to research and pursue a fuller understanding of this pandemic and its effects. ... The impetus behind [someone's decision to wrongly attribute the message to Fauci] mystifies me. As for the veracity of Wright's message: yes, the varicella-zoster virus remains in patients' bodies, even after they suffer chickenpox symptoms (namely an itchy skin rash with bumps, blisters and scabs). And, according to Mayo Clinic, the virus can reactivate and resurface years after the initial infection as painful clusters of blisters, called shingles. Older adults and immune-compromised people who have had chickenpox are more likely to suffer from shingles than other populations. Additionally, the post accurately explains that years-old studies by scientists and medical professionals have determined that the viruses that cause herpes infections remain dormant in patients' bodies - which means they don't have any outbreaks - for weeks, months, or years on end. And, similarly, to make the point that the passage of time provides the research community the ability to make conclusive determinations on emerging illnesses and infections, Wright's post emphasized the years it took for Americans to understand HIV and how certain treatments can help patients manage and reduce the risk of spreading it. Then, while listing almost two dozen symptoms of COVID-19 - roughly half of which are verifiable via the Mayo Clinic and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while other reported symptoms in the post are listed on WebMD - the post said this of COVID-19: This disease has not been around for years. It has basically been 6 months. No one knows yet the long-term health effects, or how it may present itself years down the road for people who have been exposed. We literally *do not know* what we do not know. 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 remaining portion of the message criticizes the actions and philosophies of people who think they would be better off by catching coronavirus sooner rather than later, essentially suggesting that COVID-19 patients were immune from falling ill due to the virus again even though scientific evidence was inconclusive on the topic as of this writing. The CDC stated on its website that, 'We do not know yet if people who recover from COVID-19 can get infected again. Scientists are working to understand this.' Wright ends her post with the following: I reject the notion that it's 'just a virus' and we'll all get it eventually. What a careless, lazy, heartless stance. Being intentional and taking basic, common sense precautions has permitted me to avoid many common viruses. I've never had the flu. And while I'm not saying I never will, I also am not about to run out and intentionally expose myself to 'get it over with'. In sum, given the fact that no one appeared to have shared or written the viral message before Wright's status update on June 14, and the fact that she said she had written the post - not Fauci - we rate this claim 'Misattributed.' | [
"14959-proof-02-1920px-White_House_Coronavirus_Update_Briefing_49743000142.jpg"
]
|
During a speech in which he declared Jesus Christ his 'redeemer,' Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan gave indications that he was breaking with Islam in favor of following Christianity. | Contradiction | In August 2017, various online sources reported that Louis Farrakhan, the 84-year-old leader of the Chicago-based religious group Nation of Islam, had posted a video on his Facebook page in which he declared Jesus as his redeemer, seemingly contradicting his own Muslim teachings. For example, the Christian Post stated: Reflecting on his inevitable physical death, leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, 84, declared in a controversial video recording Tuesday that Jesus will save him from the grip of death despite his organization's creed that there is only 'One God whose proper Name is Allah.' The declaration came the same day Farrakhan was shown visiting Bishop Larry Trotter, longtime pastor of Chicago's Sweet Holy Spirit Church, who was hospitalized last Wednesday with a 'serious illness' following a trip to Israel. 'I thank God for guiding me for 40 years absent my teacher (Elijah Muhammad). So my next journey will have to answer the question. I'm gonna say it,' Farrakhan teased briefly in the clip before declaring: 'I know that my redeemer liveth.' Similarly, Dan Calabrese of Canada Free Press wrote: Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is 84 years old. We all know the Islamic radicalism and racial division he's been preaching for decades, so there's no reason to go over it in detail here. But what's this? Farrakhan released this video yesterday, and if it's what it appears to be on first glace, he's made quite a radical change of direction: My first instinct was to find a loophole in his wording. When Farrakhan said 'my Jesus lives' and emphasized the 'my,' I thought maybe he was trying to give himself license to declare that his 'redeemer' can be whoever he wants it to be, and that he could express that by referring to said redeemer as 'my Jesus.' That would be more consistent with the way Farrakhan has expressed himself throughout his public life. But what about this? 'I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years. You can have the money, you can have the clothes, you can have the suit, you can have the house but, me, you can't have.' If that doesn't sound like full-throated repentence, I don't know what does. And, according to Black Christian News: Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, has declared that Jesus Christ is his 'Redeemer' and has indicated that he knows he will have to 'pay' for his false teachings. In a video released Tuesday, while reflecting on his inevitable death, the 84-year-old religious teacher said, 'I thank God for guiding me for forty years absent my teacher [Elijah Muhammad]. So my next journey will have to answer the question. I'm gonna say it: I know that my redeemer liveth.' He emphasized, 'I know. I'm not guessing that my Jesus is alive. I know that my redeemer liveth and because he lives I know that I, too, will pass through the portal of death yet death will not afflict me.' The video clip is authentic, released via Farrakhan's multiple social media accounts. However, the interpretation of his words as a sign of a deep change in his belief system - specifically, as a turning away from or renunciation of Islam and a conversion, tentative or complete, to Christianity - is erroneous and disproven by other statements he has made before and since. Regarding the excerpt itself, the clip represents a minute and a half of a speech that lasted an hour and 41 minutes. Farrakhan said a great many things during the 30 July 2017 talk, which was delivered from the pulpit of the Union Temple Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the 40th pastoral anniversary of his friend, the Rev. Willie Wilson: Among other things, Farrakhan repeated the phrase 'I am a Muslim' several times, reminded his audience that Muslims revere Jesus (who is named in the Qur'an itself as a prophet and the Messiah), and expressed the belief, as he has on past occasions, that the appointed role of the Messiah is to deliver black people from oppression by white people, whom he believes are Satanically created and inspired. Going deeper, Farrakhan's writings and speeches indicate he believes that the Messiah prophesied in the Torah, the Qur'an, and the Bible - the figure to whom he refers as 'my redeemer' - is, in fact, former Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad, who died in 1975, but whom Farrakhan believes is still 'physically alive': 'I haven't been the same since,' said Min. Farrakhan. 'Because everything that Elijah Muhammad said to me made sense. It would not make sense if he were dead, it could only make since if he's alive and all the things he told me about myself and my future didn't make sense if he was dead. But when I came to see that he was alive, Saviours' Day 1981, I mentioned it.' Confusion also surrounds Farrakhan's statement that 'I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years.' Some have taken it to mean Farrakhan was admitting he will have to repent to God for uttering false teachings (i.e., Islam), but that interpretation ignores the opening of his statement, which begins: 'I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years.' In context, Farrakhan was speaking of the price he will have to pay for a lifetime of standing up against the false religion ('corrupted' Christianity) invented by Satan and preached by white people to deceive blacks into accepting subjugation and slavery. Farrakhan is saying he knows the devil will extract payment, but there's a limit to what he can take: I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years. You can have the money, you can have the clothes, you can have the suit, you can have the house but me you can't have. In short, it's a grave mistake to take Louis Farrakhan's pronouncements about Jesus Christ as having the same meaning ordinary Christians (or even Muslims) would give them. It's an even greater mistake to suppose that Farrakhan renounced Islam. Here's a tweet he composed barely a month after delivering the above address: You have to know and believe that Allah is sufficient for all our needs. - MINISTER FARRAKHAN (@LouisFarrakhan) September 3, 2017 We reached out to the Nation of Islam for comment on this rumor, but have not yet received a reply. | In short, it's a grave mistake to take Louis Farrakhan's pronouncements about Jesus Christ as having the same meaning ordinary Christians (or even Muslims) would give them. It's an even greater mistake to suppose that Farrakhan renounced Islam. Here's a tweet he composed barely a month after delivering the above address: You have to know and believe that Allah is sufficient for all our needs. - MINISTER FARRAKHAN (@LouisFarrakhan) September 3, 2017 We reached out to the Nation of Islam for comment on this rumor, but have not yet received a reply. | [
"14978-proof-08-quran_sharia_law_fb.jpg"
]
|
During a speech in which he declared Jesus Christ his 'redeemer,' Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan gave indications that he was breaking with Islam in favor of following Christianity. | Contradiction | In August 2017, various online sources reported that Louis Farrakhan, the 84-year-old leader of the Chicago-based religious group Nation of Islam, had posted a video on his Facebook page in which he declared Jesus as his redeemer, seemingly contradicting his own Muslim teachings. For example, the Christian Post stated: Reflecting on his inevitable physical death, leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, 84, declared in a controversial video recording Tuesday that Jesus will save him from the grip of death despite his organization's creed that there is only 'One God whose proper Name is Allah.' The declaration came the same day Farrakhan was shown visiting Bishop Larry Trotter, longtime pastor of Chicago's Sweet Holy Spirit Church, who was hospitalized last Wednesday with a 'serious illness' following a trip to Israel. 'I thank God for guiding me for 40 years absent my teacher (Elijah Muhammad). So my next journey will have to answer the question. I'm gonna say it,' Farrakhan teased briefly in the clip before declaring: 'I know that my redeemer liveth.' Similarly, Dan Calabrese of Canada Free Press wrote: Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is 84 years old. We all know the Islamic radicalism and racial division he's been preaching for decades, so there's no reason to go over it in detail here. But what's this? Farrakhan released this video yesterday, and if it's what it appears to be on first glace, he's made quite a radical change of direction: My first instinct was to find a loophole in his wording. When Farrakhan said 'my Jesus lives' and emphasized the 'my,' I thought maybe he was trying to give himself license to declare that his 'redeemer' can be whoever he wants it to be, and that he could express that by referring to said redeemer as 'my Jesus.' That would be more consistent with the way Farrakhan has expressed himself throughout his public life. But what about this? 'I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years. You can have the money, you can have the clothes, you can have the suit, you can have the house but, me, you can't have.' If that doesn't sound like full-throated repentence, I don't know what does. And, according to Black Christian News: Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, has declared that Jesus Christ is his 'Redeemer' and has indicated that he knows he will have to 'pay' for his false teachings. In a video released Tuesday, while reflecting on his inevitable death, the 84-year-old religious teacher said, 'I thank God for guiding me for forty years absent my teacher [Elijah Muhammad]. So my next journey will have to answer the question. I'm gonna say it: I know that my redeemer liveth.' He emphasized, 'I know. I'm not guessing that my Jesus is alive. I know that my redeemer liveth and because he lives I know that I, too, will pass through the portal of death yet death will not afflict me.' The video clip is authentic, released via Farrakhan's multiple social media accounts. However, the interpretation of his words as a sign of a deep change in his belief system - specifically, as a turning away from or renunciation of Islam and a conversion, tentative or complete, to Christianity - is erroneous and disproven by other statements he has made before and since. Regarding the excerpt itself, the clip represents a minute and a half of a speech that lasted an hour and 41 minutes. Farrakhan said a great many things during the 30 July 2017 talk, which was delivered from the pulpit of the Union Temple Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the 40th pastoral anniversary of his friend, the Rev. Willie Wilson: Among other things, Farrakhan repeated the phrase 'I am a Muslim' several times, reminded his audience that Muslims revere Jesus (who is named in the Qur'an itself as a prophet and the Messiah), and expressed the belief, as he has on past occasions, that the appointed role of the Messiah is to deliver black people from oppression by white people, whom he believes are Satanically created and inspired. Going deeper, Farrakhan's writings and speeches indicate he believes that the Messiah prophesied in the Torah, the Qur'an, and the Bible - the figure to whom he refers as 'my redeemer' - is, in fact, former Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad, who died in 1975, but whom Farrakhan believes is still 'physically alive': 'I haven't been the same since,' said Min. Farrakhan. 'Because everything that Elijah Muhammad said to me made sense. It would not make sense if he were dead, it could only make since if he's alive and all the things he told me about myself and my future didn't make sense if he was dead. But when I came to see that he was alive, Saviours' Day 1981, I mentioned it.' Confusion also surrounds Farrakhan's statement that 'I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years.' Some have taken it to mean Farrakhan was admitting he will have to repent to God for uttering false teachings (i.e., Islam), but that interpretation ignores the opening of his statement, which begins: 'I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years.' In context, Farrakhan was speaking of the price he will have to pay for a lifetime of standing up against the false religion ('corrupted' Christianity) invented by Satan and preached by white people to deceive blacks into accepting subjugation and slavery. Farrakhan is saying he knows the devil will extract payment, but there's a limit to what he can take: I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years. You can have the money, you can have the clothes, you can have the suit, you can have the house but me you can't have. In short, it's a grave mistake to take Louis Farrakhan's pronouncements about Jesus Christ as having the same meaning ordinary Christians (or even Muslims) would give them. It's an even greater mistake to suppose that Farrakhan renounced Islam. Here's a tweet he composed barely a month after delivering the above address: You have to know and believe that Allah is sufficient for all our needs. - MINISTER FARRAKHAN (@LouisFarrakhan) September 3, 2017 We reached out to the Nation of Islam for comment on this rumor, but have not yet received a reply. | In short, it's a grave mistake to take Louis Farrakhan's pronouncements about Jesus Christ as having the same meaning ordinary Christians (or even Muslims) would give them. It's an even greater mistake to suppose that Farrakhan renounced Islam. Here's a tweet he composed barely a month after delivering the above address: You have to know and believe that Allah is sufficient for all our needs. - MINISTER FARRAKHAN (@LouisFarrakhan) September 3, 2017 We reached out to the Nation of Islam for comment on this rumor, but have not yet received a reply. | [
"14978-proof-08-quran_sharia_law_fb.jpg"
]
|
During a speech in which he declared Jesus Christ his 'redeemer,' Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan gave indications that he was breaking with Islam in favor of following Christianity. | Contradiction | In August 2017, various online sources reported that Louis Farrakhan, the 84-year-old leader of the Chicago-based religious group Nation of Islam, had posted a video on his Facebook page in which he declared Jesus as his redeemer, seemingly contradicting his own Muslim teachings. For example, the Christian Post stated: Reflecting on his inevitable physical death, leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, 84, declared in a controversial video recording Tuesday that Jesus will save him from the grip of death despite his organization's creed that there is only 'One God whose proper Name is Allah.' The declaration came the same day Farrakhan was shown visiting Bishop Larry Trotter, longtime pastor of Chicago's Sweet Holy Spirit Church, who was hospitalized last Wednesday with a 'serious illness' following a trip to Israel. 'I thank God for guiding me for 40 years absent my teacher (Elijah Muhammad). So my next journey will have to answer the question. I'm gonna say it,' Farrakhan teased briefly in the clip before declaring: 'I know that my redeemer liveth.' Similarly, Dan Calabrese of Canada Free Press wrote: Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is 84 years old. We all know the Islamic radicalism and racial division he's been preaching for decades, so there's no reason to go over it in detail here. But what's this? Farrakhan released this video yesterday, and if it's what it appears to be on first glace, he's made quite a radical change of direction: My first instinct was to find a loophole in his wording. When Farrakhan said 'my Jesus lives' and emphasized the 'my,' I thought maybe he was trying to give himself license to declare that his 'redeemer' can be whoever he wants it to be, and that he could express that by referring to said redeemer as 'my Jesus.' That would be more consistent with the way Farrakhan has expressed himself throughout his public life. But what about this? 'I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years. You can have the money, you can have the clothes, you can have the suit, you can have the house but, me, you can't have.' If that doesn't sound like full-throated repentence, I don't know what does. And, according to Black Christian News: Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, has declared that Jesus Christ is his 'Redeemer' and has indicated that he knows he will have to 'pay' for his false teachings. In a video released Tuesday, while reflecting on his inevitable death, the 84-year-old religious teacher said, 'I thank God for guiding me for forty years absent my teacher [Elijah Muhammad]. So my next journey will have to answer the question. I'm gonna say it: I know that my redeemer liveth.' He emphasized, 'I know. I'm not guessing that my Jesus is alive. I know that my redeemer liveth and because he lives I know that I, too, will pass through the portal of death yet death will not afflict me.' The video clip is authentic, released via Farrakhan's multiple social media accounts. However, the interpretation of his words as a sign of a deep change in his belief system - specifically, as a turning away from or renunciation of Islam and a conversion, tentative or complete, to Christianity - is erroneous and disproven by other statements he has made before and since. Regarding the excerpt itself, the clip represents a minute and a half of a speech that lasted an hour and 41 minutes. Farrakhan said a great many things during the 30 July 2017 talk, which was delivered from the pulpit of the Union Temple Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the 40th pastoral anniversary of his friend, the Rev. Willie Wilson: Among other things, Farrakhan repeated the phrase 'I am a Muslim' several times, reminded his audience that Muslims revere Jesus (who is named in the Qur'an itself as a prophet and the Messiah), and expressed the belief, as he has on past occasions, that the appointed role of the Messiah is to deliver black people from oppression by white people, whom he believes are Satanically created and inspired. Going deeper, Farrakhan's writings and speeches indicate he believes that the Messiah prophesied in the Torah, the Qur'an, and the Bible - the figure to whom he refers as 'my redeemer' - is, in fact, former Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad, who died in 1975, but whom Farrakhan believes is still 'physically alive': 'I haven't been the same since,' said Min. Farrakhan. 'Because everything that Elijah Muhammad said to me made sense. It would not make sense if he were dead, it could only make since if he's alive and all the things he told me about myself and my future didn't make sense if he was dead. But when I came to see that he was alive, Saviours' Day 1981, I mentioned it.' Confusion also surrounds Farrakhan's statement that 'I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years.' Some have taken it to mean Farrakhan was admitting he will have to repent to God for uttering false teachings (i.e., Islam), but that interpretation ignores the opening of his statement, which begins: 'I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years.' In context, Farrakhan was speaking of the price he will have to pay for a lifetime of standing up against the false religion ('corrupted' Christianity) invented by Satan and preached by white people to deceive blacks into accepting subjugation and slavery. Farrakhan is saying he knows the devil will extract payment, but there's a limit to what he can take: I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years. You can have the money, you can have the clothes, you can have the suit, you can have the house but me you can't have. In short, it's a grave mistake to take Louis Farrakhan's pronouncements about Jesus Christ as having the same meaning ordinary Christians (or even Muslims) would give them. It's an even greater mistake to suppose that Farrakhan renounced Islam. Here's a tweet he composed barely a month after delivering the above address: You have to know and believe that Allah is sufficient for all our needs. - MINISTER FARRAKHAN (@LouisFarrakhan) September 3, 2017 We reached out to the Nation of Islam for comment on this rumor, but have not yet received a reply. | In short, it's a grave mistake to take Louis Farrakhan's pronouncements about Jesus Christ as having the same meaning ordinary Christians (or even Muslims) would give them. It's an even greater mistake to suppose that Farrakhan renounced Islam. Here's a tweet he composed barely a month after delivering the above address: You have to know and believe that Allah is sufficient for all our needs. - MINISTER FARRAKHAN (@LouisFarrakhan) September 3, 2017 We reached out to the Nation of Islam for comment on this rumor, but have not yet received a reply. | [
"14978-proof-08-quran_sharia_law_fb.jpg"
]
|
During a speech in which he declared Jesus Christ his 'redeemer,' Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan gave indications that he was breaking with Islam in favor of following Christianity. | Contradiction | In August 2017, various online sources reported that Louis Farrakhan, the 84-year-old leader of the Chicago-based religious group Nation of Islam, had posted a video on his Facebook page in which he declared Jesus as his redeemer, seemingly contradicting his own Muslim teachings. For example, the Christian Post stated: Reflecting on his inevitable physical death, leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, 84, declared in a controversial video recording Tuesday that Jesus will save him from the grip of death despite his organization's creed that there is only 'One God whose proper Name is Allah.' The declaration came the same day Farrakhan was shown visiting Bishop Larry Trotter, longtime pastor of Chicago's Sweet Holy Spirit Church, who was hospitalized last Wednesday with a 'serious illness' following a trip to Israel. 'I thank God for guiding me for 40 years absent my teacher (Elijah Muhammad). So my next journey will have to answer the question. I'm gonna say it,' Farrakhan teased briefly in the clip before declaring: 'I know that my redeemer liveth.' Similarly, Dan Calabrese of Canada Free Press wrote: Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is 84 years old. We all know the Islamic radicalism and racial division he's been preaching for decades, so there's no reason to go over it in detail here. But what's this? Farrakhan released this video yesterday, and if it's what it appears to be on first glace, he's made quite a radical change of direction: My first instinct was to find a loophole in his wording. When Farrakhan said 'my Jesus lives' and emphasized the 'my,' I thought maybe he was trying to give himself license to declare that his 'redeemer' can be whoever he wants it to be, and that he could express that by referring to said redeemer as 'my Jesus.' That would be more consistent with the way Farrakhan has expressed himself throughout his public life. But what about this? 'I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years. You can have the money, you can have the clothes, you can have the suit, you can have the house but, me, you can't have.' If that doesn't sound like full-throated repentence, I don't know what does. And, according to Black Christian News: Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, has declared that Jesus Christ is his 'Redeemer' and has indicated that he knows he will have to 'pay' for his false teachings. In a video released Tuesday, while reflecting on his inevitable death, the 84-year-old religious teacher said, 'I thank God for guiding me for forty years absent my teacher [Elijah Muhammad]. So my next journey will have to answer the question. I'm gonna say it: I know that my redeemer liveth.' He emphasized, 'I know. I'm not guessing that my Jesus is alive. I know that my redeemer liveth and because he lives I know that I, too, will pass through the portal of death yet death will not afflict me.' The video clip is authentic, released via Farrakhan's multiple social media accounts. However, the interpretation of his words as a sign of a deep change in his belief system - specifically, as a turning away from or renunciation of Islam and a conversion, tentative or complete, to Christianity - is erroneous and disproven by other statements he has made before and since. Regarding the excerpt itself, the clip represents a minute and a half of a speech that lasted an hour and 41 minutes. Farrakhan said a great many things during the 30 July 2017 talk, which was delivered from the pulpit of the Union Temple Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the 40th pastoral anniversary of his friend, the Rev. Willie Wilson: Among other things, Farrakhan repeated the phrase 'I am a Muslim' several times, reminded his audience that Muslims revere Jesus (who is named in the Qur'an itself as a prophet and the Messiah), and expressed the belief, as he has on past occasions, that the appointed role of the Messiah is to deliver black people from oppression by white people, whom he believes are Satanically created and inspired. Going deeper, Farrakhan's writings and speeches indicate he believes that the Messiah prophesied in the Torah, the Qur'an, and the Bible - the figure to whom he refers as 'my redeemer' - is, in fact, former Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad, who died in 1975, but whom Farrakhan believes is still 'physically alive': 'I haven't been the same since,' said Min. Farrakhan. 'Because everything that Elijah Muhammad said to me made sense. It would not make sense if he were dead, it could only make since if he's alive and all the things he told me about myself and my future didn't make sense if he was dead. But when I came to see that he was alive, Saviours' Day 1981, I mentioned it.' Confusion also surrounds Farrakhan's statement that 'I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years.' Some have taken it to mean Farrakhan was admitting he will have to repent to God for uttering false teachings (i.e., Islam), but that interpretation ignores the opening of his statement, which begins: 'I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years.' In context, Farrakhan was speaking of the price he will have to pay for a lifetime of standing up against the false religion ('corrupted' Christianity) invented by Satan and preached by white people to deceive blacks into accepting subjugation and slavery. Farrakhan is saying he knows the devil will extract payment, but there's a limit to what he can take: I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years. You can have the money, you can have the clothes, you can have the suit, you can have the house but me you can't have. In short, it's a grave mistake to take Louis Farrakhan's pronouncements about Jesus Christ as having the same meaning ordinary Christians (or even Muslims) would give them. It's an even greater mistake to suppose that Farrakhan renounced Islam. Here's a tweet he composed barely a month after delivering the above address: You have to know and believe that Allah is sufficient for all our needs. - MINISTER FARRAKHAN (@LouisFarrakhan) September 3, 2017 We reached out to the Nation of Islam for comment on this rumor, but have not yet received a reply. | In short, it's a grave mistake to take Louis Farrakhan's pronouncements about Jesus Christ as having the same meaning ordinary Christians (or even Muslims) would give them. It's an even greater mistake to suppose that Farrakhan renounced Islam. Here's a tweet he composed barely a month after delivering the above address: You have to know and believe that Allah is sufficient for all our needs. - MINISTER FARRAKHAN (@LouisFarrakhan) September 3, 2017 We reached out to the Nation of Islam for comment on this rumor, but have not yet received a reply. | [
"14978-proof-08-quran_sharia_law_fb.jpg"
]
|
During a speech in which he declared Jesus Christ his 'redeemer,' Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan gave indications that he was breaking with Islam in favor of following Christianity. | Contradiction | In August 2017, various online sources reported that Louis Farrakhan, the 84-year-old leader of the Chicago-based religious group Nation of Islam, had posted a video on his Facebook page in which he declared Jesus as his redeemer, seemingly contradicting his own Muslim teachings. For example, the Christian Post stated: Reflecting on his inevitable physical death, leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, 84, declared in a controversial video recording Tuesday that Jesus will save him from the grip of death despite his organization's creed that there is only 'One God whose proper Name is Allah.' The declaration came the same day Farrakhan was shown visiting Bishop Larry Trotter, longtime pastor of Chicago's Sweet Holy Spirit Church, who was hospitalized last Wednesday with a 'serious illness' following a trip to Israel. 'I thank God for guiding me for 40 years absent my teacher (Elijah Muhammad). So my next journey will have to answer the question. I'm gonna say it,' Farrakhan teased briefly in the clip before declaring: 'I know that my redeemer liveth.' Similarly, Dan Calabrese of Canada Free Press wrote: Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is 84 years old. We all know the Islamic radicalism and racial division he's been preaching for decades, so there's no reason to go over it in detail here. But what's this? Farrakhan released this video yesterday, and if it's what it appears to be on first glace, he's made quite a radical change of direction: My first instinct was to find a loophole in his wording. When Farrakhan said 'my Jesus lives' and emphasized the 'my,' I thought maybe he was trying to give himself license to declare that his 'redeemer' can be whoever he wants it to be, and that he could express that by referring to said redeemer as 'my Jesus.' That would be more consistent with the way Farrakhan has expressed himself throughout his public life. But what about this? 'I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years. You can have the money, you can have the clothes, you can have the suit, you can have the house but, me, you can't have.' If that doesn't sound like full-throated repentence, I don't know what does. And, according to Black Christian News: Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, has declared that Jesus Christ is his 'Redeemer' and has indicated that he knows he will have to 'pay' for his false teachings. In a video released Tuesday, while reflecting on his inevitable death, the 84-year-old religious teacher said, 'I thank God for guiding me for forty years absent my teacher [Elijah Muhammad]. So my next journey will have to answer the question. I'm gonna say it: I know that my redeemer liveth.' He emphasized, 'I know. I'm not guessing that my Jesus is alive. I know that my redeemer liveth and because he lives I know that I, too, will pass through the portal of death yet death will not afflict me.' The video clip is authentic, released via Farrakhan's multiple social media accounts. However, the interpretation of his words as a sign of a deep change in his belief system - specifically, as a turning away from or renunciation of Islam and a conversion, tentative or complete, to Christianity - is erroneous and disproven by other statements he has made before and since. Regarding the excerpt itself, the clip represents a minute and a half of a speech that lasted an hour and 41 minutes. Farrakhan said a great many things during the 30 July 2017 talk, which was delivered from the pulpit of the Union Temple Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the 40th pastoral anniversary of his friend, the Rev. Willie Wilson: Among other things, Farrakhan repeated the phrase 'I am a Muslim' several times, reminded his audience that Muslims revere Jesus (who is named in the Qur'an itself as a prophet and the Messiah), and expressed the belief, as he has on past occasions, that the appointed role of the Messiah is to deliver black people from oppression by white people, whom he believes are Satanically created and inspired. Going deeper, Farrakhan's writings and speeches indicate he believes that the Messiah prophesied in the Torah, the Qur'an, and the Bible - the figure to whom he refers as 'my redeemer' - is, in fact, former Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad, who died in 1975, but whom Farrakhan believes is still 'physically alive': 'I haven't been the same since,' said Min. Farrakhan. 'Because everything that Elijah Muhammad said to me made sense. It would not make sense if he were dead, it could only make since if he's alive and all the things he told me about myself and my future didn't make sense if he was dead. But when I came to see that he was alive, Saviours' Day 1981, I mentioned it.' Confusion also surrounds Farrakhan's statement that 'I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years.' Some have taken it to mean Farrakhan was admitting he will have to repent to God for uttering false teachings (i.e., Islam), but that interpretation ignores the opening of his statement, which begins: 'I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years.' In context, Farrakhan was speaking of the price he will have to pay for a lifetime of standing up against the false religion ('corrupted' Christianity) invented by Satan and preached by white people to deceive blacks into accepting subjugation and slavery. Farrakhan is saying he knows the devil will extract payment, but there's a limit to what he can take: I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years. You can have the money, you can have the clothes, you can have the suit, you can have the house but me you can't have. In short, it's a grave mistake to take Louis Farrakhan's pronouncements about Jesus Christ as having the same meaning ordinary Christians (or even Muslims) would give them. It's an even greater mistake to suppose that Farrakhan renounced Islam. Here's a tweet he composed barely a month after delivering the above address: You have to know and believe that Allah is sufficient for all our needs. - MINISTER FARRAKHAN (@LouisFarrakhan) September 3, 2017 We reached out to the Nation of Islam for comment on this rumor, but have not yet received a reply. | In short, it's a grave mistake to take Louis Farrakhan's pronouncements about Jesus Christ as having the same meaning ordinary Christians (or even Muslims) would give them. It's an even greater mistake to suppose that Farrakhan renounced Islam. Here's a tweet he composed barely a month after delivering the above address: You have to know and believe that Allah is sufficient for all our needs. - MINISTER FARRAKHAN (@LouisFarrakhan) September 3, 2017 We reached out to the Nation of Islam for comment on this rumor, but have not yet received a reply. | [
"14978-proof-08-quran_sharia_law_fb.jpg"
]
|
During a speech in which he declared Jesus Christ his 'redeemer,' Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan gave indications that he was breaking with Islam in favor of following Christianity. | Contradiction | In August 2017, various online sources reported that Louis Farrakhan, the 84-year-old leader of the Chicago-based religious group Nation of Islam, had posted a video on his Facebook page in which he declared Jesus as his redeemer, seemingly contradicting his own Muslim teachings. For example, the Christian Post stated: Reflecting on his inevitable physical death, leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, 84, declared in a controversial video recording Tuesday that Jesus will save him from the grip of death despite his organization's creed that there is only 'One God whose proper Name is Allah.' The declaration came the same day Farrakhan was shown visiting Bishop Larry Trotter, longtime pastor of Chicago's Sweet Holy Spirit Church, who was hospitalized last Wednesday with a 'serious illness' following a trip to Israel. 'I thank God for guiding me for 40 years absent my teacher (Elijah Muhammad). So my next journey will have to answer the question. I'm gonna say it,' Farrakhan teased briefly in the clip before declaring: 'I know that my redeemer liveth.' Similarly, Dan Calabrese of Canada Free Press wrote: Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is 84 years old. We all know the Islamic radicalism and racial division he's been preaching for decades, so there's no reason to go over it in detail here. But what's this? Farrakhan released this video yesterday, and if it's what it appears to be on first glace, he's made quite a radical change of direction: My first instinct was to find a loophole in his wording. When Farrakhan said 'my Jesus lives' and emphasized the 'my,' I thought maybe he was trying to give himself license to declare that his 'redeemer' can be whoever he wants it to be, and that he could express that by referring to said redeemer as 'my Jesus.' That would be more consistent with the way Farrakhan has expressed himself throughout his public life. But what about this? 'I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years. You can have the money, you can have the clothes, you can have the suit, you can have the house but, me, you can't have.' If that doesn't sound like full-throated repentence, I don't know what does. And, according to Black Christian News: Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, has declared that Jesus Christ is his 'Redeemer' and has indicated that he knows he will have to 'pay' for his false teachings. In a video released Tuesday, while reflecting on his inevitable death, the 84-year-old religious teacher said, 'I thank God for guiding me for forty years absent my teacher [Elijah Muhammad]. So my next journey will have to answer the question. I'm gonna say it: I know that my redeemer liveth.' He emphasized, 'I know. I'm not guessing that my Jesus is alive. I know that my redeemer liveth and because he lives I know that I, too, will pass through the portal of death yet death will not afflict me.' The video clip is authentic, released via Farrakhan's multiple social media accounts. However, the interpretation of his words as a sign of a deep change in his belief system - specifically, as a turning away from or renunciation of Islam and a conversion, tentative or complete, to Christianity - is erroneous and disproven by other statements he has made before and since. Regarding the excerpt itself, the clip represents a minute and a half of a speech that lasted an hour and 41 minutes. Farrakhan said a great many things during the 30 July 2017 talk, which was delivered from the pulpit of the Union Temple Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. on the occasion of the 40th pastoral anniversary of his friend, the Rev. Willie Wilson: Among other things, Farrakhan repeated the phrase 'I am a Muslim' several times, reminded his audience that Muslims revere Jesus (who is named in the Qur'an itself as a prophet and the Messiah), and expressed the belief, as he has on past occasions, that the appointed role of the Messiah is to deliver black people from oppression by white people, whom he believes are Satanically created and inspired. Going deeper, Farrakhan's writings and speeches indicate he believes that the Messiah prophesied in the Torah, the Qur'an, and the Bible - the figure to whom he refers as 'my redeemer' - is, in fact, former Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad, who died in 1975, but whom Farrakhan believes is still 'physically alive': 'I haven't been the same since,' said Min. Farrakhan. 'Because everything that Elijah Muhammad said to me made sense. It would not make sense if he were dead, it could only make since if he's alive and all the things he told me about myself and my future didn't make sense if he was dead. But when I came to see that he was alive, Saviours' Day 1981, I mentioned it.' Confusion also surrounds Farrakhan's statement that 'I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years.' Some have taken it to mean Farrakhan was admitting he will have to repent to God for uttering false teachings (i.e., Islam), but that interpretation ignores the opening of his statement, which begins: 'I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years.' In context, Farrakhan was speaking of the price he will have to pay for a lifetime of standing up against the false religion ('corrupted' Christianity) invented by Satan and preached by white people to deceive blacks into accepting subjugation and slavery. Farrakhan is saying he knows the devil will extract payment, but there's a limit to what he can take: I say to the devil, I know I gotta pay a price for what I've been teaching all these years. You can have the money, you can have the clothes, you can have the suit, you can have the house but me you can't have. In short, it's a grave mistake to take Louis Farrakhan's pronouncements about Jesus Christ as having the same meaning ordinary Christians (or even Muslims) would give them. It's an even greater mistake to suppose that Farrakhan renounced Islam. Here's a tweet he composed barely a month after delivering the above address: You have to know and believe that Allah is sufficient for all our needs. - MINISTER FARRAKHAN (@LouisFarrakhan) September 3, 2017 We reached out to the Nation of Islam for comment on this rumor, but have not yet received a reply. | In short, it's a grave mistake to take Louis Farrakhan's pronouncements about Jesus Christ as having the same meaning ordinary Christians (or even Muslims) would give them. It's an even greater mistake to suppose that Farrakhan renounced Islam. Here's a tweet he composed barely a month after delivering the above address: You have to know and believe that Allah is sufficient for all our needs. - MINISTER FARRAKHAN (@LouisFarrakhan) September 3, 2017 We reached out to the Nation of Islam for comment on this rumor, but have not yet received a reply. | [
"14978-proof-08-quran_sharia_law_fb.jpg"
]
|
Screenshots that surfaced online in early October 2021 authentically show photographs of, or comments written by, the Zodiac killer. | Contradiction | In early October 2021, a group of private investigators announced it had evidence that a California man who died several years prior was the Zodiac Killer. Despite the lack of confirmation from law enforcement authorities on the veracity of that belief, the revelation sparked news stories, as well as makeshift investigations by social media users into the man's life before his death. In short, popular tweets and Reddit threads made numerous allegations, such as the Zodiac killer was a Lady Gaga fan; trolled serial killer Ted Bundy online; supported the Minnesota Vikings' NFL team; and had a friend who wanted the world to know about his murderous past. Numerous Snopes readers sent us requests, or searched our site, for truth behind those rumors - as well as reliable information on whether the 52-year-old mystery was indeed solved. The rumors were fueled by the work of the 'Case Breakers' - a group of roughly 40 former law enforcement officers, prosecutors, journalists, and intelligence officials who aim to solve murder cases. After supposedly comparing photographs to a police sketch, analyzing anagrams, and interviewing witnesses, the Case Breakers in early October released the name of the man who they believed terrorized northern California in the late 1960s as the Zodiac. Some media outlets, such as Fox News and Deadline, published stories identifying the man. 'I absolutely feel we solved this case,' Tom Colbert, a member of the group, told the San Francisco Chronicle. 'There's no ego here,' he continued. 'We do this to solve cases.' FBI, Police Push Back on Cold Case Team's Findings The Chronicle's newsroom, as well as police, get hundreds of tips every year on potential Zodiac suspects and solutions to the case, according to the newspaper. For instance, a team led by a former California Highway Patrol Officer announced in 2011 that it believed a 91-year-old former real estate agent was responsible for the slayings; however, investigators said there wasn't enough evidence to substantiate the theory. Cue the Case Breakers' October 2021 announcement. In addition to five killings in 1968 and 1969 in the Bay Area (murders that the FBI has conclusively linked to the Zodiac), the Case Breakers believe the serial killer also murdered Cheri Jo Bates, an 18-year-old woman slain hours away in Southern California's Riverside in 1966. However, Riverside Police Officer Ryan Railsback debunked that theory in an interview with the Chronicle. 'If you read what they (the Case Breakers) put out, it's all circumstantial evidence. It's not a whole lot,' Railsback told that newspaper. In fact, federal and local investigators tasked with solving the Zodiac case aren't sold on any of the private team's findings; they say the search to find the Zodiac remains ongoing. 'Sources at both agencies [the FBI and San Francisco Police Department] told The Chronicle the evidence presented by the Case Breakers does not appear to be conclusive,' the newspaper reported. Furthermore, San Francisco's FBI bureau tweeted on Oct. 7: When we reached out to the FBI ourselves, its communications team referred us to the above-displayed tweet. Snopes also contacted the San Francisco Police Department, and a spokesperson responded via email: 'The SFPD's investigation into the Zodiac case is open and ongoing. As a consequence we cannot comment further on the investigation.' Because the agencies consider the case ongoing, Snopes is not naming the man who the Case Breakers believes was the Zodiac - apparently an Air Force veteran who died in 2018. For the purpose of this report, we will call him 'the Case Breakers' man.' He lived in the Sierra foothills and died at the age of 80, according to the Chronicle, which cited court records. Journalists with that newspaper reportedly spoke with a relative of the man six years before the Case Breakers' October 2021 announcement. Also, they talked to the man's daughter-in-law on Oct. 6, and she said that she believes the Case Breakers 'nailed the killer.' The Chronicle published: The Chronicle was called six years ago by a relative of the Case Breakers suspect, who said the man lived in Groveland (Tuolumne County) and had tried to kill him with a hammer. He contacted investigators, but when The Chronicle followed up with law enforcement, they said the Zodiac connection did not appear to be there. The Groveland man's former daughter-in-law told The Chronicle on Wednesday that she was intimately familiar with the other relative's fears, and she believes the Case Breakers have nailed the killer. She lives out of state and said she moved to get away from threats from the man and his supporters. The Case Breakers suspect died in 2018 of natural causes, she said. County records show he was 80. 'It's my birthday today, and this all coming out is a great birthday present for me,' said Michelle Wynn, 52. The Case Breakers suspect 'is the Zodiac, without a doubt. Being around him, knowing his demeanor and his shadiness and twistedness - I have an intuition, I can read people.' Wynn said the 1969 police sketch 'was like a bell-ringer for me. ... I saw that and thought, 'That's him.' Totally,' she said. In short, while a team of private investigators claimed to have identified the Zodiac and a relative of that man reportedly told journalists that she believed he was 'the Zodiac without a doubt,' federal and local law enforcement agencies including the FBI have not confirmed - nor given any indication - that that was indeed true. Additionally, critics of the Case Breakers' findings include Michael Hobbes, of the Huffington Post and the podcast, 'You're Wrong About,' and Jay Barmann, a writer for SF News. Was The Zodiac a Lady Gaga, Minnesota Vikings Fan? After some news reports published the full name of the Case Breakers' man, Twitter did what Twitter does best - ragtag sleuthing and meme-ing. On Oct. 8, Barstool Sports compiled a sample of theories circulating widely about the man under the headline, 'Alleged Zodiac Killer Had Ironic Internet Presence.' That piece cited viral tweets claiming the following: that the Zodiac had supposedly left a glowing review of Lady Gaga's 2016 'Joanne' album on metacritic.com; trolled Ted Bundy in a review on an IMDb page; and had a friend who repeatedly outed him as the person behind the brutal slayings on social media. Let us start with the assertion that the serial killer was among Gaga's Little Monsters. The Barstool Sports' piece included a tweet supposedly showing screenshots of the Case Breakers' man leaving a comment on the metacritic.com profile of 'Joanne,' on Oct. 24, 2016, reading: 'A national treasure, like myself.' However, we analyzed thousands of reviews on the album's profile, including those published on Oct. 24, 2016, and found no such remark. The screenshot appeared to be a digital creation. Over the course of hours, other Twitter users meme-afied the concept with similarly edited images, supposedly showing the man's affinity for various video games, bands, and musical artists. The claim about the 2015 documentary titled 'The Hunt for Ted Bundy' seemed to be the same thing: An unknown digital artist apparently replicated the look and design of an IDMb review to make it seem like the Case Breaker man left the review, 'Awful. Would give less than 1 star if I could. Ted Bundy is wildly overrated.' We came to that conclusion by studying the documentary's actual IMDb page, which only had one review and was not the phrases pictured above. Next, we addressed the rumor about a friend to the Case Breakers' man 'trying to tell everyone' about his murderous past. There was no verified evidence to prove the friend was a real person who knew the Case Breakers' man, and/or that he had authored the alleged posts about the Zodiac. If there was any reason to consider their authenticity, journalists with reputable news outlets, such as the Chronicle, would attempt to interview the purported friend. That had not happened, as of this writing, however. We reached out the viral tweet's author to learn how, or with what evidence, they obtained photographs supposedly showing the Case Breakers' man and the friend, as well as screenshots of the friend supposedly calling the former man the Zodiac. We haven't heard back, but we will update this report if that changes. Additionally, tweets and Reddit threads circulated photos of someone who they believed was the Case Breakers' man wearing a hat representing the Minnesota Vikings NFL team. Several sports blogs recirculated that allegation, too. 'The man allegedly outed as the Zodiac Killer was a Vikings fan,' a Reddit post read. However, no evidence proved that the man pictured above in a Vikings hat was the same person as the Case Breakers' man. The picture matched the profile photograph for a Facebook account with the same name, however - an account that had little activity viewable to the public aside from a July 2011 post sharing a Washington Post article about Casey Anthony. All of this said, it was impossible for social media users' investigations into the Case Breakers' man to prove anything about the Zodiac killer - that he was a Lady Gaga fan, Viking's supporter, Bundy troll, etc. - because federal and local investigators tasked with solving the case refuted the private team's work, and considered the person behind the prolific slayings unknown. For that reason, we rate this claim 'False.' | In short, popular tweets and Reddit threads made numerous allegations, such as the Zodiac killer was a Lady Gaga fan; trolled serial killer Ted Bundy online; supported the Minnesota Vikings' NFL team; and had a friend who wanted the world to know about his murderous past. Numerous Snopes readers sent us requests, or searched our site, for truth behind those rumors - as well as reliable information on whether the 52-year-old mystery was indeed solved. The rumors were fueled by the work of the 'Case Breakers' - a group of roughly 40 former law enforcement officers, prosecutors, journalists, and intelligence officials who aim to solve murder cases. After supposedly comparing photographs to a police sketch, analyzing anagrams, and interviewing witnesses, the Case Breakers in early October released the name of the man who they believed terrorized northern California in the late 1960s as the Zodiac. Some media outlets, such as Fox News and Deadline, published stories identifying the man. 'I absolutely feel we solved this case,' Tom Colbert, a member of the group, told the San Francisco Chronicle. 'There's no ego here,' he continued. 'We do this to solve cases.' FBI, Police Push Back on Cold Case Team's Findings The Chronicle's newsroom, as well as police, get hundreds of tips every year on potential Zodiac suspects and solutions to the case, according to the newspaper. For instance, a team led by a former California Highway Patrol Officer announced in 2011 that it believed a 91-year-old former real estate agent was responsible for the slayings; however, investigators said there wasn't enough evidence to substantiate the theory. Cue the Case Breakers' October 2021 announcement. In addition to five killings in 1968 and 1969 in the Bay Area (murders that the FBI has conclusively linked to the Zodiac), the Case Breakers believe the serial killer also murdered Cheri Jo Bates, an 18-year-old woman slain hours away in Southern California's Riverside in 1966. However, Riverside Police Officer Ryan Railsback debunked that theory in an interview with the Chronicle. 'If you read what they (the Case Breakers) put out, it's all circumstantial evidence. It's not a whole lot,' Railsback told that newspaper. In fact, federal and local investigators tasked with solving the Zodiac case aren't sold on any of the private team's findings; they say the search to find the Zodiac remains ongoing. 'Sources at both agencies [the FBI and San Francisco Police Department] told The Chronicle the evidence presented by the Case Breakers does not appear to be conclusive,' the newspaper reported. Furthermore, San Francisco's FBI bureau tweeted on Oct. 7: When we reached out to the FBI ourselves, its communications team referred us to the above-displayed tweet. Snopes also contacted the San Francisco Police Department, and a spokesperson responded via email: 'The SFPD's investigation into the Zodiac case is open and ongoing. As a consequence we cannot comment further on the investigation.' Because the agencies consider the case ongoing, Snopes is not naming the man who the Case Breakers believes was the Zodiac - apparently an Air Force veteran who died in 2018. For the purpose of this report, we will call him 'the Case Breakers' man.' He lived in the Sierra foothills and died at the age of 80, according to the Chronicle, which cited court records. Journalists with that newspaper reportedly spoke with a relative of the man six years before the Case Breakers' October 2021 announcement. Also, they talked to the man's daughter-in-law on Oct. 6, and she said that she believes the Case Breakers 'nailed the killer.' The Chronicle published: The Chronicle was called six years ago by a relative of the Case Breakers suspect, who said the man lived in Groveland (Tuolumne County) and had tried to kill him with a hammer. He contacted investigators, but when The Chronicle followed up with law enforcement, they said the Zodiac connection did not appear to be there. The Groveland man's former daughter-in-law told The Chronicle on Wednesday that she was intimately familiar with the other relative's fears, and she believes the Case Breakers have nailed the killer. She lives out of state and said she moved to get away from threats from the man and his supporters. The Case Breakers suspect died in 2018 of natural causes, she said. County records show he was 80. 'It's my birthday today, and this all coming out is a great birthday present for me,' said Michelle Wynn, 52. The Case Breakers suspect 'is the Zodiac, without a doubt. Being around him, knowing his demeanor and his shadiness and twistedness - I have an intuition, I can read people.' Wynn said the 1969 police sketch 'was like a bell-ringer for me. ... I saw that and thought, 'That's him.' Totally,' she said. In short, while a team of private investigators claimed to have identified the Zodiac and a relative of that man reportedly told journalists that she believed he was 'the Zodiac without a doubt,' federal and local law enforcement agencies including the FBI have not confirmed - nor given any indication - that that was indeed true. Additionally, critics of the Case Breakers' findings include Michael Hobbes, of the Huffington Post and the podcast, 'You're Wrong About,' and Jay Barmann, a writer for SF News. Was The Zodiac a Lady Gaga, Minnesota Vikings Fan? After some news reports published the full name of the Case Breakers' man, Twitter did what Twitter does best - ragtag sleuthing and meme-ing. On Oct. 8, Barstool Sports compiled a sample of theories circulating widely about the man under the headline, 'Alleged Zodiac Killer Had Ironic Internet Presence.' That piece cited viral tweets claiming the following: that the Zodiac had supposedly left a glowing review of Lady Gaga's 2016 'Joanne' album on metacritic.com; trolled Ted Bundy in a review on an IMDb page; and had a friend who repeatedly outed him as the person behind the brutal slayings on social media. Let us start with the assertion that the serial killer was among Gaga's Little Monsters. The Barstool Sports' piece included a tweet supposedly showing screenshots of the Case Breakers' man leaving a comment on the metacritic.com profile of 'Joanne,' on Oct. 24, 2016, reading: 'A national treasure, like myself.' However, we analyzed thousands of reviews on the album's profile, including those published on Oct. 24, 2016, and found no such remark. The screenshot appeared to be a digital creation. Over the course of hours, other Twitter users meme-afied the concept with similarly edited images, supposedly showing the man's affinity for various video games, bands, and musical artists. The claim about the 2015 documentary titled 'The Hunt for Ted Bundy' seemed to be the same thing: An unknown digital artist apparently replicated the look and design of an IDMb review to make it seem like the Case Breaker man left the review, 'Awful. Would give less than 1 star if I could. Ted Bundy is wildly overrated.' We came to that conclusion by studying the documentary's actual IMDb page, which only had one review and was not the phrases pictured above. Next, we addressed the rumor about a friend to the Case Breakers' man 'trying to tell everyone' about his murderous past. There was no verified evidence to prove the friend was a real person who knew the Case Breakers' man, and/or that he had authored the alleged posts about the Zodiac. If there was any reason to consider their authenticity, journalists with reputable news outlets, such as the Chronicle, would attempt to interview the purported friend. That had not happened, as of this writing, however. We reached out the viral tweet's author to learn how, or with what evidence, they obtained photographs supposedly showing the Case Breakers' man and the friend, as well as screenshots of the friend supposedly calling the former man the Zodiac. We haven't heard back, but we will update this report if that changes. Additionally, tweets and Reddit threads circulated photos of someone who they believed was the Case Breakers' man wearing a hat representing the Minnesota Vikings NFL team. Several sports blogs recirculated that allegation, too. 'The man allegedly outed as the Zodiac Killer was a Vikings fan,' a Reddit post read. However, no evidence proved that the man pictured above in a Vikings hat was the same person as the Case Breakers' man. The picture matched the profile photograph for a Facebook account with the same name, however - an account that had little activity viewable to the public aside from a July 2011 post sharing a Washington Post article about Casey Anthony. All of this said, it was impossible for social media users' investigations into the Case Breakers' man to prove anything about the Zodiac killer - that he was a Lady Gaga fan, Viking's supporter, Bundy troll, etc. - because federal and local investigators tasked with solving the case refuted the private team's work, and considered the person behind the prolific slayings unknown. For that reason, we rate this claim 'False.' | []
|
Screenshots that surfaced online in early October 2021 authentically show photographs of, or comments written by, the Zodiac killer. | Contradiction | In early October 2021, a group of private investigators announced it had evidence that a California man who died several years prior was the Zodiac Killer. Despite the lack of confirmation from law enforcement authorities on the veracity of that belief, the revelation sparked news stories, as well as makeshift investigations by social media users into the man's life before his death. In short, popular tweets and Reddit threads made numerous allegations, such as the Zodiac killer was a Lady Gaga fan; trolled serial killer Ted Bundy online; supported the Minnesota Vikings' NFL team; and had a friend who wanted the world to know about his murderous past. Numerous Snopes readers sent us requests, or searched our site, for truth behind those rumors - as well as reliable information on whether the 52-year-old mystery was indeed solved. The rumors were fueled by the work of the 'Case Breakers' - a group of roughly 40 former law enforcement officers, prosecutors, journalists, and intelligence officials who aim to solve murder cases. After supposedly comparing photographs to a police sketch, analyzing anagrams, and interviewing witnesses, the Case Breakers in early October released the name of the man who they believed terrorized northern California in the late 1960s as the Zodiac. Some media outlets, such as Fox News and Deadline, published stories identifying the man. 'I absolutely feel we solved this case,' Tom Colbert, a member of the group, told the San Francisco Chronicle. 'There's no ego here,' he continued. 'We do this to solve cases.' FBI, Police Push Back on Cold Case Team's Findings The Chronicle's newsroom, as well as police, get hundreds of tips every year on potential Zodiac suspects and solutions to the case, according to the newspaper. For instance, a team led by a former California Highway Patrol Officer announced in 2011 that it believed a 91-year-old former real estate agent was responsible for the slayings; however, investigators said there wasn't enough evidence to substantiate the theory. Cue the Case Breakers' October 2021 announcement. In addition to five killings in 1968 and 1969 in the Bay Area (murders that the FBI has conclusively linked to the Zodiac), the Case Breakers believe the serial killer also murdered Cheri Jo Bates, an 18-year-old woman slain hours away in Southern California's Riverside in 1966. However, Riverside Police Officer Ryan Railsback debunked that theory in an interview with the Chronicle. 'If you read what they (the Case Breakers) put out, it's all circumstantial evidence. It's not a whole lot,' Railsback told that newspaper. In fact, federal and local investigators tasked with solving the Zodiac case aren't sold on any of the private team's findings; they say the search to find the Zodiac remains ongoing. 'Sources at both agencies [the FBI and San Francisco Police Department] told The Chronicle the evidence presented by the Case Breakers does not appear to be conclusive,' the newspaper reported. Furthermore, San Francisco's FBI bureau tweeted on Oct. 7: When we reached out to the FBI ourselves, its communications team referred us to the above-displayed tweet. Snopes also contacted the San Francisco Police Department, and a spokesperson responded via email: 'The SFPD's investigation into the Zodiac case is open and ongoing. As a consequence we cannot comment further on the investigation.' Because the agencies consider the case ongoing, Snopes is not naming the man who the Case Breakers believes was the Zodiac - apparently an Air Force veteran who died in 2018. For the purpose of this report, we will call him 'the Case Breakers' man.' He lived in the Sierra foothills and died at the age of 80, according to the Chronicle, which cited court records. Journalists with that newspaper reportedly spoke with a relative of the man six years before the Case Breakers' October 2021 announcement. Also, they talked to the man's daughter-in-law on Oct. 6, and she said that she believes the Case Breakers 'nailed the killer.' The Chronicle published: The Chronicle was called six years ago by a relative of the Case Breakers suspect, who said the man lived in Groveland (Tuolumne County) and had tried to kill him with a hammer. He contacted investigators, but when The Chronicle followed up with law enforcement, they said the Zodiac connection did not appear to be there. The Groveland man's former daughter-in-law told The Chronicle on Wednesday that she was intimately familiar with the other relative's fears, and she believes the Case Breakers have nailed the killer. She lives out of state and said she moved to get away from threats from the man and his supporters. The Case Breakers suspect died in 2018 of natural causes, she said. County records show he was 80. 'It's my birthday today, and this all coming out is a great birthday present for me,' said Michelle Wynn, 52. The Case Breakers suspect 'is the Zodiac, without a doubt. Being around him, knowing his demeanor and his shadiness and twistedness - I have an intuition, I can read people.' Wynn said the 1969 police sketch 'was like a bell-ringer for me. ... I saw that and thought, 'That's him.' Totally,' she said. In short, while a team of private investigators claimed to have identified the Zodiac and a relative of that man reportedly told journalists that she believed he was 'the Zodiac without a doubt,' federal and local law enforcement agencies including the FBI have not confirmed - nor given any indication - that that was indeed true. Additionally, critics of the Case Breakers' findings include Michael Hobbes, of the Huffington Post and the podcast, 'You're Wrong About,' and Jay Barmann, a writer for SF News. Was The Zodiac a Lady Gaga, Minnesota Vikings Fan? After some news reports published the full name of the Case Breakers' man, Twitter did what Twitter does best - ragtag sleuthing and meme-ing. On Oct. 8, Barstool Sports compiled a sample of theories circulating widely about the man under the headline, 'Alleged Zodiac Killer Had Ironic Internet Presence.' That piece cited viral tweets claiming the following: that the Zodiac had supposedly left a glowing review of Lady Gaga's 2016 'Joanne' album on metacritic.com; trolled Ted Bundy in a review on an IMDb page; and had a friend who repeatedly outed him as the person behind the brutal slayings on social media. Let us start with the assertion that the serial killer was among Gaga's Little Monsters. The Barstool Sports' piece included a tweet supposedly showing screenshots of the Case Breakers' man leaving a comment on the metacritic.com profile of 'Joanne,' on Oct. 24, 2016, reading: 'A national treasure, like myself.' However, we analyzed thousands of reviews on the album's profile, including those published on Oct. 24, 2016, and found no such remark. The screenshot appeared to be a digital creation. Over the course of hours, other Twitter users meme-afied the concept with similarly edited images, supposedly showing the man's affinity for various video games, bands, and musical artists. The claim about the 2015 documentary titled 'The Hunt for Ted Bundy' seemed to be the same thing: An unknown digital artist apparently replicated the look and design of an IDMb review to make it seem like the Case Breaker man left the review, 'Awful. Would give less than 1 star if I could. Ted Bundy is wildly overrated.' We came to that conclusion by studying the documentary's actual IMDb page, which only had one review and was not the phrases pictured above. Next, we addressed the rumor about a friend to the Case Breakers' man 'trying to tell everyone' about his murderous past. There was no verified evidence to prove the friend was a real person who knew the Case Breakers' man, and/or that he had authored the alleged posts about the Zodiac. If there was any reason to consider their authenticity, journalists with reputable news outlets, such as the Chronicle, would attempt to interview the purported friend. That had not happened, as of this writing, however. We reached out the viral tweet's author to learn how, or with what evidence, they obtained photographs supposedly showing the Case Breakers' man and the friend, as well as screenshots of the friend supposedly calling the former man the Zodiac. We haven't heard back, but we will update this report if that changes. Additionally, tweets and Reddit threads circulated photos of someone who they believed was the Case Breakers' man wearing a hat representing the Minnesota Vikings NFL team. Several sports blogs recirculated that allegation, too. 'The man allegedly outed as the Zodiac Killer was a Vikings fan,' a Reddit post read. However, no evidence proved that the man pictured above in a Vikings hat was the same person as the Case Breakers' man. The picture matched the profile photograph for a Facebook account with the same name, however - an account that had little activity viewable to the public aside from a July 2011 post sharing a Washington Post article about Casey Anthony. All of this said, it was impossible for social media users' investigations into the Case Breakers' man to prove anything about the Zodiac killer - that he was a Lady Gaga fan, Viking's supporter, Bundy troll, etc. - because federal and local investigators tasked with solving the case refuted the private team's work, and considered the person behind the prolific slayings unknown. For that reason, we rate this claim 'False.' | In short, popular tweets and Reddit threads made numerous allegations, such as the Zodiac killer was a Lady Gaga fan; trolled serial killer Ted Bundy online; supported the Minnesota Vikings' NFL team; and had a friend who wanted the world to know about his murderous past. Numerous Snopes readers sent us requests, or searched our site, for truth behind those rumors - as well as reliable information on whether the 52-year-old mystery was indeed solved. The rumors were fueled by the work of the 'Case Breakers' - a group of roughly 40 former law enforcement officers, prosecutors, journalists, and intelligence officials who aim to solve murder cases. After supposedly comparing photographs to a police sketch, analyzing anagrams, and interviewing witnesses, the Case Breakers in early October released the name of the man who they believed terrorized northern California in the late 1960s as the Zodiac. Some media outlets, such as Fox News and Deadline, published stories identifying the man. 'I absolutely feel we solved this case,' Tom Colbert, a member of the group, told the San Francisco Chronicle. 'There's no ego here,' he continued. 'We do this to solve cases.' FBI, Police Push Back on Cold Case Team's Findings The Chronicle's newsroom, as well as police, get hundreds of tips every year on potential Zodiac suspects and solutions to the case, according to the newspaper. For instance, a team led by a former California Highway Patrol Officer announced in 2011 that it believed a 91-year-old former real estate agent was responsible for the slayings; however, investigators said there wasn't enough evidence to substantiate the theory. Cue the Case Breakers' October 2021 announcement. In addition to five killings in 1968 and 1969 in the Bay Area (murders that the FBI has conclusively linked to the Zodiac), the Case Breakers believe the serial killer also murdered Cheri Jo Bates, an 18-year-old woman slain hours away in Southern California's Riverside in 1966. However, Riverside Police Officer Ryan Railsback debunked that theory in an interview with the Chronicle. 'If you read what they (the Case Breakers) put out, it's all circumstantial evidence. It's not a whole lot,' Railsback told that newspaper. In fact, federal and local investigators tasked with solving the Zodiac case aren't sold on any of the private team's findings; they say the search to find the Zodiac remains ongoing. 'Sources at both agencies [the FBI and San Francisco Police Department] told The Chronicle the evidence presented by the Case Breakers does not appear to be conclusive,' the newspaper reported. Furthermore, San Francisco's FBI bureau tweeted on Oct. 7: When we reached out to the FBI ourselves, its communications team referred us to the above-displayed tweet. Snopes also contacted the San Francisco Police Department, and a spokesperson responded via email: 'The SFPD's investigation into the Zodiac case is open and ongoing. As a consequence we cannot comment further on the investigation.' Because the agencies consider the case ongoing, Snopes is not naming the man who the Case Breakers believes was the Zodiac - apparently an Air Force veteran who died in 2018. For the purpose of this report, we will call him 'the Case Breakers' man.' He lived in the Sierra foothills and died at the age of 80, according to the Chronicle, which cited court records. Journalists with that newspaper reportedly spoke with a relative of the man six years before the Case Breakers' October 2021 announcement. Also, they talked to the man's daughter-in-law on Oct. 6, and she said that she believes the Case Breakers 'nailed the killer.' The Chronicle published: The Chronicle was called six years ago by a relative of the Case Breakers suspect, who said the man lived in Groveland (Tuolumne County) and had tried to kill him with a hammer. He contacted investigators, but when The Chronicle followed up with law enforcement, they said the Zodiac connection did not appear to be there. The Groveland man's former daughter-in-law told The Chronicle on Wednesday that she was intimately familiar with the other relative's fears, and she believes the Case Breakers have nailed the killer. She lives out of state and said she moved to get away from threats from the man and his supporters. The Case Breakers suspect died in 2018 of natural causes, she said. County records show he was 80. 'It's my birthday today, and this all coming out is a great birthday present for me,' said Michelle Wynn, 52. The Case Breakers suspect 'is the Zodiac, without a doubt. Being around him, knowing his demeanor and his shadiness and twistedness - I have an intuition, I can read people.' Wynn said the 1969 police sketch 'was like a bell-ringer for me. ... I saw that and thought, 'That's him.' Totally,' she said. In short, while a team of private investigators claimed to have identified the Zodiac and a relative of that man reportedly told journalists that she believed he was 'the Zodiac without a doubt,' federal and local law enforcement agencies including the FBI have not confirmed - nor given any indication - that that was indeed true. Additionally, critics of the Case Breakers' findings include Michael Hobbes, of the Huffington Post and the podcast, 'You're Wrong About,' and Jay Barmann, a writer for SF News. Was The Zodiac a Lady Gaga, Minnesota Vikings Fan? After some news reports published the full name of the Case Breakers' man, Twitter did what Twitter does best - ragtag sleuthing and meme-ing. On Oct. 8, Barstool Sports compiled a sample of theories circulating widely about the man under the headline, 'Alleged Zodiac Killer Had Ironic Internet Presence.' That piece cited viral tweets claiming the following: that the Zodiac had supposedly left a glowing review of Lady Gaga's 2016 'Joanne' album on metacritic.com; trolled Ted Bundy in a review on an IMDb page; and had a friend who repeatedly outed him as the person behind the brutal slayings on social media. Let us start with the assertion that the serial killer was among Gaga's Little Monsters. The Barstool Sports' piece included a tweet supposedly showing screenshots of the Case Breakers' man leaving a comment on the metacritic.com profile of 'Joanne,' on Oct. 24, 2016, reading: 'A national treasure, like myself.' However, we analyzed thousands of reviews on the album's profile, including those published on Oct. 24, 2016, and found no such remark. The screenshot appeared to be a digital creation. Over the course of hours, other Twitter users meme-afied the concept with similarly edited images, supposedly showing the man's affinity for various video games, bands, and musical artists. The claim about the 2015 documentary titled 'The Hunt for Ted Bundy' seemed to be the same thing: An unknown digital artist apparently replicated the look and design of an IDMb review to make it seem like the Case Breaker man left the review, 'Awful. Would give less than 1 star if I could. Ted Bundy is wildly overrated.' We came to that conclusion by studying the documentary's actual IMDb page, which only had one review and was not the phrases pictured above. Next, we addressed the rumor about a friend to the Case Breakers' man 'trying to tell everyone' about his murderous past. There was no verified evidence to prove the friend was a real person who knew the Case Breakers' man, and/or that he had authored the alleged posts about the Zodiac. If there was any reason to consider their authenticity, journalists with reputable news outlets, such as the Chronicle, would attempt to interview the purported friend. That had not happened, as of this writing, however. We reached out the viral tweet's author to learn how, or with what evidence, they obtained photographs supposedly showing the Case Breakers' man and the friend, as well as screenshots of the friend supposedly calling the former man the Zodiac. We haven't heard back, but we will update this report if that changes. Additionally, tweets and Reddit threads circulated photos of someone who they believed was the Case Breakers' man wearing a hat representing the Minnesota Vikings NFL team. Several sports blogs recirculated that allegation, too. 'The man allegedly outed as the Zodiac Killer was a Vikings fan,' a Reddit post read. However, no evidence proved that the man pictured above in a Vikings hat was the same person as the Case Breakers' man. The picture matched the profile photograph for a Facebook account with the same name, however - an account that had little activity viewable to the public aside from a July 2011 post sharing a Washington Post article about Casey Anthony. All of this said, it was impossible for social media users' investigations into the Case Breakers' man to prove anything about the Zodiac killer - that he was a Lady Gaga fan, Viking's supporter, Bundy troll, etc. - because federal and local investigators tasked with solving the case refuted the private team's work, and considered the person behind the prolific slayings unknown. For that reason, we rate this claim 'False.' | []
|
People carrying guns can't wear face masks to protect against the coronavirus because it's a 'class 4 felony. | Contradiction | A popular meme of Kevin Hart and Keanu Reeves is spreading misinformation about face mask requirements and concealed-weapon permits. Rapper King Chip shared the meme in a July 2 Facebook post. It shows a fictional exchange between Hart and Reeves. 'STOP! You have to wear a mask in here,' the comedian says in the meme. 'I can't, it's a class 4 felony violating section 24-1(a)(9) prohibiting a mask while carrying a gun,' the actor responds. 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.) Similar posts have been shared tens of thousands of times, according to CrowdTangle, an audience metrics tool. (Screenshot from Facebook) We've previously fact-checked inaccurate claims about face mask rules and concealed-weapon laws, so we wanted to investigate this Facebook post. There is no federal law that bans carrying a concealed weapon while wearing a mask. The Facebook post comes from a blog post about an Illinois statute that prohibits carrying a firearm while wearing a face covering. But the Illinois State Police said that law does not apply to lawful concealed-weapon permit holders who abide by the state's COVID-19 mask requirements. The claim stems from an April 25 article on a website called Illinois Leaks. Illinois Leaks is run by the Edgar County Watchdogs, a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization that aims to expose government corruption and waste. The article focuses on Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzker's April 30 executive order, which required the public to wear face coverings in public to slow the spread of the coronavirus. The order went into effect May 1. Illinois Leaks wrote that the order either 'strips a gun owner of his rights while complying with the executive order to wear a mask, or makes them a criminal if they exercise their gun rights while complying with the executive order to wear a mask.' It does neither of those things. The source of the Illinois Leaks article is a state statute that says it's illegal for someone to carry a gun when 'hooded, robed or masked in such manner as to conceal his or her identity.' Violating that law is punishable by a class four felony, which comes with a maximum prison sentence of three years, or six years for an extended term. On its face, the article seems to have a point about the letter of the law and Pritzker's executive order. But the spirit of those rules paints a different picture. A statement published in late April by the Illinois State Police says the executive order 'was not intended to negatively impact permit holders under the Illinois Concealed Carry Act while legally carrying firearms.' 'The executive order does not require or suggest that law enforcement should arrest or criminally charge conceal carry license permit holders for wearing protective masks while in public as long as they are complying with the other provisions of the Illinois Concealed Carry Act and are not committing any other violations of Illinois law,' the state police said. The Illinois attorney general's office told us that it would be up to the discretion of local prosecutors whether to bring charges against someone for violating the statute. The state police said in its statement that it expects police officers 'will use appropriate judgment' and state's attorneys 'will likewise exercise sound prosecutorial discretion.' RELATED: No, wearing a mask doesn't void concealed-carry permit According to some tallies, about 15 states, as well as cities and counties, have anti-mask laws on the books that pre-date the coronavirus pandemic. Some states, especially those in the South, enacted those laws around the turn of the century to combat the Ku Klux Klan, whose members don white hoods. One of those laws is in North Carolina. It prohibits people from covering their faces in public, but that law is currently suspended and does not mention firearms at all. We couldn't find any other state where wearing a protective mask while carrying a concealed weapon is currently banned. | Our ruling A Facebook post says wearing a face mask while carrying a firearm in public is a class four felony. There is no federal law that bans carrying a concealed weapon while wearing a mask. There is a law against being 'hooded, robed or masked' while carrying a gun in Illinois, but the Illinois State Police said the state's COVID-19 mask requirements do not require law enforcement to arrest lawful concealed-weapon permit holders. We rate it False. | [
"100000-proof-15-1a2a6fe4a38d9f04161068b19d214e7a.jpg"
]
|
People carrying guns can't wear face masks to protect against the coronavirus because it's a 'class 4 felony. | Contradiction | A popular meme of Kevin Hart and Keanu Reeves is spreading misinformation about face mask requirements and concealed-weapon permits. Rapper King Chip shared the meme in a July 2 Facebook post. It shows a fictional exchange between Hart and Reeves. 'STOP! You have to wear a mask in here,' the comedian says in the meme. 'I can't, it's a class 4 felony violating section 24-1(a)(9) prohibiting a mask while carrying a gun,' the actor responds. 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.) Similar posts have been shared tens of thousands of times, according to CrowdTangle, an audience metrics tool. (Screenshot from Facebook) We've previously fact-checked inaccurate claims about face mask rules and concealed-weapon laws, so we wanted to investigate this Facebook post. There is no federal law that bans carrying a concealed weapon while wearing a mask. The Facebook post comes from a blog post about an Illinois statute that prohibits carrying a firearm while wearing a face covering. But the Illinois State Police said that law does not apply to lawful concealed-weapon permit holders who abide by the state's COVID-19 mask requirements. The claim stems from an April 25 article on a website called Illinois Leaks. Illinois Leaks is run by the Edgar County Watchdogs, a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization that aims to expose government corruption and waste. The article focuses on Illinois Gov. J. B. Pritzker's April 30 executive order, which required the public to wear face coverings in public to slow the spread of the coronavirus. The order went into effect May 1. Illinois Leaks wrote that the order either 'strips a gun owner of his rights while complying with the executive order to wear a mask, or makes them a criminal if they exercise their gun rights while complying with the executive order to wear a mask.' It does neither of those things. The source of the Illinois Leaks article is a state statute that says it's illegal for someone to carry a gun when 'hooded, robed or masked in such manner as to conceal his or her identity.' Violating that law is punishable by a class four felony, which comes with a maximum prison sentence of three years, or six years for an extended term. On its face, the article seems to have a point about the letter of the law and Pritzker's executive order. But the spirit of those rules paints a different picture. A statement published in late April by the Illinois State Police says the executive order 'was not intended to negatively impact permit holders under the Illinois Concealed Carry Act while legally carrying firearms.' 'The executive order does not require or suggest that law enforcement should arrest or criminally charge conceal carry license permit holders for wearing protective masks while in public as long as they are complying with the other provisions of the Illinois Concealed Carry Act and are not committing any other violations of Illinois law,' the state police said. The Illinois attorney general's office told us that it would be up to the discretion of local prosecutors whether to bring charges against someone for violating the statute. The state police said in its statement that it expects police officers 'will use appropriate judgment' and state's attorneys 'will likewise exercise sound prosecutorial discretion.' RELATED: No, wearing a mask doesn't void concealed-carry permit According to some tallies, about 15 states, as well as cities and counties, have anti-mask laws on the books that pre-date the coronavirus pandemic. Some states, especially those in the South, enacted those laws around the turn of the century to combat the Ku Klux Klan, whose members don white hoods. One of those laws is in North Carolina. It prohibits people from covering their faces in public, but that law is currently suspended and does not mention firearms at all. We couldn't find any other state where wearing a protective mask while carrying a concealed weapon is currently banned. | Our ruling A Facebook post says wearing a face mask while carrying a firearm in public is a class four felony. There is no federal law that bans carrying a concealed weapon while wearing a mask. There is a law against being 'hooded, robed or masked' while carrying a gun in Illinois, but the Illinois State Police said the state's COVID-19 mask requirements do not require law enforcement to arrest lawful concealed-weapon permit holders. We rate it False. | [
"100000-proof-15-1a2a6fe4a38d9f04161068b19d214e7a.jpg"
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.